{"id":15007,"date":"2025-12-24T09:43:25","date_gmt":"2025-12-24T16:43:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/?p=15007"},"modified":"2025-12-24T09:45:08","modified_gmt":"2025-12-24T16:45:08","slug":"governments-in-the-west-turn-their-sights-on-vpns-as-they-escalate-assault-on-online-privacy-anonymity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/2025\/12\/24\/governments-in-the-west-turn-their-sights-on-vpns-as-they-escalate-assault-on-online-privacy-anonymity\/","title":{"rendered":"Governments In The West Turn Their Sights On VPNs As They Escalate Assault On Online Privacy\/Anonymity"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In fairness to the CISA bulletin, there are two legitimate claims in that some corporate VPN devices aren’t well maintained and can be hacked, with our own government intercepting some in shipping to put in backdoors… The other problem was the consolidation of VPN services with links to Israeli intelligence which is covered in the article, obviously to unmask people for intelligence services. And you can’t really outlaw VPNs as businesses need them for secure remote access to their internal networks, and you can always just roll your own VPN server somewhere in the world, which would be impossible to police. Consequently, that’s what I did until I came to trust Mullvad VPN<\/a> which is privacy focused and doesn’t advertise with influencers, also having worked with Tor developers for their privacy focused Mullvad Browser. But you can clearly see there is a move to criminalize privacy and anonymity online with a push towards digital ID for the incoming digital Panopticon. And the hypocrisy of the EU is on full display, as they don’t investigate many CSAM sites and networks that get reported, not does any law enforcement do anything with the AI firms that have fed CSAM material into their AI systems “for filtering”<\/a>, which I think is there for special members to access. After all, the head of OpenAI was raping his child sister for years per her lawsuit<\/a>, who I believe. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.zerohedge.com\/geopolitical\/governments-west-turn-their-sights-vpns-they-escalate-assault-online-privacyanonymity<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

By Nick Corbishley via NakedCapitalism.com<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The current Danish government is clearly no friend of online privacy or anonymity.<\/strong> During its rotating six-month presidency of the EU council, which is, thankfully, coming to an end, it tried to push through the European Commission\u2019s proposed Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse \u2014 aka, the \u201cChat Control Law\u201d \u2014 despite widespread opposition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As we noted<\/a> at the time, the ostensible goal of the proposed regulations \u2014 curbing the spread of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online \u2014 is commendable. However, the way the EU was going about it not only threatened fundamental rights and protections for everyone; it risked transforming the Internet into an even more centrally controlled, surveilled environment.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In its original form, the proposed law effectively mandated the scanning of private communications, including those currently protected by end-to-end encryption. If enacted, messaging platforms, including WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram, would have to scan every message, photo and video sent by users, even when encrypted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposal was opposed by enough member states, including Germany, in large part due to grassroots pressure, to prevent it from passing the EU Council.<\/strong> So, the Danish government went back to the drawing board. The compromise bill it came up with mandates a voluntary search for sensitive material in private chats, instead of general monitoring, and was duly approved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While a marked improvement on the original, the new proposal still raises serious concerns.<\/strong> Former MEP Patrick Beyer, one of the key defenders of privacy in Europe, warns that three major problems still remain unsolved. From Euronews<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

