Internet News

The Spanish government has quietly begun censoring the entirety of GitHub in response to mounting Catalan protests, causing problems for those developers that use the Microsoft-owned service for their work projects.

While the issue is easily remedied by using a VPN, the fact that the Spanish government has been quick to try to censor such a valuable tool speaks volumes for the increasingly prominent but authoritarian idea that mass censorship is the best way to crush dissent.

One new pro-independence group, Tsunami Democratic, organizes digitally online and is known for the mass occupation of Barcelona's El Prat airport by an estimated 10,000 protesters. In addition to other social media it has a website hosted on Github as well as an encrypted communication app that's also available on Github.

The Android app uses geolocation and end-to-end protocols to make sure that only trusted and verified users have access. Verification takes place through the scanning of a QR code of an already-verified member. The app isn't available via Playstore so the APK file containing the app needs to be downloaded and manually installed on a phone.

It's for this reason that the Spanish government has begun to block GitHub in the country, cutting off access to all users. Over the last week, several Spanish internet service providers have blocked access to the service.

An absurd thing is happening in the halls of Congress. Major ISPs such as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon are banging on the doors of legislators to stop the deployment of DNS over HTTPS (DoH), a technology that will give users one of the biggest upgrades to their Internet privacy and security since the proliferation of HTTPS . This is because DoH ensures that when you look up a website, your query to the DNS system is secure through encryption and can't be tracked, spoofed, or blocked.

But despite these benefits, ISPs have written dozens of congressional leaders about their concerns, and are handing out misleading materials invoking Google as the boogeyman. EFF, Consumer Reports, and National Consumers League wrote this letter in response .

The reason the ISPs are fighting so hard is that DoH might undo their multi-million dollar political effort to take away user privacy. DoH isn't a Google technology--it's a standard, like HTTPS. They know that. But what is frustrating is barely two years ago, these very same lobbyists, and these very same corporations, were meeting with congressional offices and asking them to undo federal privacy rules that protect some of the same data that encrypted DNS allows users to hide.

ISPs Want to Protect an Illegitimate Market of Privacy Invasive Practices to "Compete" with Google's Privacy Invasive Practices, Congress Should Abolish Both

Congress shouldn't take its cues from these players on user privacy. The last time they did, Congress voted to take away users' rights . As long as DNS traffic remains exposed, ISPs can exploit our data the same way that Facebook and Google do. That's the subtext of this ISP effort. Comcast and its rivals are articulating a race to the bottom. ISPs will compete with Internet giants on who can invade user privacy more, then sell that to advertisers.

The major ISPs have also pointed out that centralization of DNS may not be great for user privacy in the long run. That's true, but that would not be an issue if everyone adopted DoH across the board. Meaning, the solution isn't to just deny anyone a needed privacy upgrade. The solution is to create laws that abolish the corporate surveillance model that exists today for both Google and Comcast.

But that's not what the ISPs want Congress to do, because they're ultimately on the same side as Google and other big Internet companies--they don't want us to have effective privacy laws to handle these issues. Congress should ignore the bad advice it's getting from both the major ISPs and Big Tech on consumer privacy, and instead listen to the consumer and privacy groups.

EFF and consumer groups have been pleading with Congress to pass a real privacy law, which would give individuals a right to sue corporations that violate their privacy, mandate opt-in consent for use of personal information, and allowing the states to take privacy law further, should the need arise . But many in Congress are still just listening to big companies, even holding Congressional hearings that only invite industry and no privacy groups to "learn" what to do next. In fact the only reason we don't have a strong federal privacy law because corporations like Comcast and Google want Congress to simply delete state laws like California's CCPA and Illinois's Biometric Protection Act while offering virtually nothing to users.

DNS over HTTPS Technology Advances More than Just Privacy, It Advances Human Rights and Internet Freedom

Missing from the debate is the impact DoH has on Internet freedom and human rights in authoritarian regimes where the government runs the broadband access network. State-run ISPs in Venezuela , China , and Iran have relied on insecure DNS traffic to censor content and target activists . Many of the tools governments like China and Iran rely on in order to censor content relies on exposed DNS traffic that DoH would eliminate. In other words, widespread adoption of encrypted DNS will shrink the censorship toolbox of authoritarian regimes across the world. In other words the old tools of censorship will be bypassed if DoH is systematically adopted globally. So while the debate about DoH is centered on data privacy and advertising models domestically, U.S. policymakers should recognize the big picture being that DoH can further American efforts to promote Internet freedom around the world. They should in fact be encouraging Google and the ISPs to offer encrypted DNS services and for them to quickly adopt it, rather than listen to ISP's pleas to stop it outright.

