cross-posted from : https://lemmy.zip/post/59613920
Mullvad also pointed to other instances of alleged attempts to “escalate censorship and mass surveillance” in the UK, citing efforts to force Apple to install backdoors in its end-to-end encrypted cloud service, proposals that could introduce “client-side scanning and government spyware on all UK phones”, and government plans to fast-track legislation requiring identity verification for VPN use.
The ‘VPNs don’t protect you’ take is technically correct but misses the actual story here. The UK ASA didn’t ban a VPN because it doesn’t work — they banned an ad for a legal privacy product because the ad criticized surveillance. That’s a different thing entirely.
The precedent being set isn’t about VPN efficacy. It’s about whether a company can run advertising that frames government surveillance as something consumers should be concerned about. The UK has been pushing mandatory VPN identity verification, client-side scanning proposals, and Apple backdoor demands. Banning an ad that says ‘and then?’ about that trajectory is regulatory pressure on the message, not the product.
Whether VPNs are a magic bullet is a separate conversation.