[T]he proposal still does not follow the European Parliament\u2019s position that only courts can decide to access communication channels; it still bans children from downloading messaging apps; and, lastly, anonymous communication is effectively outlawed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[T]he current Danish proposal does not follow the European Parliament\u2019s (EP) position to allow scanning of communications only by court order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EP\u2019s proposal is a fundamental safeguard for Europeans\u2019 privacy of communications and sets a standard that cannot later be changed by extra pressure from EU institutions, such as the famous \u201cVoluntary Codes of Practice\/Conduct\u201d we\u2019ve seen for general-purpose AI and disinformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cVoluntary\u201d in Europe often isn\u2019t: opting out of a \u201cvoluntary code\u201d can mean stricter treatment, nudging tech firms toward de facto mandatory scanning without explicitly regulating it\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[T]he Danish proposal\u2019s Article 4(3) would effectively ban anonymous email and messenger accounts, as well as anonymous chatting:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey would need to present an ID or their face, making them identifiable and risking data leaks\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This alone should alarm journalists and civil society organisations that rely on private communication with whistleblowers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Seemingly not satisfied with achieving a consensus on EU-wide control of messaging apps, the Danish government recently came up with a legislative proposal that sought to ban the domestic use of VPNs<\/a> \u2014 to access geo-restricted streaming content and bypass website blocks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposal formed part of a broader legislative effort to combat online piracy that has alarmed digital rights advocates, reported Tech Radar:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Jesper Lund, chairman of the IT Political Association, expressed deep concern over the bill\u2019s ambiguous language, stating it has a \u201ctotalitarian feel to it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lund argued that the current wording could be interpreted so broadly that it would not only criminalize streaming but also hinder the sale and legitimate use of VPN services across Denmark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEven in Russia, it is not punishable to bypass illegal websites with a VPN,\u201d Lund told Danish broadcaster DR<\/a>, pointing out that the proposed Danish law could go further than measures seen in more authoritarian states.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The good news is that the proposed measure drew so much flak from digital rights advocates and the general public that the government withdrew it \u2014 or at least temporarily shelved it \u2014 last week<\/strong>. Again, from Tech Radar<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The Danish Minister for Culture, Jakob Engel-Schmidt, announced on Monday that he was cutting the contentious section from the bill. \u201cI do not support making VPNs illegal, and I have never proposed to do so,\u201d Engel-Schmidt said in a statement<\/a>. He admitted the initial text was \u201cnot formulated precisely enough\u201d and led to a fundamental misunderstanding of its purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The original proposal, part of a wider anti-piracy effort, sought to make it illegal to \u201cuse VPN connections to access media content which would otherwise not be available in Denmark, or to circumvent blocks on illegal websites.\u201d This sparked alarm among privacy groups, who warned that the vague wording could criminalize not only streaming enthusiasts but also ordinary citizens using the best VPN<\/a> services for legitimate privacy and security reasons\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jesper Lund of the IT Political Association described the proposal as having a \u201ctotalitarian feel to it\u201d and warned it could go further than measures seen in more authoritarian countries.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Denmark is by no means the only Western \u201cliberal democracy\u201d to have turned its sights on VPNs in recent months. <\/strong>Since VPNs essentially function as anonymity masks that allow users to hide their online activity and access restricted content, their popularity has grown as governments have sought to impose increasingly draconian restrictions on Internet use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As readers may recall<\/a>, when the UK\u2019s Starmer government made age verification checks mandatory for accessing pornography and other supposedly adult content online in July, it sparked an explosion in VPN use. As we had previously warned, these online age verification checks, that are now proliferating across the collective West\u2019s ostensibly liberal democracies, threaten to trap everyone, not just minors, in their web.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Starmer government\u2019s predictable response has been to buckle down by including amendments to its Orwellian-titled Children\u2019s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that seek to ban children from using VPNs, among other things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The UK Parliament just debated a petition with 550,000 signatures calling to repeal the Online Safety Act. It could have been a moment to defend free speech. Instead, MPs used it to demand even more control over the internet.

They said it\u2019s \u201cnot about controlling speech,\u201d while\u2026 https:\/\/t.co\/AUNNWRs3on<\/a> \u2014 Reclaim The Net (@ReclaimTheNetHQ) December 18, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

As with the age verification checks for pornography websites, the new checks, if implemented, will trap both adults and children in their web.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would be bad enough if this were just another bout of madness on the part of Europe\u2019s political class, but the same thing is happening throughout the so-called \u201cCollective West\u201d. Australia just introduced its long-awaited age verification legislation, which blocks under-16s from joining social media platforms, thereby all adults to submit ID to access platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we warned in November 2024, online age verification appears to be the Trojan Horse for the mass rollout and enforced adoption of digital IDs. <\/strong>Other Western jurisdictions, including the UK, the EU, and the US, are now treating the Australian rules as a blueprint for their own legislation, reports Reclaim the Net.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In the United States, Senator Katie Britt of Alabama<\/a> said she hopes \u201cAustralia taking this step\u2026leads the US to actually doing something.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Britt, a mother of two, is one of the sponsors of the bipartisan Kids Off Social Media Act, which would prevent children under thirteen from using social platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told The Sydney Morning Herald<\/a> that he supports similar limits. \u201cI like it. I\u2019ve supported age limits here in the US for kids on social media,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI say this as a parent\u2026Parents need help, and they feel like they\u2019re swimming upstream when everybody else has social media.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hawley, author of The Tyranny of Big Tech, said he has spoken with Australian stakeholders about the ban, though he did not identify them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Starmer government\u2019s proposed amendment to the also calls for requiring social media to use \u201chighly-effective\u201d age assurance measures to prevent children under 16 from using such services.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is that most age assurance measures are anything but effective. While governments in the West are lauding the benefits of Australia\u2019s age verification system and its social media ban for under-16s, the reality on the ground is that Australian teenagers, like their counterparts in the UK, are finding embarrassingly easy workarounds, including using VPNs and other people\u2019s faces, as the report below explains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Looks like Australia’s social media ban for under 16s is a colossal failure and the laughing stock of the world. Young people are smart and have easy workarounds for the “ban”. They are openly mocking Anthony Albanese and one even says straight up, “I know who I’m not voting for\u2026 pic.twitter.com\/wyxxeeRUIo<\/a> \u2014 Francynancy (@FranMooMoo) December 18, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

