Child Safety Online
Global challenges
and strategies

THE UNICEF OFFICE OF RESEARCH, INNOCENTIThe Innocenti Research Centre (IRC) was established in Florence, Italy in 1988 to strengthen the
research capability of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and to support its advocacy forchildren worldwide. The Centre helps to identify and research current and future areas of UNICEF’s
work. Its prime objectives are to improve international understanding of issues relating to children’s
rights and to help facilitate full implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child indeveloping, middle-income and industrialized countries.
IRC is the dedicated research hub of the UNICEF Office of Research (OOR), which provides global
leadership for the organization’s strategic research agenda around children. The Office aims to set
out a comprehensive framework for research and knowledge within the organization, in supportof its global programmes and policies. Through strengthening research partnerships with leading
academic institutions and development networks in both the North and South, the Office seeks toleverage additional resources and influence in support of efforts towards policy reform in favourof children.
IRC’s publications are contributions to a global debate on children and child rights issues andinclude a wide range of opinions. For that reason, the Centre may produce publications that do notnecessarily reflect UNICEF policies or approaches on some topics. The views expressed are those of
the authors and/or editors and are published by the Centre in order to stimulate further dialogue onchild rights.
The Centre collaborates with its host institution in Florence, the Istituto degli Innocenti, in selectedareas of work. Core funding for the Centre is provided by the Government of Italy, while financial
support for specific projects is also provided by other governments, international institutions andprivate sources, including UNICEF National Committees.

Front cover photo: © UNICEF/NYHQ2010-3011/Giacomo Pirozzi
Design and layout: BlissDesign.com© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
December 2011
ISBN: 978-88-6522-004-7
Requests for permission to reproduce or translate UNICEF IRC publications should be addressed to:
Communications Unit, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, florence@unicef.org.
To access the most up-to-date publications, please go to the relevant pages on our website, at<www.unicef-irc.org/publications/>.
Correspondence should be addressed to:
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre
Piazza SS. Annunziata, 1250122 Florence, Italy
Tel: (39) 055 20 330
Fax: (39) 055 2033 220
florence@unicef.org
www.unicef-irc.org

Child Safety Online:
Global challenges
and strategies

﻿iContents

Acknowledgements.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . iii
Foreword.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . iv
Introduction.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . vPart One: Child abuse linked to information and communication technology .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 1The nature and scale of child abuse online.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 1Child access to the Internet.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 3Social implications of the merged online/offline environment. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 4Understanding risk, vulnerability and harm .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5Parents or peers: Who do children turn to for support? .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7Part Two: Building a protective environment.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9International instruments and commitments.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 10
Challenges for law enforcement and child protection.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12
A framework for response.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 15
Conclusions.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 21
Notes .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 22
Acronyms. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 29
Glossary.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 30

ii

﻿

﻿

Acknowledgements

This publication, Child Safety Online: Global
challenges and strategies, was coordinatedby the UNICEF Office of Research, Innocenti,
assisted by an international panel of advisers andreviewers. The research was conducted in close
consultation and collaboration with the Child
Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP)
in the United Kingdom. Special thanks to thefollowing UNICEF country offices that provided
data, case studies and recommendations that
informed the report: Albania, Brazil, Croatia, thePhilippines, South Africa, Thailand and Venezuela(Bolivarian Republic of).
This study was made possible througha generous contribution from the Japan
Committee for UNICEF.
Research
Gerison Lansdown, lead researcher; independent
consultant on child rights and child participation
Margaret Akullo, criminology expert; Project
Coordinator for Project Childhood: Protection
Pillar, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,
BangkokJohn Carr, expert adviser on use of the Internet
and related technologies by children andyoung people
Mark Hecht, Legal Counsel, Children’s Aid
Society of Ottawa
Tink Palmer, Chief Executive Officer,
Marie Collins Foundation
UNICEF Office of Research, Innocenti
Gordon Alexander, Director
Jasmina Byrne, Child Protection Specialist
Andrew Mawson, Chief of Child Protection
Susanna Nordh, Consultant

Clara Sommarin, Child Protection Specialist,
UNICEF New YorkChild Exploitation and Online
Protection Centre
Graham Ritchie, Missing and TraffickedChildren Manager
Gabrielle Shaw, Head of International Relations
External advisers/peers reviewers
Alisdair A. Gillespie, Professor of Criminal Law
and Justice, Department of Law, De Montfort
University, Leicester, United Kingdom
David Finkelhor, Director, Crimes against
Children Research Center, Co-Director,
Family Research Laboratory, Department of
Sociology, University of New Hampshire,
United States
Ethel Quayle, COPINE Research, Clinicaland Health Psychology, School of Healthin Social Science, University of Edinburgh,
United Kingdom
Julia Davidson, Director of Research in
Criminology and Sociology; Co-Director,
Centre for Abuse and Trauma Studies,
Kingston University, London
Lars Lööf, Head of Children’s Unit, Council ofthe Baltic Sea States
Lena Karlsson, Director, Child Protection
Initiative, Save the Children; former
Child Protection Specialist, IRC
Olga Kolpakova, Head of Prevention Programs
Department, Stellit, Saint Petersburg,
Russian Federation
Rodrigo Nejm, Director of Prevention
Programmes, SaferNet Brasil

UNICEF technical support/advice

Sonia Livingstone, Coordinator EU Kids Online;
Professor and Head of Department of Media andCommunications, London School of Economics
and Political Science

Karin Heissler, Child Protection Specialist,
Planning and Evidence-Building, UNICEF New York

Tiago Tavares Nunes de Oliviera, Founder andPresident of SaferNet Brasil

Priscillia Hoveyda, Consultant, Young People,
UNICEF Division of Communication, New York

Pia Lang, former Policy Officer, Safer Internet
Programme, European Commission

Ravi Karkara, child participation specialist,
formerly with the Division of Policy and Practice,
UNICEF New York

Editorial

Ann Linnarsson, Protection Specialist, UNICEF
Port-au-Prince; former Programme Officer, IRC

Catherine Rutgers, copy-editing

Claire Akehurst, Executive Assistant

Christine Dinsmore, editing

Baishalee Nayak, fact-checking
﻿iii

fORewORd

Over the past twenty years the Internet
has become an integral part of our lives .
We have eagerly embraced its potential forcommunication, entertainment and informationseeking . For many of today’s children, theInternet, mobile phones and other technologies
are a constant and familiar presence . For them,the distinction between online and offline has
increasingly become meaningless, and they
move seamlessly between both environments .
An increasing number of children can scarcely
imagine life without a social networking
profile; videos and photographs shared online– often in real time – and online gaming .
Indeed, young people are at the vanguardof technological change . Their coming-ofage in this era of exponential innovation has
widened the generational divide between themand their parents, their teachers and othercaregivers . This gap, while becoming less stark
in industrialized countries, is wider in lowerincome countries where caregivers arguably
have fewer opportunities to access informationand communication technology . But thesituation is changing rapidly .
There is no doubt that the Internet yields
numerous opportunities and benefits forchildren in terms of its impact on theireducational attainment and social inclusion .
However, it has also exposed children todangers that defy age, geographic locationand other boundaries that are more clearlydelineated in the real world . This has resulted
in risks to children and young people ofhaving abusive images of them shared on
the Internet; of being groomed or lured into
sexual conversations or exploitation by adultoffenders; of being bullied or harassed online .
Bearing this in mind, the UNICEF Innocenti
Research Centre has, in partnership with
the Child Exploitation and Online Protection
Centre in the United Kingdom, collaborated
with a number of actors to undertake thisiv

