The UK’s online safety regulator said Tuesday that it has opened an investigation into ******** based on evidence that the platform has allegedly faci

The UK’s online safety regulator said Tuesday that it has opened an investigation into ******** based on evidence that the platform has allegedly facilitated the sharing of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

The ******** probe was launched after the Canadian Centre for Child Protection shared information that allegedly showed CSAM is present and shared on the platform, according to a press release from the regulator, Ofcom. After the Canadian group shared the evidence, Ofcom conducted its own assessment of the messaging service and determined that an investigation was warranted.

The investigation is specifically probing whether ******** has violated the UK’s Online Safety Act. The law requires providers of what Ofcom calls user-to-user services to monitor and address the risks of child sexual abuse and exploitation activities on their platforms.

Ofcom also announced a probe of two teen chat sites, Chat Avenue and Teen Chat, to determine whether they are doing enough to protect children from being groomed by child predators. The Chat Avenue investigation also will examine whether the service is taking sufficient steps to prevent children from seeing harmful content like pornography, Ofcom said.

A spokesperson for ******** said in a statement that the platform has “virtually eliminated the public spread of CSAM on its platform through world-class detection algorithms and cooperation with NGOs.”

“******** categorically denies Ofcom’s accusations,” the statement said. “We are surprised by this investigation and concerned that it may be part of a broader attack on online platforms that defend freedom of speech and the right to privacy.”

Teen Chat did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for Chat Avenue said in a statement that the company is “committed to maintaining a safe environment and have implemented a range of child safety measures, with ongoing efforts to further strengthen these protections.”

“We do not agree that grooming is prevalent on our platform,” the statement said. “Automatic message deletion, active word filters, active monitoring and user reporting tools are all designed to reduce the risk of harmful behavior and make the site a less suitable environment for predators.”

Ofcom said it launched its probe of the chat sites based on feedback from child protection agencies it works with to pinpoint services that may be facilitating grooming.

Teen Chat and Teen Avenue both have open chatrooms and offer private messaging and media sharing options.

Ofcom said it has spoken to the chat sites about their practices and remains unsatisfied with their responses about how they fight grooming.

“Child sexual exploitation and abuse causes devastating harm to victims, and making sure sites and apps tackle this is one of our highest priorities,” Suzanne Cater, director of enforcement at Ofcom, said in a statement.

“It’s why we work so closely with partners in law enforcement and child protection organizations to identify where these harms are occurring and hold providers to account where they’re failing to meet their obligations.”

If Ofcom’s investigation determines that the firms have violated the law, it will release a provisional decision which the companies will have a chance to respond to before a final determination is made.

When companies are found to have broken the Online Safety Act, Ofcom has the power to force platforms to make changes and can levy fines of up to £18 million ($24.3 million) or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue.
 
Starting January 1, 2027, California law (AB 1043) requires operating systems (OS) and app stores to implement age-verification/age-assurance during device setup. It forces systems to collect and categorize user ages (under 13, 13–15, 16–17, 18+) for app access, affecting phones, computers, and smart devices. This is not a physical ID check, but self-reported age data broadcast to apps. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key Details of California's Age Assurance Act
  • Effective Date: January 1, 2027.
  • Requirements: Operating systems must ask for age/date of birth during account creation and must not allow this step to be skipped.
    • Age Brackets: Users will be categorized into four groups: under 13, 13-15, 16-17, and 18 and over.
    • App Interaction: The OS must signal this age bracket to apps and app stores upon download and launch.
    • Scope: Applies to all general-purpose operating systems, including Windows, macOS, Android, iOS, and potentially Linux.
    • Enforcement: Developers face penalties of $2,500–$7,500 per affected child for violations. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Privacy and Implementation Concerns
  • No Photo ID: The current law focuses on self-reported age, not submitting a photo ID, though it is often considered a "half-baked" measure.
  • Data Sharing: The system creates an encrypted signal that apps can request, which may raise privacy concerns regarding data sharing with third parties.
  • Open Source Issues: There is concern about how Linux distributions without central account management will comply. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
For more information on legal standards for proof of residency or identity in California (e.g., when registering to vote or other state-related services), you can refer to the California Code of Regulations. [1]
 