After the UK implemented its similar Online Safety Act to prevent youth from accessing online adult content in July, the country\u2019s VPN usage surged<\/a> 6,430% as teens sough to skirt age checks on social media platforms and pornography websites. Perhaps with time, the restrictions will become more effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Information Age, tech companies, including SNAP, Meta and Reddit, are confident of being able to comply with the new age restrictions \u2014 failure to do so could result in eight-figure fines:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Speaking with Information Age<\/em>, a spokesperson for social media company Snap confirmed using a VPN won\u2019t change existing users\u2019 \u201cability to access Snapchat\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSnapchat determines eligibility based on where your account has been active over the past month, not just your current network connection,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf your account is locked because you\u2019re under 16 in Australia, it will stay locked until you turn 16 and complete age verification.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Social media giant Meta \u2013 which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads \u2013 also confirmed it is prepared to adhere to the ban despite VPN usage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhile VPNs allow users to change their IP address, we also consider signals beyond just IP when determining a user\u2019s location,\u201d a spokesperson said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reddit did not explain precisely how it plans to block underage VPN users, but a spokesperson confirmed it is \u201ctaking steps to comply with Australia\u2019s Social Media Minimum Age Law, including suspending accounts of users confirmed to be under 16 and requiring new users to be at least 16 to create accounts\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

As other governments are looking to impose their own online age verification rules, they\u2019re also looking at ways to close off access to the most important workaround: VPNs. <\/strong>A few months ago, Forbes reported<\/a> that some US states are debating the merits of imposing VPN bans or restrictions. The US\u2019 cyber defense agency<\/a>, CISA, has even published a warning for Android and iPhone users: \u201cDo not use a personal VPN<\/a>\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

This reissued advice first surfaced a year ago, now it will resonate given the VPN surge seen since.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Virtual Private Networks work by tunnelling data to and from a device via third-party servers. This masks location and specific activity (sites and platform visited) from the networks and ISPs carrying the traffic. Good VPNs also provide a layer of protection when connecting via public Wi-Fi networks, albeit they\u2019re not strictly necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CISA warns that \u201cpersonal VPNs simply shift residual risks from the internet service provider (ISP) to the VPN provider, often increasing the attack surface. Many free and commercial VPN providers have questionable security and privacy policies.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a blanket warning its not unhelpful. An unsafe VPN from an unsafe developer is much worse than no VPN at all. And while hiding your location to bypass a porn ban is straightforward, most if not all the content to\/from your device is encrypted anyway.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

What the Forbes article doesn\u2019t mention is the extent to which Israeli tech companies have come to dominate the VPN market.<\/strong> As Alan Mcleod reports for Mint Press, \u201ca considerable chunk of the market \u2014 including three of the six most popular VPNs \u2014 is quietly operated by an Israeli-owned company with close connections to that country\u2019s national security state, including the elite Unit 8200 and Duvdevan Units of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the same Israel whose companies and intelligence agencies have created many of the world\u2019s most advanced online surveillance programs and hacking tools, including Cellebrite<\/a> and Pegasus.<\/a> The fact that it also controls many of the world\u2019s VPNs, with which it could \u201ccreate backdoors for Israeli intelligence to carry out a vast kompromat operation on users around the globe\u201d is an obvious cause for concern, warns Mcleod.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In other words, one should be selective when choosing a VPN service, especially now that governments have them squarely in their sights \u2014 at the same time that they are intensifying their censorship efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPoliticians have now discovered that people are using VPNs to protect their privacy and bypass these invasive laws,\u201d EFF<\/a> warns. \u201cTheir solution? Entirely ban the use of VPNs\u2026 And that battle is being fought by people who clearly have no idea how any of this technology actually works.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

NC reader Baron Aroxdale raised a similar point in the comments section of a previous post, noting that VPN bans are unlikely to work \u2014 at least not without causing serious damage to the internet along the way:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

VPNs are a very standard part of business IT. They are simply a means to connect remote computers together on the same virtual network. Support for them is normally inbuilt into operating systems, and hardware network companies will normally provide desktop applications to support VPN setup on their routers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

VPNs are about as common as internet proxies or email. You can\u2019t just \u201cban\u201d them without breaking the backbone of modern IT systems since the late 1990s.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That didn\u2019t prevent the Danish government from trying. However, it was forced into a retreat by the ferocity of the public backlash. This may hold an important lesson for us all in the so-called \u201cliberal\u201d West: if we are to have any chance of preserving any degree of privacy and anonymity online, we\u2019re going to have to fight tooth and nail for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over a decade ago, popular grassroots movements in the US were able to halt the passage of the SOPA and PIPA bills that threatened free speech, internet security and online innovation. Similarly, one of the main reasons why the EU couldn\u2019t push through the Chat Control legislation in its original form was a one-man grassroots online campaign that brought pressure to bear on Europe\u2019s elected representatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In both cases, the unparalleled network effects of the internet were used as a powerful weapon against government\u2019s repressive designs for the internet. The problem today, however, is that governments keep learning from these failures and adopting their strategy. They are also more determined than ever to bring the internet under their control, even if it means doing so in a salami slicing way \u2014 something the EU is particularly adept at.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In fairness to the CISA bulletin, there are two legitimate claims in that some corporate VPN devices aren’t well maintained and can be hacked, with our own government intercepting some in shipping to put in backdoors… The other problem was the consolidation of VPN services with links to Israeli intelligence which is covered in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-tech","category-world"],"blocksy_meta":[],"featured_image_src":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"Jason","author_link":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/author\/jturning\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15007","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15007"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15007\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15009,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15007\/revisions\/15009"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15007"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15007"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15007"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}