study . The research explored children’s online
behaviour, risks and vulnerability to harm,
documenting existing preventive and protective
measures to combat their online abuse andexploitation . The study draws on lessons fromhigh- and middle-income countries, viewed
through the lens of the dynamic that, given
the speed of innovation, other countries may
soon experience .
What we have learned is that a singularapproach to combating these crimes is noteffective . What is required is a collective effort
by policymakers, law enforcement agencies,
social workers, teachers, parents and the private
sector to systematically protect children . We
have also discovered that many children are
comfortable navigating the Internet and areable to avoid risks . They may see themselves
as protectors of younger children and arethemselves agents for change . Children shouldbe allowed to express their views on how to
mitigate risks, and they should be listened toand empowered to safely exploit the benefitsof the Internet . However, we should notoverestimate their ability to protect themselves .
Ultimately, the onus lies with adults to put inplace a framework that ensures children equaland equitable access to the Internet, along witha safer online environment .
Access to knowledge, participation, leisure andplay are fundamental rights of all children, as
enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of theChild . In today’s real and virtual worlds, it is ourcollective responsibility to ensure those rights
for all children .

Gordon Alexander
Director
UNICEF Office of Research, Innocenti

INTRODUCTION

The Internet, mobile phones and otherelectronic media provide children and young
people with levels of access to information,
culture, communication and entertainment
impossible to imagine just twenty years ago.
With many of their extraordinary benefits,
however, come hazards. The Internet andassociated technologies have made abusive
images of children easier to create anddistribute, and provide significant newopportunities for abusers to access and makecontact with children and young people
online. While information and communication
technology (ICT) has not created crimes
involving sexual abuse and exploitation ofchildren, it has enhanced the scale and potentialof some old and familiar ones.
Expanding Internet access for all children
and young people without discrimination andexclusion in all parts of the world, together withpromoting digital citizenship and responsibility,
ought to be critical objectives for policymakers
concerned with enhancing opportunities forchildren.1 Building safer Internet access is
integral to that project. Questions such as ‘whatis the nature of risk globally?’ and ‘what are
the most effective strategies to address it?’ aretherefore important. The purpose of this report,
which was developed by the UNICEF Innocenti
Research Centre (IRC) in partnership with
the Child Exploitation and Online Protection
Centre (CEOP), is to review the global evidence
available. The study primarily addresses two
issues: child sex abuse recorded in images;
and the grooming of young people for sex. A
third issue, cyberbullying, emerging from muchresearch as an issue of particular significance tochildren, is also touched on in this report.
There are many knowledge gaps about theprotection challenges raised by the Internet,
particularly in parts of the world where its
penetration is so far more limited. There has
been significant work undertaken to analysechildren’s online behaviour and investments
made in strategies to address and prevent
abuse in parts of Asia, across Europe and theUnited States of America. But there has beenless exploration of online child abuse andexploitation across many low- and middleincome countries, or examination of the stateof knowledge and/or the responsiveness ofbodies with responsibilities for child protection
and law enforcement. Little research exists
about the use of the Internet by children andyoung people in Africa, much of Asia andLatin America (and the bearing this might haveon risk). Furthermore, research findings fromdifferent parts of the industrialized world aresometimes contradictory.
It would be a mistake to believe that childabuse in which ICT plays a role is only an
issue for the economically better off, whether
societies or social groups. Web access is rapidly
expanding, supported by increasing broadband
and mobile phone penetration. Indeed, theemergence of broadband has been a decisive
factor in facilitating online child abuse because
it allows the exchange of larger files, particularly
files containing photos, videos and audio. As
broadband starts to become available in lowerincome countries there is a high expectation
that, absent any contrary measures, patternsof abusive behaviour witnessed elsewhere
will follow.
Globally, children and young people tend to
become early users and prime innovators on
the Internet, and are often far ahead of theirparents and other adults in terms of use, skills
and understanding. The Internet, particularlysocial networking and other interactive media,
provides new forms of social space globally that
did not exist when most contemporary parents
were themselves children. Young people inall societies today are pioneers, occupying
online spaces in ways that adults often cannot
imagine. These spaces can be immensely
creative, but can also expose children todangers adults may in many instances only
dimly perceive.
The ease of interaction among and withchildren, the risk of sexual abuse, new andfast-changing technology, and adults’ lack ofawareness and understanding of the Internet or
children’s usage, is a recipe for societal anxiety −as well as sensationalism, myth-making andpotentially inappropriate policy responses.
New technologies are commonly accompanied
by fears as to their potential dangers, often
provoked without a solid foundation in
Introduction﻿

v

evidence. The popular fear that the Internet
endangers all children has not been supportedby the research evidence so far.2 Nevertheless,there are genuine risks associated with it, andcalibrating appropriate protective responses
requires reliable information that helps toaccurately identify the nature and scale of risk
and harm.
Although much of the original research andwork that led to the development of theInternet involved both public and private
sector partners, since the mid-1990s theInternet has been recognized as being owned
and driven almost entirely by private sector
entities. Meanwhile, it has become central to
the global economy and, by extension, to theefficient functioning of a great many and rapidly
increasing number of national economies. It
underpins public infrastructure that provides
for the smooth operation of transport, power,banking and other vital systems. It is playing
a major role in the social and political lives ofa substantial and growing number of citizens
around the world. Precisely because of thisdimension, governments, inter-governmental
bodies and other public agencies havegenerally proceeded with circumspection
when discussing new laws or regulations
regarding how the Internet should operate, or
what is expected of the myriad large and small
companies that make up the modern Internet
industry. The urge to legislate and regulate
in ways that might curb the Internet is clearly
there, however, as reactions by politicians
to phenomena such as the use of social
networking sites (SNS) during periods of civil
disorder have shown.
Governments have tended to tackle onlinerelated sexual exploitation and abuse with
an emphasis on building the ‘architecture’
to protect or rescue children − establishinglegislation, pursuing and prosecuting abusers,
raising awareness, reducing access to harm andsupporting children to recover from abuse or
exploitation. These are essential components ofa protection response. Internationally, however,progress is patchy. Many legal jurisdictions,for example, fail to enact legislation sufficient
to combat child abuse images or laws tocriminalize grooming. There is also a lack ofawareness or discomfort among parents andagencies with child protection responsibilities
about the real nature of hazards or effective
protection strategies. Awareness of onlinerelated child abuse and exploitation appears
not yet to be organically embedded in thegreat majority of child protection systems andresponses. Integrating awareness of onlinevi

