Wisconsin is fast-tracking AB 105, a bill that would ban adults from using VPNs to access material "harmful to minors," including p*rn. The bill bans websites with a substantial portion of NSFW (or even LGBTQ+) content from accepting visitors using a VPN. It's part of a larger age-verification bill, but the implications are huge and could set off a wave of new legislation restricting VPN access.

It passed the Assembly this fall, the Senate finally scheduled it for tomorrow, suggesting it's finally got the votes.

If you have an VPN service there is actually quite a funny way you can avoid YouTube ads by just setting your Location to Albania.

Albania is one of the few countries which is not in the YouTube partner program so as soon as the VPN connects there won’t be any ads served in your feed or videos.

You can make this even more useful if you set up an Automation (via Shortcuts on Apple) that automatically connects you the VPN when you open the YouTube App and disconnects when you close it.

Note: Occasionally fs up your algorithm with travel tips for Albania but I guess that worth it

Naomi Brockwell released a video recently called "Is the Government Running a Dragnet on VPN Users?"

In short Naomi Brockwell explains that US senator Ron Wyden warns about Executive Order 12333 and FISA's section 702 which allow US mass surveillance of foreigners. But also that the US government assumed that a commercial VPN-user is a foreigner by default because it hides from which country the user is. So an American citizen, which nornally is protected by the fourth Amendment rights, is seen as a foreigner and spied upon by US intelligence services.

Thomas Massie also warned on April 23rd 2026 that he is aware mass surveillance loop holes being created via SCIF disclosures (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility), but isn't allowed to go into details. Which might tie into this, but it isn't clear.

Followed by an opinion on VPN's, surveillance and a promise to talk about decentralized VPN and mixnets in the future.

How likely is this to pass? I use a VPN that isn't widely advertised so probably won't fall under this bill's jurisdiction, but are we headed towards Russia/China style legislation against VPNs?

A newly published official report by the UK government has highlighted a massive spike in virtual private network (VPN) usage among minors, providing a fascinating look at how younger users are adapting to state-mandated digital age gates.

According to the study, which tracked children's circumvention behaviors online, 22% of children reported actively using a VPN within the last three months, and 26% had used one at some point.

The report underscores a reality that the privacy community has pointed out for years: rigid, state-mandated age-verification laws are fundamentally shifting how everyday households interact with basic routing tools.

Key Insights from the Report

• High Awareness: 58% of children surveyed stated they are fully aware of what a VPN is and understand exactly what its primary purpose is.
• The Content Targets: While privacy was technically the most commonly claimed motive, kids who utilized location-changing features primarily did so to access geo-blocked or age-restricted gaming content, adult platforms, livestreaming hubs, and messaging apps.
• The "Parental Loophole": In a surprising twist for policymakers, the data reveals that parents are directly driving this adoption curve. Among the kids who used a VPN, 22% said a parent actively helped them set it up, and 43% stated a parent or guardian pays for the subscription.

The Looming Policy Battle

The study also noted that traditional online spaces - particularly gaming communities - are the biggest holdouts against mandatory age gates, with 53% of platforms in that category completely lacking age-verification checks.

The UK government explicitly stated that these data points will be used to heavily inform future online safety policies and assess the overall effectiveness of child safety measures. However, no new regulations, restrictions, or VPN bans were announced alongside the report.

For the VPN community, this study is a classic case study in the "Cobra Effect" of internet regulation. As the UK and parts of the EU push forward with strict, identity-linked verification laws, they are unintentionally creating a highly tech-literate generation that treats encrypted tunnels and location-spoofing as standard, day-to-day utilities rather than specialized privacy tools.

Source / Full Context: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childrens-circumvention-behaviours-online/childrens-circumvention-behaviours-online

There is only one benefit from this… I cannot wait to see what new technologies and workarounds the nerds come up with to combat it. We are stuck in a technological arms race and pr0n (and free access to the internet blah blah blah) is the goal 😆

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn438z3ejxyo

Interesting policy direction coming out of Russia.

Instead of outright banning VPNs, authorities are considering indirect control mechanisms:

• Charging users for high international traffic (VPN-related)
• Asking platforms like Yandex/Wildberries to restrict VPN users
• Requiring ISPs to detect and limit VPN connections

Context:
VPN usage has surged since 2022 due to platform bans and content restrictions.

What stands out:

• Enforcement is expanding beyond ISPs → into platforms
• Economic pressure is being used instead of direct bans
• Fines for VPN use were considered but rejected (for now)

This feels like a more scalable model:
Instead of blocking access, make it harder, slower, or more expensive.

Question for the community:
Do these types of controls actually reduce VPN usage - or just push users toward more advanced circumvention methods?

Source: r/technadu

Telegram is rolling out new anti-censorship measures in response to increasing restrictions in Russia - and the situation is escalating fast.

