By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Social media platforms in Australia are expected to prevent users from using VPNs to bypass age restrictions, though the eSafety Commissioner has not clarified the technical details of these measures. This has raised concerns about the effectiveness of enforcement, as young people are likely to find ways around these restrictions. Platforms could use methods like blacklisting VPN IP addresses or employing deep packet inspection, but these approaches have potential drawbacks including blocking legitimate users. With interest in VPNs expected to increase, experts warn that younger users may resort to risky “free” VPN services, potentially compromising their privacy and security.
Read the original article here
Australia expects platforms to “stop under-16s from using VPNs” to evade social media bans, and that’s the headline we’re grappling with. It’s a situation ripe with challenges, to say the least. The underlying aim seems clear: protect younger users from the potential harms of social media. However, the proposed solution—preventing under-16s from using VPNs to access these platforms—is proving to be a logistical and technical quagmire.
The initial hurdle revolves around identifying and blocking VPN traffic. The suggestion of using Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) to identify VPN signatures faces significant pushback. The argument here is that the very nature of VPN traffic, once it reaches the social media platform, often resembles regular web traffic. Identifying VPN use is like trying to spot a specific grain of sand on a vast beach, and even if detected, the only identifying feature would be the IP address, which could just be a datacenter.
The more radical idea of blocking all VPN traffic is even more controversial, being labeled as a “Great Firewall of China” type of tactic. The underlying concern with such an approach is the impact on privacy and free speech. Australia is a free country, and broad surveillance could infringe upon fundamental rights. The reality is that there’s no easy technical solution, and the platforms themselves are unlikely to be enthusiastic about such an invasive approach.
This whole situation is viewed by many as legislative virtue-signaling. It’s a perception that the government is attempting to be seen as taking action to protect children without considering the practicality or effectiveness of their approach. Critics argue that laws that limit freedom to protect children don’t work, because ultimately the burden falls on the parents.
The practical problems are endless, as children will find ways around the restrictions. The ingenuity of teenagers and their drive to circumvent limitations should never be underestimated. The idea that blocking VPNs is a simple fix is just not based on reality. It seems that with every technical measure, there will be a counter-measure.
The challenges extend beyond simple VPN use. Even if VPNs were successfully blocked, there are alternative methods, like remote PCs, to bypass restrictions. The law has no way of telling an Australian user from an American user. The law appears to overlook the fact that these are international companies. The suggestion that Australia is becoming a “nanny state” and adopting a “prohibition approach” that’s doomed to fail, is also raised. It’s pointed out that the ban on major piracy sites was circumvented using a DNS change.
The issue of parental responsibility is continuously highlighted. Critics suggest that the focus should be on parents, not on technical restrictions. Instead of passing laws that are difficult to enforce, the emphasis should be on educating parents. Parents should control how their children use technology. The legislation, rather than solving a problem, is seen as potentially driving children towards less regulated corners of the internet, where they may be exposed to increased risks.
The concern is not only about the difficulty of enforcement, but also about the potential consequences. The implication is that the law would lead to a “cat and mouse” game. It will also be harder to deal with some platforms, for example, decentralized social networks. They might become the preferred place for under-16s, which may further increase exposure to dangerous content.
The perception is that this legislation might be less about protecting children and more about controlling and taxing social media platforms. The focus seems to be shifting towards revenue generation. The expectation is that fines will be levied for non-compliance. The law is designed to control private enterprise.
Ultimately, the consensus appears to be that the law is unlikely to achieve its intended goals. The technical challenges are significant, and the proposed solutions are seen as impractical. The focus should be on parental responsibility and working with existing laws. The law is going to be incredibly difficult to enforce.