Child Safety Online

related abuse and exploitation into the broader
child protection agenda should be a priority
for policymakers.
Given the centrality of the private sector to theInternet, it has major responsibilities in relation
to child protection online. Under contemporary
understanding of corporate responsibilities
for respecting human rights, recently
internationally articulated in the report entitled‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights: Implementing the United Nations“Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’,businesses have obligations both to respecthuman rights and to seek to prevent or mitigate
adverse human rights impacts directly linked totheir operations, products and services.3 Childabuse and exploitation are manifestly “adverse
human rights impacts.” The industry has it in
its powers to develop and introduce new tools
to make the Internet safer for children. The
importance of action by the private sector insupport of law enforcement and Internet safety
are discussed later in this report.
There are genuine challenges and fears within
the industry. Some of the measures that could
contribute to making the Internet safer forchildren appear to challenge current businessmodels; they might appear to reduce thecompetitiveness of an individual company, orto threaten other freedoms inherent in the way
the Internet currently operates. However, it isarguably in the longer-term interests of theInternet itself, and in particular of the larger
companies that dominate it, for governments tofeel that legitimate concerns for the welfare of
their citizens, perhaps especially in relation tochildren and young people, are taken seriously
and are acted upon promptly. Otherwise there
is a risk that governments or regional bodies
will step in to regulate and legislate in ways thatnegatively affect the Internet as a single global
system embodying freedom of information.
Given that most research on usage and risk
has taken place in the industrialized world,
the extrapolation of findings to other socioeconomic and cultural contexts must be
approached with caution. However, there isenough research in low- and middle-income
countries to be suggestive of patterns andpotential problems. One important finding
from industrialized and lower-income countries
alike is the importance of action, innovation,
exploration and discovery by adolescents on
the Internet; in other words, the significance ofchild agency in accessing the creative benefitsof the Internet, in exposure to certain forms ofrisk, and in managing that risk.

The protection response needs to strikea balance between the right to protection
from all forms of violence, sexual abuse andexploitation, and the rights to information,
freedom of expression and association, privacy
and non-discrimination, as defined in theConvention on the Rights of the Child and otherrelevant international standards. That balancemust be anchored in the best interests ofchildren as a primary consideration, the right tobe heard and taken seriously, and recognitionof the evolving capacities of children andyoung people. It is unlikely ever to be possible
to remove all the risks to children and young
people that exist in the online environment.
Moreover, beyond a certain point, attempting
to do so could threaten the very essence of theInternet and its multiple benefits.
It would be a mistake ever to think that all
children and young people are equally adept
or at home in the online environment, or
equally knowledgeable about it.4 Children’s
use of the Internet and their behaviour andvulnerabilities online differ according to theirage. To be effective, protection strategies
need to incorporate measures and messages
appropriate to different ages and levels of
understanding. It is nonetheless the case thatby and large children and young people areoften the best experts in relation to their own
ICT usage. This report argues that effective
protection strategies require children’s
participation, particularly that of adolescents,
in both their design and implementation, as
well as the empowerment of parents and other
adults who work closely with young people,
such as teachers, to enable them to support andunderstand children’s use of ICT and the risks
and hazards that they may encounter. This isboth a pragmatic recognition of reality and aposition based on human rights principles.
This report discusses the nature and scaleof sexual abuse and exploitation of children
and young people online and the types ofcrimes perpetrated against them. It considers
the generational divide between parents andchildren in their knowledge of, and engagement
with, the online environment and how thisaffects experiences and approaches to theInternet and its usage. The report outlines
how children and young people across theworld use the Internet, including an examinationof specific online activities and experiences thathave the potential to place them at risk. Thereis a focus on activities that involve interaction
online and offline and an analysis of researchfindings about where children turn for support
when things go wrong.
The challenge for policymakers is not to getsidetracked into blaming the medium. Instead,
it is to coordinate action by a range of public
and private actors on a number of interrelated
issues that ultimately come under the headingof ‘building a safer Internet’. These include
integrating an understanding of the methods ofchild sexual abuse and exploitation into building
Internet access; understanding child usage of
ICT and working with young people on effective
safety strategies; integrating awareness andunderstanding of online-related child abuseand exploitation into child protection systems;
developing effective law enforcement against
online-related child abuse and exploitation;and integrating child protection into effective
law enforcement. While usage may still be lesspervasive in low- and middle-income countries,
protection is a challenge they will face in theimminent future that needs to be addressed now.
The report also considers ways to build a safer
environment for children and young people
for whom the Internet is a basic social medium
in which the online and offline worlds cometogether. It outlines relevant international law
and key challenges to governments and law
enforcement agencies in achieving greater
protection for children and young people. It
argues that a multitiered approach is necessary
to challenge the potential threats to children’swell-being and safety in the online environment.
Accordingly, it concludes by putting forward
a strategic protection framework with fourmain objectives: 1) empowering children
and promoting their resilience; 2) removing
impunity for abusers; 3) reducing availabilityof harmful material from the Internet andaccess to harm; and 4) promoting recovery
and rehabilitation for children who haveexperienced harm.

Introduction ﻿  ﻿﻿ vii

© UNICEF/NYHQ2007-0269/Cirillo

Part OneChild Abuse Linked
to Information andCommunication Technology

The nature and scaleof child abuse online
A study conducted by Sonia Livingstone
and Leslie Haddon of EU Kids Online, has
defined a set of categories to understandrisk and harm related to online activities. The
groupings elucidate the features of behaviours
involved and help orientate researchersand policymakers towards their different
implications: a) online harm from content (thechild as a passive recipient of pornographic orharmful sexual content); b) harm from contact(the child targeted as a participant by an adult or
another child in activities such as sexual abuse
that is photographed and then disseminated,for online grooming for sexual abuse, or forbullying); and c) harm from conduct (the child
actively initiates risky or abusive behaviour, forexample, by creating or uploading pornographic
material, physically meeting an adult met
online, placing images of her or himself or
another young person online, downloading
abusive images of children or bullying).5 The
range of adult behaviour that constitutes
child sexual abuse online includes adults who
sexually exploit their own or other children forthe production of child abuse images; those
who download images for their own personaluse; those who create and distribute images;
and those who seek access to children online inorder to exploit them.
It is estimated that the number of child abuse
images on the Internet runs into the millions
and the number of individual children depicted
is probably in the tens of thousands.6 An

important difference between an image online
and one offline is that, once online, an image
can remain in circulation in perpetuity andthere is almost no limit on how often or bywhom it can be viewed or passed on. Somecurrently available images are thought to havebeen produced more than 20 or 30 years ago,
derived from film photographs or videos thathave since been digitalized.7 However, themajority of images in cyberspace have been
produced much more recently and are linked
to the emergence of cheap, easy-to-use digital
cameras and the development of the Internet.
The majority of children featured in childabuse images currently online are Caucasian,
prepubescent girls (between the ages of lessthan 1 and 10).8 This preponderance may be areflection of the fact that most research has thus
far been undertaken in Western countries, andoffenders demonstrate a preference for children
who share their own ethnic characteristics.
It may also reflect greater availability of ICT
and other technologies for image capture anddistribution in industrialized countries. There is
an identifiable downward age trend and images
are becoming more graphic and violent.9 Whatis not yet clear is whether child abuse images
online are a form of abuse limited to certain
parts of the world, or whether they represent
a stage in the progress of Internet uptake andusage. In other words, will child sex abuserecorded in images involving children from
Asian or African backgrounds become morecommon as Internet access becomes evermore global?
It is difficult to estimate the number of websites
globally that depict child abuse images. The
Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) has identified