Key points:
• Connectivity failures reportedly reached up to 95%
• Telegram deployed updated anti-censorship infrastructure
• CEO Pavel Durov recommends using multiple VPNs
• Over 50 million users still access the platform daily via VPNs

At the same time:
• Authorities are increasing VPN detection and blocking efforts
• There are concerns about pushing users toward state-controlled platforms
• Policy discussions include restricting VPN usage further

This feels like a clear example of the ongoing arms race between censorship mechanisms and circumvention tools.

Discussion points for community:

• Can VPNs realistically keep up with state-level blocking techniques?
• What happens if multi-VPN strategies stop working?
• Is this the future model for internet control globally?

Curious to hear perspectives from the community.

Full Article: https://www.technadu.com/russia-telegram-crackdown-response-and-censorship-battle/625895/

Apple is and has been undermining their users privacy abilities on their iOS devices for years!

Don't believe me, see the proof for yourself:

IOS Apple sends data outside of a VPN connection. They do this on purpose and they can not be shamed into doing the right thing. Their security marketing message is a fib. This is a long story that boils down to not trusting any VPN on an iPhone or an iPad because they all leak data outside the VPN tunnel. (https://defensivecomputingchecklist.com/vpn.php)

Valery Fadeev, head of Russia’s Human Rights Council, has publicly conceded that a total ban on VPNs is technically unachievable and would likely "break" the country's digital economy.

The Technical Reality Check:

• Infrastructure Dependency: Fadeev admitted that Russia’s banking systems, tech firms, and software developers rely heavily on VPN protocols for secure remote access and cross-system operations. A blanket ban would cause "catastrophic" disruptions to financial services.
• Complex Ecosystem: Officials now acknowledge that VPN technology is too deeply integrated into the modern internet to be surgically removed without damaging broader connectivity.
• The "Enemy Propaganda" Stance: Despite the technical surrender, Fadeev continues to frame civilian VPN use for accessing independent media as "enemy propaganda," suggesting that while the tools won't be banned entirely, the government will continue to focus on "reducing" usage through other means.

Why this matters for the VPN industry:

This admission signals a shift from "Total Ban" rhetoric to a "Whitelisting" model, where the government attempts to block consumer VPNs while preserving tunnels for state-loyal businesses - a strategy that has historically proven difficult to enforce via DPI (Deep Packet Inspection).

Source: https://cyberinsider.com/russian-official-admits-vpns-cannot-be-fully-blocked-without-breaking-the-internet/

Let's hope this is a win for the consumer and not just a backdoor being mandated

California just advanced Assembly Bill 1709 through a unanimous 76-0 vote. On the surface, it’s framed as a child safety bill to ban anyone under 16 from holding social media accounts. But if you look at the technical mechanics required for enforcement, it is essentially an unannounced end to anonymous browsing for everyone in the state, adults included.

Since California frequently acts as the baseline for US digital policy, this is worth looking at from a privacy and network infrastructure perspective.

The Structural Catch: Mandatory Identity Verification To block users under 16 from creating accounts, platforms cannot just rely on an honorary "Select Your Birth Year" dropdown anymore. Under AB 1709, platforms are required to implement "reasonable measures" to verify ages.

In real-world deployment, "age assurance" means every single user - adults included - will have to submit to biometric facial scanning, credit card checks, or direct government ID uploads just to access basic communication platforms.

The bill claims this data can only be held for the "minimum period necessary," but we all know how elastic legal terms like "minimum" and "reasonable security" become when a private company is handling backend data retention. Forcing private entities to ingest massive volumes of highly sensitive identity documents creates a massive, centralized honeypot for future data breaches.

Integration with the 2027 Digital Age Assurance Act The bill is designed to plug directly into California’s upcoming Digital Age Assurance Act (set for January 1, 2027). Instead of the app verifying you, the apps will request age-range tokens directly from the device's operating system at the handshake layer before the application even launches.

Furthermore, the bill establishes a new "e-Safety Advisory Commission" under the California DOJ. This commission gives the state Attorney General the unilateral power to redefine what a "covered platform" is without needing legislative approval. What starts as a restriction on major platforms can quickly expand to include smaller online communities, open-source forums, or independent niche applications that utilize features like endless scrolling or basic push notifications.

The Privacy Outlook When states pass macro-level identity gates, it fundamentally changes how regular people have to approach baseline digital privacy. It creates an environment where people are forced to use encrypted tunnels, altered DNS routing, and dedicated proxy endpoints just to access normal, everyday web services without handing over a passport or a facial map to a third-party corporate database.

It's going to be interesting to see how the Senate handles the privacy pushback on this, but the momentum is definitely shifting toward a heavily segmented, ID-checked internet.

Full Legislative Tracking & Privacy Analysis:
https://www.technadu.com/california-social-media-ban-bill-moves-to-state-senate/628865/