- House of Lords peers propose ban on VPNs for children
- VPN providers should introduce age verification measures
- The bill still needs Commons approval to become law
A cross-party group of peers in the House of Lords has tabled an amendment that would ban children in the UK from using VPNs. If adopted, the government will have to implement the restrictions within 12 months.
Under the new rules, VPN providers would be required to verify the age of all UK users, using “highly effective” age assurance methods to ensure that no one using the service is under 18.
The government would also be responsible for establishing a monitoring regime, including “effective enforcement” measures that would penalize violating companies.
The requirements would apply to any VPN service marketed to UK consumers or used by a “significant number” of people in the country.
In their explanatory note, the peers wrote: “This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to promote and protect the welfare of children, and to further support child protection measures in the Online Safety Act, by prohibiting the provision to children in the UK of VPN services which may facilitate evasion of AOS age restriction processes. »
This proposal is being considered at report stage of the Child Wellbeing and Schools Bill in the House of Lords. To become law, the amendment still needs to be voted on by the Lords and the House of Commons.
What’s next?
This proposal is likely to cause significant concern within the UK privacy and cybersecurity community. “Highly effective” age verification typically requires people to submit a government-issued ID or facial scan, a requirement that significantly undermines the privacy VPNs are designed to provide.
The amendment was designed specifically with the Online Safety Act in mind and addresses fears that people are turning to best VPNs and free VPNs to circumvent age verification measures.
Although the amendment has the support of all MPs in the House of Lords, its future remains uncertain.
In another proposed amendment, Peers suggested that: “Any relevant device supplied for use in the United Kingdom must have installed tamper-proof system software that is highly effective in preventing the recording, transmission… and viewing of CSAM using that device.” »
The proposal was described as “Orwellian in scope” by James Baker, who works for the Open Rights Group. “Rather than imposing blanket bans or invasive surveillance, there are smarter, more liberal ways to combat online harm,” he wrote.
We will continue to monitor the process, including its likely resistance in the House of Commons, and contact the peers responsible for introducing the amendment for their comments.
What’s next…