Child Abuse Linked to Information and Communication Technology

1and taken action against some 16,700 instancesof child sexual abuse content on different
web pages worldwide in 2010 compared withidentifying around 10,600 URLs of individual
web pages or websites in 2006.10 The increase
may be attributed to a change in hosting
patterns, whereby content is being posted toseparate locations rather than multiple images
being stored on a single web page.11 Most
significantly, however, child abuse images
are increasingly shared among networksof like-minded individuals through peer-topeer distribution, which avoids the necessityof housing the images on storage systems
owned by third parties such as Internet service
providers (ISPs).12
Online grooming is the process by which anindividual befriends a young person for online
sexual contact, sometimes with the involvementof webcams that can allow ‘sharing’ of the
exploitation among networks of child sex
abusers, and sometimes extending to a physicalmeeting to commit sexual abuse.13 The areasof cyberspace that enable abusers to groom
potential victims include chat rooms, social
networking sites (SNS) and instant messaging.14
Research with abusers suggests that some haveup to 200 young people on their online ‘friends’
lists who are at different stages of the grooming
process at any given time.15 Grooming may takeminutes, hours, days or months, depending on
the goals and needs of the abuser and reactionsof the young person.
In terms of age, the evidence suggests thatthe children most at risk of being groomed
are adolescents, particularly adolescent girls.
At this age, children are often active users of
the Internet as a means of meeting people
and making friends – all part of the process ofdeveloping their sense of self, including theirsocial, sexual and emotional identities.
There is no information concerning thenumber of individuals (who evidence suggests
are mainly men) grooming children online.
In many countries, this activity is not yet acriminal offence and therefore no records
are kept relating to such behaviour. Evenamong countries where grooming has
been criminalized, there are no coordinateddatabases that provide details of the offenders.
This represents not only a huge gap inknowledge, but also in child protection.
There are as many myths about child sexual
abuse online as there are about child sexual
abuse offline. One is that strangers pose thegreatest threat to children. With respect to2Child Safety Online

the initial creation and dissemination of childabuse images, this is false. Those directly
responsible are often family members andother caregivers who have easy and private
physical access to children.16 Another mythis that grooming typically involves older
men lying and forcefully entrapping innocent
children by using false identities. This is also
largely untrue. Rather, it tends to be a processof ‘seducing’ or flattering children into what
the child may perceive as a voluntary sexual
online friendship. Although some offenders
lie about their age or gender when grooming
children, the activity generally tends to fit amodel of statutory rape.17
The available evidence, which mainly derives
from studies in industrialized countries, points
to a typology of child sex abusers online
as mainly Caucasian, male, commonly in
employment, reasonably well educated, andspanning a wide age range, including young
people themselves. Many men who engage inoffline sexual abuse of children also engage inabuse online. However, a significant proportionof men who view child abuse images online
do not appear to seek sexual contact withchildren offline.18 This finding should, however,be considered with caution. Offenders who
have accessed child abuse images online havedemonstrated some form of sexual interest inchildren, and may therefore pose a physicalrisk to them. At the very least, such offenders
have contributed to sustaining demand for the
production of images that involve the sexual
abuse of children.
ICT has also created an environment in which
pornography has become easily accessible. Oneof the key differences with the ‘pre-Internet’
era is that today there are many available sites
displaying extreme forms of pornography thatcan be accessed by young people.19 Thereis, to date, limited research evidence on theimplications of such exposure. Concerns
are increasingly expressed by professionals
working with young people on apparently
growing levels of addiction to pornography, as
well as emerging pressures on girls to conformto both the sexual behaviours and appearancesof women in pornographic videos.20 ICT has
also led to the phenomenon of exposure to
unsolicited pornography. The extent to whichchildren are disturbed by such exposure
appears to be influenced by age, social norms
in their country and the degree of control they
have over viewing these sites.21
Children have reported that bullying online –cyberbullying or online harassment – is animportant issue for them. While for adults thishas not been as significant a concern as sexual
abuse, it is now beginning to receive more
attention.22 Bullying can be defined as a childbeing the target of behaviour that is harmful or
intended to cause harm, occurs repeatedly, andinvolves an imbalance of power that prevents
the victim from challenging or ending the
behaviour.23 While more bullying takes place
offline than online, in Europe at least, the Internet
and mobile phones now provide new and moreinvasive and anonymous opportunities forchildren and young people to bully others.24
The prime instigators of cyberbullying are
generally other children and young people.
Some studies have suggested that more girls
than boys bully online; other reports suggest
the reverse.25 Research from Canada and theUnited Kingdom identifies children who are
at risk of being bullied offline (for example,
children who may be perceived as ‘different’,such as minority ethnic groups, lesbian,gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) young
people, overweight children, or those withperceived disabilities) to be at greater riskof being bullied online than other children.26
In contrast, research from the United States
has found that those who physically bully
others at school were themselves likely to
be victims of electronic bullying.27 Althoughcyberbullying does not yet appear to be acommon experience, it can have a significant
impact on children and young people becauseof its anonymity, its capacity to intrude at any
time of day or night into places that mightotherwise offer respite and sanctuary – homes
and bedrooms – and by its nature to often
extend (sometimes unwittingly) to implicate
and involve many people.

Child access to
the Internet
The evidence points to growing online
connectivity of children and young people.
To date, levels of Internet access are highest
in the industrialized world, although low- andmiddle-income countries are fast catching up.
Social inequalities affect access and usage.
Both in richer countries in general, and among
better-off children within all countries, accessto and usage of the Internet are higher thanamong poorer countries and less well-off
children.28 In most countries for which data are
available, children under the age of 18 makeup a high percentage of the total number ofpeople online.29 But in Europe, the numberof parents who are accessing the Internet is
rapidly approaching the number of children
who use it. In 2008, an average of 84 per centof parents throughout the region had used theInternet compared with 66 per cent in 2005.30
As evidence from a European Union (EU) study
shows, as parents use the Internet more, theyacquire additional Internet-related skills andare better equipped to manage their children’s
Internet use.31
Overall, there appears to be little genderdifference in levels of usage. Age, though,is a relevant factor, with, in general, levelsof access increasing with children’s age. 32
Younger children are going online in greaternumbers, however, with the age of firsttime Internet use decreasing. In the EU,
based on parental perceptions, 60 per centof 6- to 10-year-olds were using the Internet
in 2008, compared with 86 per cent of 15- to
17-year-olds, but this nevertheless represents
an increase in access by younger children
over previous years. 33 Globally, the numberof children spending more time online
appears to be increasing, yet there remain
striking differences in the hours of usage. In
Europe, for example, children aged 9 to 16
who access the Internet do so for between
one and five hours each day, 34 whereas in
Bahrain, the access is between two and ahalf and three and a half hours each day. 35 In
South Africa, many Internet users go online
as infrequently as once a week and thenfor less than an hour. 36 In Brazil, 69 per centof children between 10 and 15 years oldaccess the Internet every day. 37 However,the International Telecommunication Union(ITU) reports that, in terms of the frequency
of use, children aged 5 to 14 are far lesslikely to use the Internet at least once a day(or almost every day) than the population
as a whole or young people aged 15 to 24. 38
A survey of 9,000 adult and child Internet
users in 12 countries, including China, India,
Japan, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates, found that parents underestimate thetime their children are online – the children
spend on average 39 hours per month on theInternet, twice as much time as their parents
believe. This discrepancy may indicate a lackof parental engagement, supervision andcommunication with children. Exceptions
were found in Brazil, Italy and Sweden, where
there seems to be more agreement aboutlevels of Internet usage by children among
parents and children. 39

