- House of Lords peers propose banning VPNs for children
- VPN providers would have to introduce age verification measures
- The bill must still be approved by the House of Commons to become law.
A cross-party group of House of Lords peers has tabled an amendment that would ban children in the UK from using VPNs. If approved, the government would have to enforce the restrictions within 12 months.
Under the new rules, VPN providers would be forced to verify the age of all UK users, employing “highly effective” age checking methods to ensure that no one using the service is under 18.
The government would also be tasked with establishing a monitoring regime, including “effective enforcement” measures that would penalize companies that do not comply.
The requirements would apply to any VPN service that is 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 steps 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 that may facilitate evasion of the OSA’s age selection processes.”
This proposal is being considered at the report stage of the Schools and Child Welfare Bill in the House of Lords. To become law, the amendment still needs to be voted on by both the Lords and the House of Commons.
What’s next?
This proposal is likely to cause significant concern among the privacy and cybersecurity community in the UK. “Highly effective” age verification typically requires people to present government-issued ID or facial scans, a requirement that dramatically 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 have turned to top VPNs and free VPNs to bypass age verification measures.
While the amendment has support from all sectors of the House of Lords, it still faces an uncertain future.
In another proposed amendment, Peers suggested that: “Any relevant device supplied for use in the UK must have tamper-proof system software installed that is highly effective in preventing the recording, transmission… and display of CSAM using that device.”
James Baker, who works for Open Rights Group, has called the proposal “Orwellian in scope.” “Rather than imposing blanket bans or invasive surveillance, there are smarter, more liberal ways to address online harms,” he wrote.
We will continue to monitor the process, including its likely resistance in the House of Commons, and will contact the peers responsible for tabling the amendment for comment.
More to follow…
