“Politicians have discovered that individuals are using VPNs to safeguard their privacy and circumvent oppressive regulations. What’s their solution? An outright ban on VPN usage.”
The current Danish administration clearly does not prioritize online privacy or anonymity. During its six-month EU council presidency, which thankfully is nearing its conclusion, it attempted to advance the European Commission’s proposed Regulation to Prevent and Combat Child Sexual Abuse—commonly known as the “Chat Control Law” — despite significant pushback.
As we previously discussed, while the stated aim of the proposed regulations—to limit the dissemination of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) online—is commendable, the methods proposed by the EU threaten to undermine fundamental rights for all, potentially reshaping the Internet into a more controlled and surveilled environment.
The initial version of the proposed law mandated scanning of private communications, even those secured by end-to-end encryption. Should this legislation be enacted, messaging platforms like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram would be required to monitor every message, photo, and video shared by users, regardless of encryption status.
This proposal faced substantial opposition from several member states, notably Germany, largely due to grassroots activism, which ultimately blocked its passage in the EU Council. The Danish government was then prompted to rethink its approach, leading to a compromise bill that calls for a voluntary review of sensitive material in private chats instead of blanket monitoring, which has now been approved.
Although the revised bill is a significant improvement over the original, it still raises serious concerns. Former MEP Patrick Beyer, a prominent advocate for privacy in Europe, has pointed out three unresolved issues. From Euronews:
[T]he proposal does not align with the European Parliament’s stance that only judicial authorities should have the power to access communication channels; it prevents children from downloading messaging applications; and it effectively prohibits anonymous communication.
[T]he current Danish proposal disobeys the European Parliament’s (EP) position, which allows for the scanning of communications solely with court authorization.
Such safeguards are vital for protecting Europeans’ privacy and establishing standards that cannot be altered under pressure from EU institutions, akin to the infamous “Voluntary Codes of Practice/Conduct” associated with general-purpose AI and misinformation.
In the EU, “voluntary” often comes with strings attached: opting out can lead to stricter repercussions, steering tech firms toward de facto obligatory scanning without explicit regulations.
[T]he Danish proposal’s Article 4(3) would essentially outlaw anonymous email and messaging accounts, as well as anonymous chatting:
“Users would be required to present identification or their face, making them identifiable and susceptible to data breaches.”
This should raise alarms for journalists and civil society organizations that depend on confidential communication with whistleblowers.
Not content with establishing a consensus on EU-wide regulation of messaging applications, the Danish government has put forth a legislative proposal aiming to ban the use of VPNs within Denmark for accessing geo-restricted streaming platforms and evading website blocks.
This initiative is part of a larger legislative strategy to combat online piracy, which has raised alarm among digital rights advocates, as reported by Tech Radar:
Jesper Lund, chairman of the IT Political Association, voiced deep concerns over the bill’s vague language, stating that it feels “totalitarian.”
Lund contends that the current wording could be interpreted so broadly that it might not only criminalize streaming but also impede the legitimate sale and use of VPN services throughout Denmark.
“Even in Russia, it is not illegal to use a VPN to access restricted websites,” Lund told Danish broadcaster DR, underlining that the proposed Danish law could exceed regulations observed in more authoritarian regimes.
On a positive note, the backlash from digital rights advocates and the public was significant enough for the government to withdraw this contentious measure last week, or at least place it on hold. According to Tech Radar:
Danish Minister for Culture, Jakob Engel-Schmidt, announced the removal of the contentious section from the bill. “I do not support making VPNs illegal, and I never proposed such a thing,” Engel-Schmidt stated in a statement. He acknowledged the original text was “not precisely worded,” leading to a fundamental misunderstanding regarding its intent.
