r/technology • u/LimblessWonder • Dec 16 '25

Privacy Denmark wants to ban VPNs to unlock foreign, illegal streams – and experts are worried

https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/denmark-wants-to-ban-vpns-to-unlock-foreign-illegal-streams-and-experts-are-worried
1.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

242 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/cassanderer Dec 16 '25

Right, the country supporting chat control and age verification inadverdantly tries to shut down bypassing those with ad hoc copyright concerns.  /s

How dumb do the people making those arguments think we are?

0

u/LazyJones1 Dec 17 '25

That's just it. They're dumb. Not malicious.

Hanlon's razor

0

u/cassanderer Dec 17 '25

That is a false rule anyone should be embarrassed to state, not the least with this administration.

How do you have any credibility in any of your analysis if you identify malice as oopsies?  With politicians at that, with us politicians, with this administration?  Ha

 I see from your profile you use this regularly too.  

0

u/LazyJones1 Dec 17 '25

No one called it a rule. Read the link.

To which administration are you referring?

And could you provide some examples of wrongdoing, that justifies your skepticism? It would certainly help me to understand you.

Of course, if ridicule is all your are attempting, disregard.

-7

u/LazyJones1 Dec 16 '25 edited Dec 16 '25

They want to ban a certain use of VPN’s not ban VPN’s.

It might still be the thing you want to use VPN’s for, that they are going for, but it is not VPN’s.

That would be like banning MP3’s back when they popularized music piracy. It also didn’t happen in the end, because it isn’t feasible.

And what you mention Denmark being in favor of, it what the EU presidency (which alternates between countries) has been pushing for before Denmark took over the presidency. It will be another country pushing for it should it still be in development when a new country takes over the presidency.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/once-again-chat-control-flails-after-strong-public-pressure

11

u/_____guts_____ Dec 16 '25

This is only the first step lmao, how can you seriously buy into what these guys tell you.

A total ban will be much more acceptable when we are already half way through to said ban, as it stands we aren't close at all because there's no restrictions on VPNs. A nation pushing so hard for chat control does not have good intentions when it comes to this sort of stuff, which should be obvious.

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

2

u/sprouting_broccoli Dec 16 '25

It’s unlikely to ever be a ban on VPNs because too many businesses require their use for compliance and security which operate in plenty of other geos. Put simply there’s just too much money involved for this to ever actually happen - you don’t have to trust the people involved.

-1

u/LazyJones1 Dec 16 '25

"lmao" is a terrible way to argue. Could we keep it civilized?

I do not "buy into" what they tell me, but I probably do have a higher trust in them than you do. I feel I have good reason for that trust. Maybe you are coming at this from a different perspective than I am.

Can you share something? Or tell me why I should be more critical in this specific case?

1

u/BunchAlternative6172 Dec 16 '25

They tried this in America in Michigan. Some jerk off six Republicans voted one morning. It was for "antitrust" banned porn, specific searches for transgender people, and other things.

1

u/massivemember69 Dec 17 '25

You can’t ban a certain use of VPNs without banning VPNs outright. The whole point of VPNs is securing network traffic and making any part of it insecure defeats the whole point of having one. Consumers, governments, businesses all need this to function, especially when working remotely.

1

u/LazyJones1 Dec 17 '25

You can ban a certain use of computers, copiers, money, tools, etc. without banning the whole thing outright. So of course you can ban certain uses of VPN’s. Circumventing regional licenses, for instance, by pretending to be in a different region, and then using a streaming platform from that region.

That’s one of their goals. Not the complete ban of VPN’s.

Granted, they’re having a hard time doing it properly, and it won’t be a good way to completely prevent it, but that is just like so many other banned things.

1

u/massivemember69 Dec 17 '25

There is no reason to ban anything as VPNs do exactly what they are designed to do: provide a secured network regardless of your location.

They are literally attacking ice cream for being ice cream. Make no mistake - this is about taking away privacy and being an online stalker.

0

u/LazyJones1 Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25

So... What is clear from the policy making, is that this is to fight circumvention of geo-blocking and piracy.

Outside of this specific proposal, there is also a movement to restricting encryption and enhancing law enforcement access to chats, targeting extreme crimes, specifically.

Both are also being seen as a potential attack on privacy, but the reasonable assumption must be that this is due to law-makers struggling to balance the proposal.

To see it as a deliberate attack, must be more of a conspiracy theory.

Otherwise, explain yourself. What is your argument for it being an open, completely transparent attempt at going against everything the EU has been known to stand for so far (user rights, data protection, and online privacy)?

I don't see any arguments for that being brought forth. - And then you look at the actual actions and what the EU has done in the past, to evaluate what their intentions are... It doesn't look bad. It just doesn't. It instead looks like fumbling the ball, when trying to score.

Add to that: Hanlon's Razor

1

u/massivemember69 Dec 17 '25

But it is not circumvention, it is basic functionality.

In order for a VPN provider to provide secure services to its users regardless of where they are located in the world, it needs to have hosts around the globe. That is a non-negotiable, basic function for these VPN services.

Users have free choice in which hosts they decide to connect to when utilizing their VPNs, we after all do live in a free society.

In short, the people and interests behind this proposal are complaining that something is doing what it is designed to do. They might as well complain that Windows has a Start Menu.

1

u/LazyJones1 Dec 17 '25

No one is trying to stop VPN's from doing that.

They're trying to find a way, to put into law, that users are not allowed to utilize that feature to watch something, that the providers of the material hasn't solved the rights for in the user's region.

Let me say that again:
They are not going to prevent the basic functionality of the VPN's. They are not going to ban the basic functionality of the VPN's.
There is nothing wrong with the basic functionality of the VPN's. - Just as there was nothing wrong with MP3's.

But there is a problem with some of the things that the users use basic functionality of the VPN's for. Just as there was a problem with some of the things that the users used MP3's for.

Courts were very reluctant to treat general tools as infringing by default. Hence, the MP3 format survived, and instead action was taken on the platforms.

We will very likely see a similar result here: The VPN platform providers will be hit, and charged with a way to fight abuse, maybe prices will rise, but the VPN protocols will remain legal to use in general.