Child Abuse Linked to Information and Communication Technology

3In industrialized countries, the majority ofchildren have access to the Internet at home orat school, whereas in lower-income countries
many children rely on Internet cafes,40 which
potentially bring unknown adult and child users
into the same physical space. In Brazil, forexample, access to technology among children
aged 10 to 15 increased from 53 per cent to63 per cent between 2008 and 2009. Accessfrom Internet cafes (Lan Houses), both free andpaid, among Internet users of the same agegroup, increased from 33 per cent in 2006 to
61 per cent in 2009.41
The landscape of Internet usage is alsochanging, with mobile phones becoming asignificant source of access. While in generalcomputers remain the main mode of going
online, Japan is leading the way with nearly
60 per cent of children now using theirphones for access.42 It is likely that children’s
use of Internet-enabled mobile devices will
progressively increase based on countries’socio-economic conditions.
The global explosion of mobile phone use ishighly significant. Mobile phones and mobile
devices of different kinds represent the futureof Internet connectivity, especially in low- andmiddle-income nations. It is thought unlikelythat many of these countries will invest in theinfrastructure necessary to install Internetbearing telephone cables or wires that reach
into every home. Rather, they will establish a
network of wireless wide area networks linked
to or in addition to conventional mobile phonemasts. The increasing use of Internet-enabled‘smartphones’ for going online will limit theability of parents to restrict, monitor or control
what their children access and therefore will
increase potential risks to children and young
people. Mobile phones carry with them an
immediacy that simply does not exist when
the device being used is in a fixed location,
where supervision is easier. But even phonesthat are not Internet-enabled provide young
people with enormous opportunities toremain in contact and, for this reason, arenow seen as necessary social tools for young
people in many industrialized and middleincome countries.
Children and young people are engaged ina wide range of online activities – games,
information, education, entertainment andcommunication. The ITU reports generally
higher use of the Internet by children for
education and games than among other age
groups, and greater use by youth and thegeneral population for communication.43
4

Child Safety Online

Social networking sites, instant messaging,chat lines, micro-blogging platforms and otherforums enable users to post and exchange
personal information, photos and videos, build
networks of friends, and maintain high levels
of interaction and information exchange on
every aspect of their daily lives.
SNS are enormously popular with young
people, who increasingly view them asintegral to their social lives. Studies on young
people’s usage and behaviour online from
Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Nepal, the Philippines,
South Africa, the United States and countries
in Europe, indicate that most young people
who use the Internet do so in similar ways,
particularly in respect of use of SNS. The
studies reveal a remarkably common patternof social activities – meeting people, making
new friends and chatting online – suggestingthat factors relating to child and adolescentdevelopment are more significant than cultural
factors as the drivers of online communication.
In the United States, 73 per cent of teenagers
online now use social networking sites.44 Acrossthe EU, 59 per cent of 9- to 16-year-olds have asocial networking profile, including 26 per centof 9- to 10-year-olds, and 82 per cent of 15- to
16-year-olds.45 About 5 per cent of the estimated
37 million Facebook users in India are between
13 and 15 years old, and 7 per cent are between
16 and 17 years old.46 In Brazil, the number ofFacebook users reached 29 million by October
2011, of whom 6 per cent were between 13 and15 years old and 7 per cent were between
16 and 17 years old.47

Social implications of
the merged online/offline
environment
A key dimension of the growth of online
activity is that children and young people areparticipating in, learning from, and creating anenvironment that, in many parts of the world,
still remains unknown and unfamiliar to theirparents. Growing numbers of children are now
creating and exploring their own virtual social
networks. Through online advertising, throughexposure to knowledge and information, and topolitical, religious, cultural or sexual ideas that
may be profoundly at odds with those of theirparents, their worlds today are significantly
more complex. There are also concerns that
greater access and exposure to electronic
media can have harmful implications, includingpotentially diminishing parental capacity tounderstand children’s experiences or to offer
effective protection and support.48 While thegenerational divide around Internet usage
is beginning to narrow in the industrialized
world, the gulf between children and parents
in Internet use in lower-income countries
remains significant.
The online environment allows for a complex
mix of individual anonymity, self-promotion
and role-playing according to the wishes
and whims of the user. Children and young
people can define their own online identities,
can change those identities and can inhabit
several different ones at any given time. It adds
a new dimension to social interaction and a
new form of social space, especially throughsocial networking, which provides additional
opportunities to meet people and have fun.49
Adults may perceive the online and offline
worlds as being quite different, but for many
children and young people who are building
social networks through making friends in bothworlds, the distinction has little significance.
In this sense, the online and offline worlds
are merged.
Clear boundaries used in the physical world
to keep different aspects or contexts of life
separate do not necessarily exist or operate
in the same way online.50 SNS apply theconcept of ‘friendship’ to anyone listed on
one’s profile. On the one hand, boundaries
may seem initially less important, as people
met are not physically present. Studies
from several parts of the world suggest thatyoung people often feel safer sharing highly
sensitive personal information or engaging
in sexualized behaviour online than they dooffline.51 On the other hand, online forums– whether chatrooms, blogs, online gaming
or social networking sites – deconstruct
traditional boundaries of privacy. Children
engaged in ‘chat’ or ‘conversation’ in theprivate space of their own bedrooms can
expose themselves, wittingly or unwittingly,
to an unknown worldwide audience,
potentially increasing the risk of harm.
Information posted online creates a historical
record of the child, diminishing control
over who has access to personal data andsometimes trapping children who may findout too late that they cannot retrieve what
they have put online. Warning signs that canserve to protect children in the physical world
are largely absent online. In the physicalworld, a range of filters exist, such as bodylanguage or warning cues from a potential‘friend’ as well as their degree of geographicalproximity. The many mechanisms that havebeen developed to safeguard children in theoffline environment do not yet exist in the
online world.