For ISPs to retain the power to censor the Internet, DNS needs to remain leaky and exploitable. That's where opposition to DoH is coming from. And the oposition to DoH today isn't much different from early opposition to the adoption of HTTP.

EFF believes this is the wrong vision for the Internet. We've believed, since our founding, that user empowerment should be the center focus. Let's try to advance the human right of privacy on all fronts. Establishing encrypted DNS can greatly advance this mission - fighting against DoH is just working on behalf of the censors.

Don't call us boring: 'Generation Conscious' want to make better decisions than ever before

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is launching new age rating symbols which, for the first time, are designed for digital streaming platforms - a move which will give young people better and consistent guidance about film and TV content, enabling them to make conscious decisions about what they watch.

New research from the BBFC reveals, given their access to more media, nine in 10 (87%) 12-19 year olds want to make better decisions than ever before. Two thirds (66%) of young people resent the idea of being perceived as 'boring' or 'sensible' - something three quarters (74%) of adults admit to having thought.

Instead, almost all teens (97%) want more credit for being conscious decision makers, making informed and positive choices throughout all aspects of their life. The BBFC's own research showed 95% of teenagers want consistent age ratings that they recognise from the cinema and DVD to apply to content accessed through streaming services.

A majority (56%) of teens are concerned about watching content without knowing what it contains - and say they want clear age ratings to guide them. A third of teens (32%) say they see content they'd rather avoid on a weekly basis, leaving them feeling uncomfortable or anxious (46%), and one in twenty (5%) saying it had a negative impact on their mental health.

The BBFC's new digital classification symbols, launching on Thursday 31 October, will help young people to make conscious decisions when it comes to film and content on video on demand platforms. Netflix has welcomed the new symbols, and will begin rolling them out on the platform starting from Thursday 31 October. This builds on the ongoing partnership between the BBFC and Netflix, which will see the streaming service classify content using BBFC guidelines, with the aim that 100% of content on the platform will carry a BBFC age rating.

David Austin, Chief Executive of the BBFC, said: "It's inspiring to see young people determined to make conscious and thoughtful decisions. We want all young people to be empowered and confident in their film and TV choices. As the landscape of viewing content changes, so do we. We're proud to be launching digital symbols for a digital audience, to help them choose content well."

The move empowers young people to confidently engage with TV and film content in the right way. Half (50%) of young people say having access to online content and the internet helps them have tough conversations or navigate tricky subjects, like mental health and sexuality, when talking to parents.

Jack, 12, from Peterborough said: "It's difficult to choose what to watch online as there is so much choice out there. I like to think about things before I watch them. Sometimes my friends watch stuff I don't think is appropriate or I might find scary or it just isn't for me. I could definitely make better decisions and avoid uncomfortable situations if age ratings were more clearly signposted."

The BBFC is calling for streaming services to clearly label content with age ratings - and has this month launched its first set of VOD User Guidelines , developed in conjunction with video on demand platforms. These user guidelines outline how streaming services can help people by offering clearer, more consistent and comprehensive use of trusted, well understood, BBFC age ratings to support 'Generation Conscious'.

The BBFC commissioned Studio AKA to produce a short animation , showcasing the new age rating symbols, to help families help view what's right for them. The film is currently being played nationwide in cinemas until Sunday 3 November.

Australia's Department of Home Affairs is hoping to use its Face Verification Service and Document Verification Service across the economy, and is backing its use for age verification for Australians to look at pornography.

Writing in a submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs' inquiry, launched in September, Home Affairs said it could provide a suite of identity-matching services.

Whilst the services are primarily designed to prevent identity crime, Home Affairs would support the increased use of the Document and Face Verification Services across the Australian economy to strengthen age verification processes, the department wrote.

Home Affairs conceded the Face Verification Service was not yet operational, as it relied on the passage of biometric legislation through Parliament.

The Russian Government is set to begin tests of an internal version of the web -- isolated from the outside world -- in November, local sources claim.

