pieshop

Amendment 92 of the bill, added by Lord Nash during it's passage through the Lords says: > “consumer” means a person acting otherwise than in the course of a business; > “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;

It's quite specific wording for a piece of legislation, just VPNs. It excludes businesses but, as written, it wouldn't include network proxies, or remote desktop protocols, or TOR, or web/mobile applications that fetch pages for you, any of which could be used to circumvent the bill. The slippery slope argument could be made that those things would have to be added for this bill to have any meaningful impact, and that would require the amendment to be written in a very non-specific way. I'm not hopeful that the Government would recognise that as overreach (ignoring that the amendment already is).

The problem with this argument is that it's begging the question. You're assuming that the Universe is behaving in a way that is consistent with how it appears.

There is no possible experiment you could in principle do to verify that the universe stays the same when you're not looking. We can say that the universe behaves consistently as though it does, and I'm not saying that doesn't matter, but it's not quite the same thing. Furthermore we can't tell whether the universe is tricking us some of the time, or all of the time, or never.