Understanding risk,
vulnerability and harm
There are major differences between risk
and harm, and policymakers and parents
need to keep these distinctions clear. Certain
types of activity may involve risks that do notnecessarily result in harm to children and young
people. Swimming, riding a bicycle or joining an
SNS may confer benefits but also involve risks
and, under certain circumstances, might expose
a child to harm. Most significantly, as regards
the Internet, there is no easy line that can be
drawn between activities leading to benefits
and those leading to risks.52
Concern is often expressed among adults about
the risks associated with posting informationand images online. Hence, much research starts
from the premise that posting information is in
itself risk-taking behaviour. Young people areindeed posting information that adults may finddisturbing. A wealth of evidence from acrossthe globe shows that many young people,
particularly in the age range of 12 to 16 years,
are placing highly personal information online.
In Brazil, for example, surveys indicate that46 per cent of children and adolescents consider
it normal to regularly publish personal photos
online, while a study in Bahrain indicates thatchildren commonly place personal information
online, with little understanding of the conceptof privacy.53 In addition, significant numbers ofteenagers are uploading visual representationsof themselves that are sexual in tone.54 Thisis sometimes in response to grooming thatinvolves encouragement to place such images
online, which may be followed by blackmailor threats of exposure to coerce teenagers to
upload increasing numbers of explicit images.
But in other cases, the initial placement is
unsolicited, and may encourage and attract
potentially abusive predators.
Another increasingly common behaviour by
teenagers is ‘sexting’ (sharing of sexualized
images or text via mobile phones).55 These
images and text are often shared between
partners in a relationship or with potential
partners, but sometimes end up being sharedwith much wider audiences.56 It is thought
unlikely that young teenagers have an adequate

Child Abuse Linked to Information and Communication Technology

5understanding of the implications of thesebehaviours and the potential risks they entail.

favelas, reported using the Internet mainly foreducational purposes.63

There is, however, considerable debate about
the issue of placing information online. It can beargued that posting personal information online
is becoming normal behaviour.57 Basically,
if a young person is not posting personal
information, their peers will not consider thepage lively or interesting. They may evenregard them as being a little odd or standoffish. Putting information online is part of theircultural context and therefore commonplace,and the majority of young people do notappear to be harmed by it.58 Research fromthe United States, for example, has foundthat, in general, there is little evidence that the
everyday placement of personal information
online, including images, leads to personal
victimization of children. It is online interactionand engaging in many different types ofrisky behaviours online rather than posting
information that creates the environment thatenables sex abuse and grooming to unfold.59
Not only is it unrealistic to change normative
behaviours, but the evidence suggests that it isprobably not useful or necessary to try to do so.

Furthermore, in the lower-income countries,
children are less likely to use the Internet fromhome and, even if they are at home, theirparents are likely to have far less understandingof the nature and risks associated with theonline environment, thereby reducing theopportunities for parental protection andsupport. Children accessing the Internet
through cybercafes in Brazil, India, Nepal
and the Philippines identify these places as
particularly hazardous, potentially exposing
them to adults who use pornography, topornographic material, to solicitation or to
drugs. Coupled with this is the likelihood thatin countries where children are more reliant on
Internet access through cybercafes, there is lessregulation, less opportunity for reporting and, inmany cases, little overall investment in building
a protective environment.64 However, it is clearthat while Internet usage in the privacy of one’s
home may appear less hazardous, it is moreaccurate to state that while certain dangers are
reduced or are not present in the home, others
depend on the types of activities children are
engaged in online.

There is insufficient evidence to provide
an unambiguous indication of whether therisks associated with online activities are
the same or have the same implications forchildren across different regions of the world.
In many African and Asian countries, forexample, widespread poverty and weak state
structures undermine children’s social andlegal protection and therefore may contributeto increased vulnerability.60 Findings aboutother particular characteristics that may
make children vulnerable to sexual abuse andexploitation online are contradictory. Researchfrom South Africa and the United Statessuggests that children with low self-esteem
or children experiencing depression, negative
life events, or offline abuse or victimization are
at a particular risk of being groomed online.61
Findings from studies in the United Kingdom
report no obvious pattern of particularvulnerability in the offline world.62 Research in
Brazil found an important link between social
factors and economic conditions. Girls fromfavelas (informal settlements) are exposed
to earlier sexualization and are more likely
to socialize with older age groups who they
perceive as raising their social status. They
identified using the Internet as an instrument
to enable them to visit sexually oriented sites
and meet boys. Middle-class Brazilian girls, on
the other hand, who appear to have more adultmonitoring and guidance than those from the
6Child Safety Online

Some of the available research disaggregatesdata on the basis of gender, which provides
useful information on the differences andsimilarities related to Internet risk, vulnerability
and harm experienced by boys and girls.
But there are many groups about whom noevidence exists. For example, ICT may offer
numerous potential benefits to many children
with disabilities, such as communication
for those unable to move about freely in thephysical world, greater access to the written
word for children with visual impairment andcapacity to communicate freely for children
with hearing impairment. However, it is notknown whether children with disabilities
might be drawn towards greater dependency
on online relationships and whether they areconsequently more vulnerable, whether among
this group the desire to construct alternative
identities is greater than among other children,or whether they are at greater risk of targeted
grooming. Similarly, LGBT young people,
particularly those living in environments
in which they are unable to express theirsexuality openly, may gain hugely by being
able to use the Internet to build friendships
with persons sharing their sexual orientation.
Conversely, however, greater dependence on
the Internet may render them more exposed
to risk of abuse. There is some evidence that
LGBT young people are particularly vulnerable

to cyberbullying.65 Given the importance of
supportive parental relationships as a protective
factor, research to gain a better understanding
about the risks migrant or other children
separated from their families face in the online
environment would also be useful.
In terms of young people’s own awareness of
online risk, surveys from Brazil and countries
in Europe suggest that many children areaware of basic hazards, but that most do not
perceive themselves as vulnerable. Children
think that ‘others’ (for example, younger andinexperienced children) are at risk, rather thanthemselves.66 Many children and young people
who use SNS are aware of the challenges
concerning security of information, have felt
pressure to post personal information when
they did not feel comfortable doing so, andhave some anxiety that they are visible to many
people they do not know. However, a national
survey indicates that in the United Kingdom,
this has little impact on their behaviour unlessa problem has affected them personally or has
been thought to be serious.67
Overall, there are widely differing perceptions
among children and young people of thedangers associated with the Internet. While
there is little comparative research available
to provide clear evidence on how different
perceptions arise, these seem to relate toavailability of information, location of use andawareness of safe reporting mechanisms.

Parents or peers:
Who do children turnto for support?
Research from around the world indicates thatchildren and young people have far greater
confidence about their ability to remain safe
online than their parents.68 Broadly, however,children appear less confident about keeping
safe in countries where Internet safety
information is not widely available. European
research from 2009 found that parents are lesslikely to worry about children’s online safety
if they themselves go online. Once they better
understand the online environment, parents
gain a more informed perspective of therisks involved.69
In terms of protection from harm, the evidence
consistently indicates that children often do
not see parents as an automatic first port ofcall when they experience abuse. The levelof involvement of parents varies, however,according to several factors, including country,
age and level of parental Internet use.70
Explanations of why children do not look totheir parents for protection from online harm
include children’s beliefs that their parents do
not understand the world in which the abusetakes place, their fear of having mobile phones
taken away or Internet access restricted, threatsby the abuser, or shame and humiliation.71
Whatever parents may wish, some adolescents
do not want adults interfering. Adolescencetends to be a developmental stage that involves
exploratory behaviour and pulling away,
to a degree, from parents. They may thus
perceive parental presence and involvementin their social space and online interactions
as interference.
Nevertheless, a growing body of evidence
from the industrialized world identifies thestrongest protective factor for children to be
actively engaged parents who share Internet
experiences with their children and are willingto talk about the issues involved.72 Respect for,and interest in, children’s engagement withthe online environment are likely to be more
effective than restrictive or punitive controls.
Furthermore, research suggests that many
children and young people would like parents tobe more involved. For many children, exclusionof parents seems not to inevitably derive fromreluctance for their support, but rather from thechild’s perception of limited parental capacity toeffectively provide support.73
Parental capacity to protect children is also
increasingly limited by the fact that many of
the activities previously done via computers
based in fixed locations are now being utilized
on mobile phones with Internet connectivity.
When children have access to such phones, as
an increasing number do, parents are less able
to monitor their children’s activities, introduce
filtering or blocking mechanisms, or control the
degree of access to the Internet. This changing
pattern of usage presents fundamentallydifferent challenges that need to beacknowledged in the introduction of protective
or preventive strategies.
A consistent message emerging from theresearch is that children and young people seethemselves as ‘protectors’ of other children.
Children tend to first turn to each other when inneed of help. Young people demonstrate highlevels of concern and awareness of risks foryoung siblings, friends and others they perceive
as more vulnerable than themselves.74 Thissuggests a potential role for children as peer
educators, mentors and advisers. In the context