Such a setup is supposedly intended to shield critical Russian systems from cyber-attack, allowing the federation to operate disconnected from the rest of the web.

However, critics have claimed that the tests are part of a wider attempt to isolate its citizens from the surrounding world and its influences.

Previous tests announced in February, for April, did not actually occur, presumably there were technical issues.

According to D-Russia , the tests of the network isolation will begin after November 1, 2019 and will be repeatedly at least annually.

More than £2m of taxpayers' money was spent preparing for the age verification for porn censorship regime before the policy was dropped in early October, the government has revealed.

The bulk of the spending, £2.2m, was paid to the BBFC to do the detailed work on the policy from 2016 onwards. Before then, additional costs were borne by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, where civil servants were tasked with developing the proposals as part of their normal work.

Answering a written question fromthe shadow DCMS secretary, Tom Watson, Matt Warman for the government added: Building on that work, we are now establishing how the objectives of part three of the Digital Economy Act can be delivered through our online harms regime.

It is not just government funds that were wasted on the abortive scheme. Multiple private companies had developed systems that they were hoping to provide age verification services.

The bizarre thing was all this money was spent when the government knew that it wouldn't even prevent determined viewers from getting access to porn. It was only was only considered as effective from blocking kids from stumbling on porn.

So all that expense, and all that potential danger for adults stupidly submitting to age verification, and all for what?

Well at least next time round the government may consider that they should put a least a modicum of thought about people's privacy.

It's not ALL about the kids. Surely the government has a duty of care for adults too. We need a Government Harms bill requiring a duty of care for ALL citizens. Now that would be a first!

The BBC has made its international news website available via Tor, in a bid to thwart censorship attempts.

Tor is a privacy-focused web browser used to access pages on the dark web and also to evade ISP censorship more generally.

The browser obscures who is using it and what data is being accessed, which can help people avoid government surveillance and censorship.

Countries including China, Iran and Vietnam are among those who have tried to block access to the BBC News website or programmes.

Instead of visiting bbc.co.uk/news or bbc.com/news, users of the Tor browser can visit the new bbcnewsv2vjtpsuy.onion web address. Clicking this web address will not work in a regular web browser.

In a statement, the BBC said:

The BBC World Service's news content is now available on the Tor network to audiences who live in countries where BBC News is being blocked or restricted. This is in line with the BBC World Service mission to provide trusted news around the world.

This past summer, without much fanfare, Facebook updated their censorship rules concerning sexual expression on the company's platforms, including Instagram.

The new language, under the guise of preventing sexual solicitation, restricts even further the posts that sex workers are allowed to share, making them even more exposed to targeted harassment campaigns by anti-sex crusaders.

Among the new things that could get someone Instagram's account flagged and/or removed for Sexual Solicitation: the eggplant or peach emoji in conjunction with any statement referring to being horny; nude pictures with digital alterations or emojis covering female nipples and buttocks.

The new rules include:

Do not post:

Attempted coordination of or recruitment for adult sexual activities, including but not limited to:

Filmed sexual activities Pornographic activities, strip club shows, live sex performances, erotic dances Sexual, erotic, or tantric massages

Explicit sexual solicitation by, including but not limited to the following, offering or asking for:

Sex or sexual partners Sex chat or conversations Nude photos/videos/imagery

Content that meets both of the following criteria:

Criteria 1: Offer or Ask

Content implicitly or indirectly offers or asks for:

Nude imagery, or Sex or sexual partners, or Sex chat conversations

Criteria 2: Suggestive Elements

Content makes the aforementioned offer or ask using one of the following sexually suggestive elements:

Contextually specific and commonly sexual emojis or emoji strings, or Regional sexualized slang, or Mentions or depictions of sexual activity (including hand drawn, digital, or real world art) such as: sexual roles, sex positions, fetish scenarios, state of arousal, act of sexual intercourse or activity (sexual penetration or self-pleasuring), or Imagery of real individuals with nudity covered by human parts, objects, or digital obstruction, including long shots of fully nude butts

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed the CASE Act, a new bill that proposes to institute a small claims court for copyright disputes. Supporters see the legislation as the ideal tool for smaller creators to protect their works, but opponents warn that it will increase the number of damages claims against regular Internet users. The new bill, which passed with a clear 410-6 vote, will now progress to the Senate.

