Mozilla to UK regulators: VPNs are essential privacy and security tools
800 points
• 2 days ago
• Article
Link
the UK's Department for Science, Innovation and Technology 正在就帮助年轻人应对数字世界征求意见，尤其关注用户规避 Online Safety Act 所要求的年龄验证问题。该部正在考虑的一项建议是对虚拟专用网络（VPN）设置年龄门槛。 Mozilla 在回应中明确表示：VPN 是至关重要的隐私与安全工具，不应被限制，尤其不能限制年轻人使用。
Mozilla 的立场基于其核心使命：互联网应保持开放与可及，在线隐私与安全是基本人权。虽然 Mozilla 承认保护未成年人是当下最紧迫的挑战之一，但它认为，诸如强制年龄验证或限制 VPN 访问等生硬手段并不能切实提升安全，反而会损害所有用户的基本权利，且无法解决根本问题。
VPN 为各年龄段用户提供重要保护：通过隐藏 IP 地址来保护位置信息、减少追踪并防止基于 IP 的画像。人们使用 VPN 的理由多种多样，从远程连接学校或公司网络，到规避审查等均属合法需要。虽然这些工具对活动家、异见人士和记者等脆弱群体尤为关键，但它们同样能提升每个人的基本在线安全。
年轻人在网络上面临特殊脆弱性，包括被追踪、被定向投放广告，以及个人数据在未获充分同意或缺乏透明度的情况下被商业化收集和处理。随着越来越多年轻人从更早年龄开始使用数字技术，限制他们获得 VPN 等隐私保护工具，反而与培养他们安全且熟练上网的目标相悖。要让年轻人形成自主性和负责任的数字习惯，应在他们接触网络时教授最佳实践以及必要的安全与隐私工具。
Mozilla 认为，与其对 VPN 等技术设限，不如把精力放在解决在线危害的根源：追究平台责任、鼓励负责任地使用家长控制功能，并通过社会各界共同参与的方式投资数字技能教育、促进数字福祉。 Mozilla 已向 the UK's Department for Science, Innovation and Technology 提交完整回应，敦促决策者在保护年轻人的同时，不要破坏开放网络或削弱必要的隐私工具。
The UK's Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is currently consulting on measures to help young people navigate the digital world, particularly in light of users circumventing age assurance systems required under the Online Safety Act. One proposal under consideration is age-gating virtual private networks, or VPNs. Mozilla has responded to this consultation with a clear stance: VPNs are essential privacy and security tools that should not be restricted, especially for young people.
Mozilla's position is rooted in its core mission that the internet must remain open and accessible, with privacy and security online recognized as fundamental human rights. While the organization acknowledges that protecting young people online is one of the most pressing challenges of our time, it argues that blunt interventions like mandatory age assurance and restricting VPN access are ineffective at actually improving safety. These measures, Mozilla warns, undermine the fundamental rights of all users without addressing the real problems.
VPNs serve critical functions for users of all ages. By hiding IP addresses, they protect users' locations, reduce tracking, and prevent IP-based profiling. People use VPNs for a wide range of legitimate purposes, from connecting to school or employer networks remotely to avoiding censorship. While these tools are especially vital for vulnerable groups like activists, dissidents, and journalists, they improve baseline online protection for everyone.
Young people face particular vulnerabilities online, including tracking, targeted advertising, and the risks that come from personal data being collected and processed commercially without adequate consent or transparency. Since young people are engaging with digital technologies from increasingly early ages, restricting their access to privacy-protecting tools like VPNs actually conflicts with the goal of equipping them to navigate the internet safely and competently. To develop agency and responsible digital habits, young people need to be introduced to best practices and key safety and privacy tools as they engage with the online world.
Rather than age-gating technologies like VPNs, Mozilla believes regulators should focus on addressing the root causes of online harm. This means holding platforms accountable, encouraging responsible use of parental controls, and investing in digital skills education through a whole-of-society approach to digital wellbeing. Mozilla has submitted its full response to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, urging policymakers to pursue solutions that protect young people without compromising the open web or undermining essential privacy tools.