Child Abuse Linked to Information and Communication Technology

7

of the sociology of actual Internet use, listening
to children and supporting them to be the frontline in taking care of themselves and each otheris likely to be one of the keys to reducing bothrisk and harm.
Children’s use of the Internet, and their
behaviour and vulnerabilities within the
online environment, differ according to theirage. Recognition is needed of the evolving
capacities of children, with protection strategies
that are appropriate to their age and levelof understanding. As yet, there is relatively
little known about younger children’s online
experience, although there is a growing bodyof evidence that shows that, in industrializedcountries, many children under eight years old
are now accessing the Internet, either throughcomputers or mobile phones. More research isneeded on usage by younger children and how
to respond most effectively to protect childrenof different ages and capabilities.
The challenge for those who place an emphasis
on protection by adults is whether in reality sucha model can be effective in the context of the
fast-changing online world, especially in cases
where parents lack understanding of the Internet
and the role it plays in their children’s lives.
Conversely, the challenge for models that place
trust in children is to ensure that this assurance
is well placed and that children are socially andtechnically empowered and supported to be able
to look after themselves and others. The reality isthat both approaches must reinforce each other.

8Child Safety Online

Programmes designed to support children
and young people to make informed choices,
based on a genuine awareness of the natureof risks involved, need to accommodate
an understanding of adolescent sexuality,role of the peer group, adolescent cultural
expectations, and assumptions aboutrisk from the perspectives of children andyoung people. Risk-reduction messages,
for example, need to place emphasis on the
problems that can arise from interacting withpeople met online, rather than trying to impartprevention messages that sound sensible
to adults but do not relate to normal use
or the nature of risk as perceived by young
people.75 An example of such messages
might be “don’t post personal information”.
Online risks can be minimized provided there
are external mechanisms to regulate theenvironment, strong and supportive parental
relationships, together with knowledge,
skills and awareness that enable the childor young person to navigate the online
environment effectively.
The responsibility to protect children in the
online environment should not be borne
only by parents and children. Policymakers,
professionals, such as teachers and social
workers, law enforcement agencies andthe private sector all have a role in creatinga safe external environment that allows
children and young people to benefit fromthe use of modern technologies without
experiencing harm.

Part Two
Building a Protective
Environment

There is much to be done in all parts of theworld, industrialized, middle- and low-income
countries. A comprehensive protection
response entails action involving a diversityof governmental and non-governmental
actors across a range of spheres. This
includes putting the ‘architecture’ in place− a legislative framework to define criminal
activity, the capacity to deter potential abusers
and prosecute offenders, and proactive
measures to restrict and inhibit access tochild abuse images by actual and potential
offenders. It also includes strengthening
joint work and intersectoral collaboration
between the justice and social welfare
sectors. It requires improving awareness ofchild protection services, educating otherprofessionals who work with children, suchas teachers, on the nature of risk and harmin the merged online/offline worlds, andimplementing measures to support children tostay safe. It involves promoting strategies toempower children to avoid harm. Investment
in welfare measures is required to address
the needs of children who have been harmed
through sexual exploitation and abuse via
the Internet and to build the capacity ofprofessionals who work with them.
Given its central role in designing and driving
the Internet, the private sector must recognizethat contributing to the wider social goal of
making the Internet safer for children andyoung people is intrinsic to expanding accessand innovating content. As Livingstone andHaddon have pointed out, as use of the Internet
becomes more personalized, the role of parents
or teachers becomes more difficult, whichplaces even greater responsibility on industry to
manage the risks that children may encounter.76
Failure to do this will expose the industry to riskof governmental or regional regulation that has

a negative impact on the freedoms embodied in
the Internet as it is today.
A broad response requires working directly withyoung people in the design and implementationof information and protection strategies.
Children and young people need information
about risks and how to avoid them, and themechanisms and pathways to follow if theyfind themselves in situations they judge to be
dubious. They need skills to make informed
choices in their cyberspace activities andto provide each other with support. This isincreasingly important as Internet usage
becomes more private (i.e. takes place inchildren’s private spaces, such as bedrooms,
in much of the industrialized world) and moremobile. Child protection mechanisms mustbe transparent, accessible and enforceable.
If children are to use them, they must feelsafe and be perceived as effective. The active
engagement of children in online protection
strategies provides an essential source ofexperience and expertise.
Building parents’ abilities to support theirchildren is also a vital component for online
safety. This is not to place the responsibility
for protection on children and parents alone,
but to recognize reality. The nature of thesocial space provided by the Internet and thefact that young people are pacemakers in its
exploration and use mean that they must beat the forefront in solutions to reducing risks,and parents are in one of the best positions
to support them. Parents need to be madeaware of the nature of risks and encouraged to
improve their understanding of young people’s
online activities.
In the industrialized world − country by country,
to a greater or lesser degree − some of these
Building a Protective Environment

9

elements are coming together. However, greaterlevels of coordination are required in the workthat is being undertaken. In many low- andmiddle-income countries, awareness of thenature of risk and the capacities to reduce or
respond to it are nascent at best. By its very
nature, abuse on the Internet has no borders;coordinated international action by justice andwelfare sectors is therefore essential.

International instruments
and commitments
Like a number of other child protection issues,
online abuse and exploitation of children isat the intersection of two sets of international
standards. Taken together, they provide aframework to address the phenomenon andinform the creation of a protective environment
for children. On the one hand, some international
instruments focus on abuse and exploitation asa child rights violation, in the broader context ofthe promotion and protection of children’s rights
and their interdependence and indivisibility. On
the other hand, several international instruments
aim to address various forms of transnational
crime, and while taking into account the humanrights of persons affected, tend to concentrate
on response and prosecution.
In this context, the five main international
instruments are:●● Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)●● Optional Protocol to the Convention on the

Rights of the Child on the sale of children,
child prostitution and child pornography(OPSC, 2000)●● Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish

Trafficking against Persons, Especially
Women and Children, supplementing
the United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime (‘Palermo
Protocol’, 2000)●● Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime(2001)●● Council of Europe Convention on theProtection of Children against Sexual
Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (2007).

