Wandering Adventure Party

@jaawerth @dan @cstross @Nicovel0

In a sense, inexactitude is good, because the Human Rights Act requires the courts to interpret all other legislation, as far as possible, in a way compatible with the ECHR rights, and all else being equal, greater vagueness will enable them to do that better.

@christineburns @dan @jaawerth @cstross @Nicovel0

Employers are (unfortunately, IMO) required to collect employees' official identity documents for immigration control purposes anyway, so presumably even if the legislation had applied to workplace VPNs, age verification there would have been easy.

@dan @jaawerth @cstross @Nicovel0

Recursing that, it also defines "consumer" as a person not acting in the course of a business, so workplace VPNs are out of scope too.

@dan @jaawerth @cstross @Nicovel0

It seems to have '“relevant VPN service” means a service of providing, in the course of a business, to a consumer, a virtual private network for accessing the internet'. TOR is not provided in the course of a business, so I guess it's out of scope.