348 comments • Comments Link
• 澳大利亚政府一方面通过其 eSafety Commissioner 的指南鼓励使用 VPN，另一方面又在推进年龄验证法，而 VPN 正好能规避这些规定，暴露出其数字政策中的内在矛盾。
• 英国的《在线安全法案》名义上是保护儿童，实质上却转向了明确的"控制在线话语"。 Ofcom 在法案通过后的第二天就承认了这一意图，揭示了立法背后的威权动机。
• VPN 是重要的隐私工具，但各国政府越来越倾向于限制甚至禁止它们，因为 VPN 让公民能够绕过以儿童保护为名的监控基础设施；欧盟也在考虑类似的限制。
• Mozilla 提倡使用 VPN 存在利益冲突的疑虑——它同时也是 VPN 服务的经销商。尽管将基金会与公司分离可以缓解部分担忧，但更公开透明地处理两者关系更合乎伦理。
• 通过 JavaScript 浏览器指纹等数据融合技术，即便用户使用 VPN 也可能被去匿名化，这削弱了这些工具在对抗复杂追踪系统时的隐私保护作用。
• 互联网已从去中心化、用户驱动的空间，彻底变成由广告科技公司主导的掠夺性生态。这些公司雇佣心理学家和工程师，通过触发机制最大化用户成瘾和参与度，与早期危害较小的网络相比判若两界。
• 那些在互联网早期就接触网络的几代人并非"毫发无伤"：社交技能下降、 Gen Z 性行为减少以及普遍逃避成年责任等现象，挑战了互联网无害的说法。
• 历史表明，广泛的互联网限制往往在公众亲身感受到其影响之前就能获得支持。 HN 用户曾支持监管，直到身份验证要求让监控的实际影响变得具体可感。
• 英国精英阶层长期存在威权倾向，过去多被细微差别掩盖，但在新冠封锁期间暴露无遗。公众对保姆式国家政策的支持更多反映了对被统治的某种依赖，而非真正关怀民众福祉。
• 终结 PIPA 和 SOPA 的运动曾展示出对权力滥用的集体抵抗，但当前的数字监控基础设施表明，这种抵抗力已经削弱，或在企业与政府联合时显得无力。
讨论总体揭示了既定政策目标与实际执行之间的根本张力，儿童保护常被用作西方民主国家扩张监控基础设施的借口。参与者一致指出监管俘获的模式——像 Meta 这样的公司在表面上推诿责任的同时，却能左右政府行为。互联网从去中心化、用户驱动的空间演变为以广告技术为核心的掠夺性生态，带来了实质性的危害，使"互联网好 / 坏"的简单二元论不再成立。多数人认为，当代几代正面临前所未有的心理操纵，但关于这是否构成新的危机，还是仅是围绕新技术的又一轮道德恐慌，仍有分歧。讨论最终反映出对机构动机的深切怀疑；参与者注意到，所谓的保护性话语一旦立法通过，便很快让位于对言论的控制。 • The Australian government paradoxically promotes VPN usage through its eSafety Commissioner's guide while simultaneously enforcing age verification laws that VPNs help circumvent, creating an inherent contradiction in their digital policy approach.
• The UK's Online Safety Act represents a shift from child protection rhetoric to explicit "controlling online discourse," with Ofcom admitting this goal just one day after the act passed, revealing the true authoritarian intent behind the legislation.
• VPNs are essential privacy tools that governments increasingly want to ban because they enable citizens to bypass surveillance infrastructure disguised as child protection measures, with the EU also considering similar restrictions.
• Mozilla's advocacy for VPN usage appears conflicted given their role as a VPN reseller, though separating the foundation from the corporation mitigates this concern, but transparency about this relationship would be more ethical.
• Data fusion techniques using JavaScript browser fingerprinting can de-anonymize users even when they use VPNs, undermining the privacy benefits these tools provide against sophisticated tracking systems.
• The internet has fundamentally changed from a decentralized, user-driven space to a predatory environment engineered by adtech companies employing psychologists and programmers to maximize addiction and engagement through triggering content, making it incomparable to the earlier, less harmful version.
• Two generations who grew up with early internet access did not turn out "fine," as evidenced by declining social skills, reduced sexual activity among Gen Z, and widespread avoidance of adult responsibilities, contradicting the narrative that internet exposure was benign.
• Historical patterns show that blanket internet restrictions gain public support until individuals experience their direct impact, with HN users previously advocating for regulation until ID requirements made the surveillance implications tangible.
• UK elites have consistently maintained an authoritarian streak, previously masked by subtlety but exposed during Covid lockdowns, with public support for nanny-state policies reflecting a societal desire for being ruled rather than genuine concern for welfare.
• The movement to terminate PIPA and SOPA demonstrated collective action against overreach, but current digital surveillance infrastructure suggests such resistance has diminished or become ineffective against coordinated corporate-government alignment.
The discussion reveals a fundamental tension between stated policy goals and actual implementation, where child protection serves as pretext for expanding surveillance infrastructure across Western democracies. Participants consistently identify patterns of regulatory capture, with corporations like Meta influencing government actions while maintaining plausible deniability. The evolution of the internet from a decentralized, user-driven space to a predatory adtech ecosystem has created genuine harms that complicate simplistic "internet good/bad" narratives. There's broad recognition that current generations face unprecedented psychological manipulation, though disagreement persists about whether this constitutes a novel crisis or merely the latest iteration of moral panics surrounding new technologies. The conversation ultimately reflects deep skepticism toward institutional motives, with participants noting how quickly protective rhetoric gives way to control objectives once legislation passes.