Banning VPNs is like banning Trainers

"VPNs are a loophole that need to be closed."

These are the words of Rachel De Souza from the UK government. All in the name of 'save the children'.

I fully support the idea of keeping children safe online, but banning or age-gating VPN use is a bit like banning Trainers because...

'criminals could wear them to run away from the police'

Encryption on public networks

VPNs offer more than just a loophole around age gated websites. Not every Wi-Fi is created equal. VPN Encryption offers an extra layer of security, by ensuring that your traffic is encrypted between your device and the VPN gateway. Stopping prying eyes from being able to see a good amount of traffic you send over the LAN.

While wireless networks have increased their encryption many still use WPA2 as the main form which has for many years not been seen as 100% safe.

Take a moment and think about the demographic of users that are most likely to use Free Open Wi-Fi. The answer is most likely to be groups of teens hanging out at food courts, shopping centres, etc.

The idea of age gating VPNs against teenagers might protect them from seeing a nipple, but does nothing to protect them, their device, or their data while online in this scenario. To me this does not scream "please think of the children". It inadvertently places them in a state of further vulnerability.

Trainers are now BANNED!

While the online safety act is designed as a "Parental Guidance Advisory" warning that we used to seeing on records, and movies the idea of banning them is similar to banning trainers.

Imagine the scene, your government official stands on the podium, explaining, that

"Since the creation of trainers, we have seen an increase in the number of criminals evading police increase. As of today, Trainers will no longer be sold."

It is a bizarre concept, trainers are used every day by many of us, either for work, or for personal use, equally we can also use trainers to evade criminals ourselves. So why is there a sudden ban on something so inherently useful?

It is also quite a kneejerk reaction considering that not all criminals wear trainers, and could just as easily evade the police in a pair of brogues.

Alternative forward

Protecting our children online should be more than just preventing them from hearing a swearword, or seeing naughty pillows. Especially when the rule in place also has other negative impacts like blocking biology sites, games and music streaming.

If the idea is to protect children then how does this prevent them from being targeted by an online predator? Or Cyber Bulling?

Personally, I believe much like the responsibility of movies and records, parents need to play a bigger role, education and respect for content and the platform that is on need to be treated. Where that isn't possible, hardware itself should be able to be locked down, "Safer Sims" deployed. Intelligent systems, opposed to kneejerk responses to what is already a weak policy. You even have a means of deploying a geographical solution, where devices spending X period of time in a school location automatically get banned from adult sites, and schools can submit exclusions for staff.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Leave your ideas in the comments.