The initial proposal, part of a comprehensive anti-piracy effort, aimed to criminalize the use of “VPN connections to access media content that is otherwise unavailable in Denmark or to circumvent blocks on illegal websites.” This alarmed privacy advocates who cautioned that such vague wording could criminalize not only avid streamers but also average citizens utilizing the best VPN services for legitimate privacy and security reasons…
Jesper Lund of the IT Political Association characterized the proposal as having a “totalitarian feel,” warning that it could exceed measures seen in more authoritarian states.
Denmark is not the only Western “liberal democracy” that has recently turned its attention to VPNs. As these services serve as anonymity shields, allowing users to conceal their online activities and access restricted content, their popularity has surged in response to increasingly harsh government regulations over internet usage.
As mentioned earlier, when the UK’s Starmer government mandated age verification checks for accessing adult content online in July, VPN usage skyrocketed. We have previously cautioned that these age verification processes, which are becoming prevalent in supposedly liberal democracies, threaten to entrap everyone, not just minors.
The Starmer government’s predictable reaction has been to tighten the screws by introducing amendments to its Orwellian-titled Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that propose banning children from using VPNs, among other restrictions.
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 call for even more control over the internet.
They claimed it’s “not about controlling speech,” while… https://t.co/AUNNWRs3on
— Reclaim The Net (@ReclaimTheNetHQ) December 18, 2025
As with age verification for pornography websites, if implemented, the new checks would ensnare both adults and children.
It would be concerning if this were merely another instance of irrationality among Europe’s political class; however, similar trends are unfolding across the so-called “Collective West.” Australia recently implemented age verification legislation that prohibits individuals under 16 from joining social media platforms, effectively requiring adults to provide identification to access these platforms.
As warned in November 2024, online age verification may serve as a façade for the widespread adoption and enforcement of digital IDs. Other Western jurisdictions, including the UK, EU, and US, are beginning to consider Australia’s rules as a framework for their legislation, according to reports from Reclaim the Net.
In the United States, Senator Katie Britt of Alabama expressed hopes that “Australia taking this step…will inspire the US to take action.”
Britt, a mother of two, is sponsoring the bipartisan Kids Off Social Media Act, aimed at prohibiting children under thirteen from using social platforms.
Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told The Sydney Morning Herald that he supports similar measures. “I like it. I’ve advocated for age limits here in the US for kids on social media,” he stated.
“I say this as a parent…Parents need support, especially when social media is prevalent.”
Hawley, author of The Tyranny of Big Tech, mentioned having discussions with Australian stakeholders regarding the ban, although he did not disclose their identities.
The Starmer government’s proposed amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill also includes a requirement for social media to implement “highly-effective” age verification measures to restrict VPN use among children under 16.
However, most age verification strategies are hardly effective. While Western governments tout the advantages of Australia’s age verification system and its social media ban for under-16s, the reality is that Australian teens, like those in the UK, are finding embarrassingly simple workarounds, such as utilizing VPNs and borrowing others’ identities, as the following report illustrates.
Looks like Australia’s social media ban for under 16s is a colossal failure and a global laughingstock. Young people are resourceful and have no trouble finding ways around the “ban.” They’re openly mocking Anthony Albanese, with one even declaring, “I know who I’m not voting for… pic.twitter.com/wyxxeeRUIo
— Francynancy (@FranMooMoo) December 18, 2025
After the UK enacted its Online Safety Act to prevent young people from accessing adult content in July, there was a dramatic surge of 6,430% in VPN usage as teenagers sought to navigate age restrictions on social media and adult content platforms. With time, these restrictions could potentially become more effective.
According to Information Age, tech companies, including SNAP, Meta, and Reddit, believe they can comply with the new age restrictions, as noncompliance could result in hefty fines:
In a conversation with Information Age, a spokesperson for the social media company Snap confirmed that using a VPN would not affect existing users’ “ability to access Snapchat.”
“Snapchat determines eligibility based on where your account has been active over the past month, not solely based on your current network connection,” they noted.
“If your account is locked due to being under 16 in Australia, it will remain locked until you reach 16 and complete age verification.”
Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, also indicated it is ready to comply with the ban despite VPN usage.
“While VPNs can alter users’ IP addresses, we assess signals beyond just IP when determining user location,” a spokesperson mentioned.
While Reddit did not clarify its specific strategy for blocking underage VPN users, a spokesperson confirmed the company is “actively taking steps to adhere to Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Law, including restricting accounts of confirmed users under 16 and requiring new users to be at least 16 to register.”
As various governments consider imposing their online age verification regulations, they are also exploring ways to eliminate access to a crucial workaround: VPNs. Several months ago, Forbes reported that some US states are contemplating VPN bans or restrictions. The US’ cyber defense agency, CISA, has even issued a warning to Android and iPhone users: “Do not use a personal VPN”:
This advisory, which resurfaced a year ago, now carries heightened significance in light of the recent surge in VPN usage.
Virtual Private Networks operate by creating secure tunnels for data to flow to and from a device via third-party servers. This masks users’ locations and online activities (including visited sites and platforms) from networks and ISPs. Good quality VPNs also offer additional protection when connecting to public Wi-Fi networks, although they may not always be essential.
CISA warns that “personal VPNs merely transfer residual risks from the internet service provider (ISP) to the VPN provider, often increasing vulnerabilities. Many free and paid VPN services exhibit questionable security and privacy practices.”
As a broad advisory, it’s not without merit. An insecure VPN from a dubious provider poses greater risks than having no VPN at all. While it’s straightforward to hide your identity to bypass a ban on adult content, nearly all data to and from a user’s device is encrypted regardless.
What Forbes neglected to mention is the significant role of Israeli tech companies in the VPN market. As Alan McLeod notes for Mint Press, “a substantial portion of the market—encompassing three of the six leading VPNs—is quietly operated by an Israeli-owned company closely linked with the country’s national security apparatus, including elite units from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).”
This is the same Israel that produced many of the world’s most advanced online surveillance technologies and hacking tools, including Cellebrite and Pegasus. The fact that it also controls numerous VPN services raises serious concerns about potential backdoors for Israeli intelligence to conduct widespread spying on global users, as Mcleod warns.
In essence, choosing a VPN service demands careful consideration, particularly as governments intensify their scrutiny while simultaneously ramping up censorship.
“Politicians have now discerned that individuals utilize VPNs to secure their privacy and evade these intrusive laws,” the EFF cautions. “Their response? A complete ban on VPNs… This struggle is led by individuals who seem to lack a basic understanding of how technology functions.”
NC reader Baron Aroxdale highlighted a similar concern in previous comments, noting that banning VPNs is likely to be ineffective—at least without causing severe disruption to the internet:
VPNs are a standard element of corporate IT. They simply connect remote computers into a shared virtual network. Support for them is generally integrated into operating systems, and hardware network vendors typically provide applications to facilitate VPN configuration on their routers.
VPNs are as commonplace as internet proxies or email. You cannot simply “ban” them without jeopardizing the framework of modern IT systems dating back to the late 1990s.
Despite this, the Danish government proceeded with its attempt. However, faced with fierce public backlash, they were compelled to backtrack. This scenario imparts a vital lesson for all of us in the so-called “liberal” West: to have any realistic chance at preserving privacy and anonymity online, we must vigorously defend our rights.
Over ten years ago, grassroots movements in the US successfully halted the SOPA and PIPA bills that posed threats to free speech, internet security, and online innovation. Likewise, one of the critical factors that prevented the EU from moving forward with its original Chat Control legislation was a grassroots campaign exerting pressure on Europe’s elected officials.
In both instances, the unique network effects of the internet served as a formidable tool against the intentions of governments to impose repressive controls on the internet. The challenge today, however, is that governments are learning from past failures, refining their strategy. More resolute than ever, they are determined to assert dominance over the internet, even if it involves incremental steps—a tactic in which the EU excels.