Current Legislative Efforts
Some US states are actively pursuing legislation that would limit or ban VPNs. Wisconsin’s A.B. 105/S.B. 130 targets VPN users in the context of age-verification laws, requiring websites to block access from users connected via VPN to prevent minors from bypassing restrictions. Michigan’s House Bill 4938, known as the Anticorruption of Public Morals Act, proposes a broader ban on VPNs and other circumvention tools, alongside strict penalties for accessing or distributing prohibited content. These bills aim to enforce age-verification laws and restrict access to adult or “harmful” content.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Technical and Practical Challenges
Enforcing a VPN ban is extremely difficult. VPNs mask a user’s real IP address by routing traffic through remote servers, making it nearly impossible for websites or ISPs to reliably detect and block all VPN connections without disrupting legitimate internet use. Cybersecurity experts warn that such bans could compromise privacy, break business networks, and lead to widespread censorship. The proposals also raise concerns about data security, as age-verification systems require sensitive personal information that could be vulnerable to breaches.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Privacy and Global Context
VPNs are widely used to protect privacy, secure communications, and bypass geo-restrictions. Globally, authoritarian regimes like Russia, China, and Iran have attempted to restrict VPNs to enforce censorship, with mixed success. In the US, activists and organizations like Fight for the Future have mobilized campaigns to defend VPN access, emphasizing the importance of privacy and informational freedom.
SlashGear
Implications for Users
If these laws were enacted, users in affected states could face legal risks for using VPNs to bypass content restrictions. However, due to the technical infeasibility of fully blocking VPN traffic, enforcement may be inconsistent. VPNs remain a critical tool for online privacy, secure communications, and access to information, and any attempt to ban them could have far-reaching consequences for internet freedom and cybersecurity.
IPVanish
 
Concur.
Nobody is going to Ban VPN's Every major company, bank, hospital, fire/police servics, and just about anything you name related to business or sensitive information will be shut down.
All the companies that have users working remotely, tech support, Help Desks, managers ... will stop.
SOCTUS would reject it so fast and it woild be 9-0.
This site that uses SSL and more that likely a VPN for the Owners to get in on, like millions of others stop working and can not process payments.
Please got he sake of all Eagle Scouts of the world. Think before you type.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Current Legislative Efforts
Some US states are actively pursuing legislation that would limit or ban VPNs. Wisconsin’s A.B. 105/S.B. 130 targets VPN users in the context of age-verification laws, requiring websites to block access from users connected via VPN to prevent minors from bypassing restrictions. Michigan’s House Bill 4938, known as the Anticorruption of Public Morals Act, proposes a broader ban on VPNs and other circumvention tools, alongside strict penalties for accessing or distributing prohibited content. These bills aim to enforce age-verification laws and restrict access to adult or “harmful” content.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Technical and Practical Challenges
Enforcing a VPN ban is extremely difficult. VPNs mask a user’s real IP address by routing traffic through remote servers, making it nearly impossible for websites or ISPs to reliably detect and block all VPN connections without disrupting legitimate internet use. Cybersecurity experts warn that such bans could compromise privacy, break business networks, and lead to widespread censorship. The proposals also raise concerns about data security, as age-verification systems require sensitive personal information that could be vulnerable to breaches.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Privacy and Global Context
VPNs are widely used to protect privacy, secure communications, and bypass geo-restrictions. Globally, authoritarian regimes like Russia, China, and Iran have attempted to restrict VPNs to enforce censorship, with mixed success. In the US, activists and organizations like Fight for the Future have mobilized campaigns to defend VPN access, emphasizing the importance of privacy and informational freedom.
SlashGear
Implications for Users
If these laws were enacted, users in affected states could face legal risks for using VPNs to bypass content restrictions. However, due to the technical infeasibility of fully blocking VPN traffic, enforcement may be inconsistent. VPNs remain a critical tool for online privacy, secure communications, and access to information, and any attempt to ban them could have far-reaching consequences for internet freedom and cybersecurity.
IPVanish

not you again, you

look who talking, etcetc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Concur.
Nobody is going to Ban VPN's Every major company, bank, hospital, fire/police servics, and just about anything you name related to business or sensitive information will be shut down.
All the companies that have users working remotely, tech support, Help Desks, managers ... will stop.
SOCTUS would reject it so fast and it woild be 9-0.
This site that uses SSL and more that likely a VPN for the Owners to get in on, like millions of others stop working and can not process payments.
Please got he sake of all Eagle Scouts of the world. Think before you type.

asking trenny to 'think' is a lost cause .... he doesnt have a mind
 
deez nutz GIF
 
You need stop drinking and not me stupid
So you posted a proposed state bill to ban VPN's the use of which falls under the FCC. Not even thinking that state law can not go beyond federal law in its reach, impact or scope.

Like I said think before you type.
 
Top