The bill is widely supported by copyright-heavy industry groups as well as many individual creators. However, as is often the case with new copyright legislation, there's also plenty of opposition from digital rights groups and Internet users who fear that the bill will do more harm than good.

Supporters of the CASE Act point out that the new bill is the missing piece in the present copyright enforcement toolbox. They believe that many creators are not taking action against copyright infringers at the moment, because filing federal lawsuits is too expensive. The new small claims tribunal will fix that, they claim.

Opponents, for their part, fear that the new tribunal will trigger an avalanche of claims against ordinary Internet users, with potential damages of up to $30,000 per case. While targeted people have the choice to opt-out, many simply have no clue what to do, they argue.

Thus far legislators have shown massive support for the new plan. Yesterday the bill was up for a vote at the U.S. House of Representatives where it was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. With a 410-6 vote , the passage of the CASE Act went smoothly.

Public Knowledge and other groups, such as EFF and Re:Create , fear that the bill will lead to more copyright complaints against regular Internet users. Re:Create's Executive Director Joshua Lamel hopes that the Senate will properly address these concerns. Lamel notes:

The CASE Act will expose ordinary Americans to tens of thousands of dollars in damages for things most of us do everyday. We are extremely disappointed that Congress passed the CASE Act as currently written, and we hope that the Senate will do its due diligence to make much-needed amendments to this bill to protect American consumers and remove any constitutional concerns,

Damian Collins, the chair of the House of Commons' digital, culture, media and sport select committee has written to Nick Clegg, Facebook's vice-president for global affairs and communications, querying Facebook decision to exempt political adverts from fact-checking

Collins, presumably speaking from planet Uranus where all politicians always tell the truth, demanded to know why Facebook has decided to exempt political statements from its fact-checking programme -- removing all bars on political candidates lying in paid adverts.

Collins wrote to Clegg with five questions for Facebook to answer , three of which covered the rule change. Why was the decision taken to change Facebook's policy, the MP asked, given the heavy constraint this will place on Facebook's ability to combat online disinformation in the run-up to elections around the world, and a possible UK general election in particular?

The US House of Representatives has just voted in favor of the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE Act) by 410-6 (with 16 members not voting), moving forward a bill that Congress has had no hearings and no debates on so far this session. That means that there has been no public consideration of the serious harm the bill could do to regular Internet users and their expression online.

The CASE Act creates a new body in the Copyright Office which will receive copyright complaints, notify the person being sued, and then decide if money is owed and how much. This new Copyright Claims Board will be able to fine people up to $30,000 per proceeding. Worse, if you get one of these notices (maybe an email, maybe a letter--the law actually does not specify) and accidentally ignore it, you're on the hook for the money with a very limited ability to appeal. $30,000 could bankrupt or otherwise ruin the lives of many Americans.

The CASE Act also has bad changes to copyright rules , would let sophisticated bad actors get away with trolling and infringement , and might even be unconstitutional . It fails to help the artists it's supposed to serve and will put a lot of people at risk.

Even though the House has passed the CASE Act, we can still stop it in the Senate. Tell your Senators to vote "no" on the CASE Act.

Take Action

Tell the Senate not bankrupt regular Internet users

The focus of Age Verification has been on the censorship of general porn websites since the Digital Economy Act was passed in April 2017. However there is a smaller subset of adult Video on Demand websites that have been under the cosh, under the auspices of the EU's Audio Visual Media Services directive, since several years earlier.

Don't ask what's difference between a general porn website and a Video on Demand website subjected to AVMS Rules. The EU law governing this is pitiful and it is impossible to determine this difference from the law as written. ATVOD, the first official porn censor to have addressed this issue, must have wasted thousands of pounds trying to refine the laws into something that may make sense to the business affected. They failed, and so then Ofcom wasted thousands more arbitrating on this impossible task and writing some incredibly long explanations to justify their decisions.

Peter Johnson was the chief censor at ATVOD and he put in motion the morality campaign against porn in the name of age verification. He put in place onerous rules, requiring strict age verification for access to porn. The rub was that the rules only applied to British business, and this effectively put an end to the British adult internet trade. UK companies simply could not compete with overseas websites that are free and open to access. Nearly all British businesses had to either close, move their operations abroad, or sell out to foreign companies.

