Joint Letter: Protect VPNs

Digital Privacy
Joint Letter: Protect VPNs
Dear Secretary of State,
Protect children online without making the Internet less secure
Protecting children online is an objective we all share. The challenge is ensuring measures strengthen child safety without weakening the privacy and security millions of people rely on every day, including children.
As organisations committed to a safe, secure, and rights-respecting internet, we are concerned by suggestions that the Government restrict virtual private networks (VPNs). VPNs are cybersecurity tools. They help people protect personal information on public Wi-Fi, enable secure remote working, allow students to access education networks safely, and help small businesses protect their systems. VPNs are essential for human rights defenders and journalists, domestic abuse survivors, the LGBTQ+ community, and others at heightened risk online.
The evidence does not support assumptions that young people use VPNs to bypass age restrictions. Ofcom’s research found that only around 3% of children had used VPNs to access content meant for older audiences. Evidence from Australia shows children are much more likely to get around age checks by not being asked, giving false information, or even drawing on a moustache.
Restricting VPNs would undercut the security and privacy of millions, without making children safer. Age-gating VPNs would require everyone to surrender sensitive personal information simply to access tools designed to protect privacy. Blocking VPN traffic reliably is technically unfeasible, and risks blocking employers, schools and public authorities using VPNs from accessing parts of the web. This would push people away from compliant and reputable VPN providers toward unregulated, data-exploiting services that are harder to oversee, leaving them less secure.
The Government should focus on policy interventions that address the root causes of online harms: strong enforcement of platform obligations, better parental controls, investment in digital literacy, and safety- and privacy-by-design obligations.
Children deserve an Internet that is safe, private, and secure. Those objectives should reinforce one another, not come into conflict.
Yours sincerely,
• Amnesty International
• Big Brother Watch
• Defend Digital Me
• ExpressVPN
• Global Partners Digital
• Index on Censorship
• Internet Infrastructure Coalition
• Internet Society
• Internet Society UK
• lnternews
• IPVanish
• Liberty
• Mozilla
• Mullvad VPN
• Mysterium VPN
• NordVPN
• Open Rights Group
• Proton
• Reporters Without Borders
• Stop Killing Games
• Stop Killing Internet
• Surfshark
• Tuta
• VPN Trust Initiative

Facts Only

* VPNs are described as cybersecurity tools.
* VPNs help protect personal information on public Wi-Fi.
* VPNs enable secure remote working.
* VPNs allow students to access education networks safely.
* VPNs help small businesses protect their systems.
* The evidence does not support the assumption that young people use VPNs to bypass age restrictions.
* Ofcom research found only about 3% of children had used VPNs to access content meant for older audiences.
* Australian evidence suggests children can bypass age checks through other means.
* Restricting VPNs would undermine security and privacy without making children safer.
* Blocking VPN traffic reliably is technically unfeasible.

Executive Summary

Organisations advocating for a safe, secure, and rights-respecting internet expressed concern regarding suggestions to restrict Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). The text posits that VPNs serve as essential cybersecurity tools, enabling protection of personal information on public Wi-Fi, facilitating secure remote work, supporting safe student access to education networks, and protecting small businesses. Proponents list vulnerable groups including human rights defenders, journalists, domestic abuse survivors, and the LGBTQ+ community. The text asserts that evidence does not support the assumption that young people use VPNs to bypass age restrictions, citing Ofcom research suggesting only a small percentage of children used such tools for age-restricted content, and Australian evidence suggesting other methods for bypassing age checks exist. Furthermore, restricting VPNs is argued to undercut security without improving child safety, as blocking traffic reliably is technically unfeasible and risks impeding access for essential services like schools and employers. The text concludes by recommending policy interventions focusing on platform obligations, parental controls, digital literacy, and safety-and-privacy-by-design measures.

Full Take

The argument pivots on establishing a hierarchy of digital values: ensuring child safety, personal privacy, and system security are mutually reinforcing goals rather than conflicting objectives. The core tension identified is between state control/restriction and individual liberty/security afforded by encryption technologies. The narrative challenges the premise that restricting VPNs serves the stated goal of enhancing child safety. It introduces a structural critique: attempting to solve online harm through technological restriction (blocking VPNs) risks creating a less secure environment by driving usage toward unregulated, opaque services. The reliance on citing external data regarding age-gating and VPN use suggests an attempt to shift the debate from a technical feasibility issue to a policy legitimacy issue. A deeper implication involves the tension between governance and technological reality; assuming that simply blocking traffic is the most effective remedy ignores the complexity of network infrastructure and user agency. The potential manipulation lies in framing encryption tools as inherently adversarial to safety, rather than positioning them as fundamental tools for establishing privacy, which itself is a prerequisite for safety in sensitive contexts. What factors are systemically ignored when focusing purely on technical feasibility versus established social needs?

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

This text reads as a coordinated advocacy statement from an organized group of civil society organizations arguing for the protection of VPNs based on privacy and security principles.

Signals Detected

Moderate sentence length variance and complex rhetorical framing indicative of organized advocacy.

Strong, consistent argumentative thread focusing on the conflict between safety and privacy; lacks the detached balance of typical AI synthesis.

The inclusion of a long list of signatory organizations suggests coordination, but the core argument flow is human-driven advocacy rather than templated debate.

Specific references to external research (Ofcom, Australia) are used as evidence for a policy argument, suggesting grounding in real data, though the framing is persuasive.

Human Indicators

The voice is explicitly advocative and framed as a joint letter from a consortium of advocacy groups, demonstrating specific organizational intent.

The closing list of signatories functions as an appeal to shared principle rather than just attribution.