For example Simply Broadband was very successful up and coming business that could have become a major competitor with its knowledge of British pron favourites. The company was promptly sold abroad. Another major loss was the European branch of Playboy TV that operated from the UK at the time. The company simply moved somewhere else.

Eventually Ofcom saw where this was going, Ofcom sacked ATVOD and took on the censorship role itself. A few small niche websites were saved, but the vast majority of the UK business had already been lost to foreign interests.

And of course no kids were being protected by the AVMS rules. Foreign tube sites rules the roost, and if anything they gained from British competitors being snuffed out.

Presumably it was this observation that led to the introduction of porn censorship via age verification in the Digital Economy Act. This time round the Age Verification would also apply to foreign companies.

Recalling that there still a few British businesses that are still subject to age verification requirements via Ofcom's AVMS regime, Ofcom decided that it needed to update the AVMS rules to reflect the changes expected through the Digital Economy Act. Ofcom more or less proposed to adopt the DEA rules into its own codes. Ofcom launched a public consultation in September 2018 to square away its proposed rules with the remnants of the British adult trade.

In fact, rather confirming the mass extinction of British business, only two VoD companies responded to the the consultation. Portland TV (who run the softcore Television X channel) and Virgin Media who runs a Video on Demand service which includes a few 18 rated softcore porn films.

In fact Virgin Media was pretty miffed that the new rules meant that 18 rated porn material had to be brought into the age verification regime. In particular it noted that it was not easy for set top boxes to be adapted for age verification, not to mention the fact that customers electing to use such boxes were probably not those most computer literate types who would be happy to mess round with apps to get their age verified.

Ofcom decided to more or less rewrite the AVMS rules to reflect the BBFC censorship regime, and the updated rules are given below. However thankfully Ofcom made it clear that the rules would not come into force until the Digital Economy Act rules came into force. So presumably these updated rules are now also canned.

So the few remaining British porn companies can heave a sigh of relief, at least until the next moral panic, maybe the Information Commissioner's Age Appropriate Design rules to be announced towards the end of next month (November 2019).

Ofcom's censorship proposed rules for British Video on Demand services

Rule 11: Harmful Material: Protection of Under-18s (Specially Restricted Material)

An ODPS must not contain any specially restricted material unless the material is made available in a manner which secures that persons under the age of 18 will not normally see or hear it.

“Specially restricted material” means—

(a) a video work in respect of which the video works authority has issued a R18 classification certificate;
(b) material whose nature is such that it is reasonable to expect that, if the material were contained in a video work submitted to the video works authority for a classification certificate, the video works authority would issue a R18 classification certificate; or
(c) other material that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral
development of persons under the age of 18;
(d) a video work—

• (i) in respect of which the video works authority has issued an 18 certificate, and

• (ii) whose nature is such that it is reasonable to assume that its principal purpose is to cause sexual arousal, or

(e) material whose nature is such that it is reasonable—

• (i) to assume that its principal purpose is to cause sexual arousal, and

• (ii) to expect that, if the material were contained in a video work submitted to the video works authority for a classification certificate, the video works authority would issue an 18 certificate.

In determining whether any material falls within (b) or (e), regard must be had to any guidelines issued by the video works authority as to its policy in relation to the issue of classification certificates.

Guidance on ‘Specially restricted material’:

In considering any particular case, Ofcom’s approach in the first instance will be to determine whether the content in question falls within the definition of ‘specially restricted material’.

Content which complies with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, or that has been classified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) in any category except ‘R18’ or as a ‘sex work’ at ‘18’, would not normally be considered as material that “might seriously impair” and would not normally be subject to the requirements of Rule 11.

R18 and R18-equivalent material, sex works at 18 and material equivalent to sex works at 18, and any other material which might seriously impair under 18s is subject to the requirements of Rule 11. All ‘material’ in the ODPS, including still images and other non-video content is subject to this requirement.

By ‘sex works’ we mean works whose primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation. Sex works at ‘18’ includes sex works that contain only sexual material which may be simulated. The R18 certificate is primarily for explicit works of consenting sex (including non-simulated sexual activity) or strong fetish material involving adults.

The R18 certificate and the 18 certificate are issued by the British Board of Film Classification in respect of video works being supplied on a physical video recording such as a DVD. There is no requirement for material being provided on an ODPS to be classified by the BBFC, but Ofcom must have regard to the BBFC Classification Guidelines when determining whether material on an ODPS is R18-equivalent (i.e. if it was contained in a video work submitted for classification it is reasonable to assume that the BBFC would issue an R18 certificate). Ofcom must also have regard to the BBFC Classification Guidelines when determining whether material on an ODPS is equivalent to sex work material at 18 (i.e. it is reasonable to assume that its principal purpose is to cause sexual arousal and if it was contained in a video work for classification the BBFC would issue an 18 certificate).

For more information on the R18 certificate and the 18 certificate for sex works, and the type of content likely to be awarded these certificates, see the British Board of Film Classification’s website: www.bbfc.co.uk .

We note that the BBFC has regulatory duties to assess whether ‘pornographic material’ is not normally accessible by under 18s on online commercial services available in the UK (excluding the ODPS regulated by Ofcom). In outline, ‘pornographic material’ includes both R18 equivalent material, and 18-equivalent material with a principal purpose of sexual arousal. In assessing whether content falls within the definition of ‘specially restricted material’ under Rule 11, Ofcom will have regard to any advice issued by the BBFC on its approach to assessing whether content is ‘pornographic material’, including advice on what content can be displayed without age-verification.

Guidance on Age Verification:

Provided the material is not illegal or otherwise prohibited (see Rule 14), content which Ofcom considers to fall under this Rule (i.e. ‘specially restricted material’) may be made available on an ODPS, provided access is controlled in a manner which secures that people aged under eighteen ‘will not normally see or hear’ such material.

In assessing age-verification arrangements under Rule 11, Ofcom will follow the BBFC’s principle-based approach for assessing the compliance of age-verification solutions on online commercial services available in the UK. Ofcom recognises that the BBFC’s principles were designed in relation to online services, and that age-verification solutions on ODPS in practice may vary across different platforms. However, the same principles apply on ODPS regardless of the platform on which the service is delivered.

The criteria against which Ofcom will assess whether an age-verification solution secures that ‘specially restricted material’ is not normally seen or heard by those under 18 are set out below:

• a. An effective control mechanism at the point of registration or access to the specially restricted material by the end-user which verifies that the user is aged 18 or over at the point of registration or access

• a. [note repeated (a) is in original document] Use of age-verification data that cannot be reasonably known by another person, without theft or fraudulent use of data or identification documents or be readily obtained or predicted by another person

• b. A requirement that either a user age-verify each visit or access is restricted by controls, manual or electronic, such as, but not limited to, password or personal identification numbers. A consumer must be logged out by default unless they positively opt-in for their log in information to be remembered

• c. The inclusion of measures which authenticate age-verification data and measures which are effective at preventing use by non-human operators including algorithms

The following are features which Ofcom does not consider, in isolation, comply with the age-verification requirement under this Rule:

• a. relying solely on the user to confirm their age with no cross-checking of information, for example by using a 'tick box' system or requiring the user to only input their date of birth

• b. using a general disclaimer such as 'anyone using this website will be deemed to be over 18'

• c. accepting age-verification through the use of online payment methods which may not require a user to be over 18. (For example, Ofcom will not regard confirmation of ownership of a Debit, Solo or Electron card or any other card where the card holder is not required to be 18 or over to be verification that a user of a service is aged 18 or over.)

• d. checking against publicly available or otherwise easily known information such as name, address and date of birth

When considering the compliance of age-verification solutions with Rule 11, we will have regard to the BBFC’s assessments of age-verification used by online adult services to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements, as published on its website.
Ofcom recommends that ODPS providers adopt good practice regarding data protection in the design and implementation of age-verification solutions. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is responsible for enforcing data protection legislation and providers should have regard to its guidance in this area.

Where they are required, age-verification solutions must be fit for purpose and effectively managed so as to ensure that people aged under eighteen will not normally see or hear specially restricted material. Ofcom will consider the adequacy and effectiveness of age-verification solutions on a case by case basis and keep them under review in the context of ODPS. Responsibility for ensuring that any required age-verification solution is in place and is operating effectively rests at all times with the person with editorial responsibility for the ODPS. The ‘Guidance on who needs to notify’ document explains how to determine the person with ‘editorial responsibility’ for the ODPS.