Not only do these instruments provide guidanceon addressing and responding to sexual
exploitation and abuse of children in the online
10 Child Safety Online

environment, they also establish a set of legallybinding obligations for States Parties to takespecific measures in this respect. Together,
they elaborate a comprehensive framework ofchild rights, including definitions of offences
and provisions that require punishment for
criminalized behaviour, and allow for more
effective prosecution of perpetrators. The
Convention on the Rights of the Child has
a particular significance because it places
protection alongside other rights particularly
relevant to the benefits the Internet brings −freedom of expression, freedom to seek
information and freedom of association. The
OPSC and the Council of Europe Convention
on the Protection of Children against Sexual
Exploitation and Sexual Abuse also serve ascomprehensive examples of legal mechanismsthat require governments to implement andensure provision of services to assist childvictims and their families.
Although regional instruments have specificapplication only within the region in which
they are developed, they establish standards
or benchmarks for other countries to adopt andcomply with, and in some instances allow for
ratification by States from outside the region.
While under international law States havethe primary responsibility to ensure respect,promotion and protection of children’s rights,
the Convention on the Rights of the Childand additional instruments have recognizedthat other actors − such as parents, civilsociety, private sector service providers andbusinesses − also have a critical responsibility
in this regard.
Since the 1990s, the United Nations andrelated bodies, as well as various regional
bodies, have made additional commitments
and have adopted guidelines and codes ofconduct designed to strengthen child protection
mechanisms. Progress was accelerated withthe appointment in 1990 by the Commission
on Human Rights, of the Special Rapporteuron the sale of children, child prostitution
and child pornography; the Commission’s
adoption in 1992 of a Programme of Action; andsubsequently by the three global congresses
against Sexual Exploitation of Children(Stockholm 1996; Yokohama 2001; Rio deJaneiro 2008), which reaffirmed the humanrights-based goal of universal protection ofchildren from all forms of sexual exploitation.77
The World Congress III in 2008 led to the ‘Rio
Declaration’, which calls on States to undertake
specific and targeted actions to prevent andstop child abuse images and use of the Internet

and new technologies for the grooming ofchildren into online and offline abuse, andfor the production and dissemination of childabuse images and other materials.78 The earlier‘UN Study on Violence against Children’,
reported to the United Nations General
Assembly in 2006, also recognized the need forgovernments to “strengthen efforts to combat
the use of information technologies…in thesexual exploitation of children and other formsof violence.”79
However, despite the increased focus on
sexual exploitation and abuse of children at
the international level and the developmentof these new global and regional humanrights instruments, there continues to bea lack of systematic implementation of thenecessary legislation and subsequent action
at the national level. For example, in its
ongoing review of legislation related to childpornography, the International Centre for
Missing & Exploited Children has indicated that,
as of 2010, only 45 of the 196 countries reviewed
had legislation sufficient to combat child abuse
image offences, and 89 had no legislation at allthat specifically addressed child pornography.
Of the countries that do have legislation inplace, 52 do not define child pornography intheir national legislation; 18 do not provide forcomputer-facilitated offences; and 33 do notcriminalize possession of child pornography,
regardless of the intent to distribute.80
At regional level, the European Union has
recognized the need for collective action in
combating the sexual abuse and exploitation ofchildren, arguing that while national legislation
covers some of these issues, it does not address
sexual abuse and exploitation of children
through ICT nor is strong or consistent enoughto provide an effective response and protection
to child victims.81
Accordingly, in November 2011, the EU adopted
the Directive of the European Parliament andthe Council on combating the sexual abuse
and sexual exploitation of children and childpornography, and replacing Council Framework
Decision 2004/68/JHA. Among other actions,the Directive will criminalize forms of childsexual abuse and exploitation not currently
covered by EU legislation, such as grooming,
online pornographic performances and viewing
child pornography without downloading
files; establish lower thresholds for applying
maximum penalties; ensure that offenders
who are EU nationals face prosecution forcrimes committed outside the EU; provide
child victims of the offences covered withassistance, support and protection, including
for claiming compensation; share data relating
to the criminal convictions of sex offenders
between relevant authorities in member
States; and introduce mandated removal andoptional blocking of websites containing childabuse material.82
The EU was an early champion of self-regulation
as a means of keeping young people safe online.
In February 2007, leading mobile operatorsand content providers across the EU signed
the European Framework for safer mobile use
by younger children and teenagers. As of June
2010, codes of conduct were in place in 25 EU
member States, while under developmentin the remaining 2. The Framework commits
signatories to principles and measures, including
access control for adult content, awarenessraising campaigns for parents and children,and the classification of commercial content
according to national standards of decency andappropriateness. A June 2010 implementation
report found that it had been effective, with
83 mobile operators, serving 96 per cent of EU
mobile customers, implementing the Framework
through the codes of conduct.83
In February 2009, two years after the adoptionof the code on the safer use of mobile phones,
the European Commission facilitated the
production of a document entitled Safer
Social Networking Principles for the EU, which
was launched with 21 signatories from allof the largest SNS operational across the 27
member States. Privacy settings are a major
focus of the principles, but there are also
important provisions in relation to education
and awareness-raising activities and reporting
abuse. A second assessment of the social
networking principles was published in May
2011. Here the findings were more mixed; ofthe 14 SNS that responded to the survey, only
3 received high ratings in relation to explicit
information regarding the characteristics(e.g. age-appropriateness, availability, userfriendliness, etc.) of privacy settings.84
In June 2011, the European Commission held
its first Digital Agenda Assembly. This included
a specific workshop entitled ‘Every European
Child Safe Online’ where Digital Europe,
the trade association for a broad spectrumof high-tech companies, presented a draft
proposal to develop a new high-level frameworkof rights and responsibilities. Work on the draftis expected to be completed by early 2012.
Although there are at present no inter-American
protocols or instruments specific to the
Building a Protective Environment

11

protection of children in the online/offline
environment, relevant regional materials do
exist. The ‘Memorandum of Montevideo’,
developed in July 2009 by a group of regional
experts, provides a framework for protecting
children’s personal information in cyberspace.85
Designed to guide legislators, judges,
policymakers and law enforcement officers on
how to protect children’s personal data online,
the memorandum lists recommendations on
prevention and education, legal frameworks,
law enforcement and public policy.86 Although
the memorandum is not binding on any
Latin American state, it acts as an importantframework for states seeking to protect
children’s personal information online. Within
Africa, Asia and the Middle East, regional
coordination does exist, but it is largely ad hoc.

Challenges for law
enforcement andchild protection
Legislation and political commitments, whileof fundamental importance, cannot achievechange without mechanisms in place toimplement and enforce them, and services toprovide support to victims. Law enforcement
agencies are charged with the responsibilityof ensuring that laws are applied consistently
and effectively and offenders prosecuted andheld to account. They therefore have a vitalrole in challenging sexual exploitation andabuse of children in the online/offline merged
environment. Social welfare agencies have a
responsibility to promote and protect the bestinterests of children who have experienced
abuse. However, these two agendas may
sometimes come into conflict. The challenge is
to explore approaches that are both effectiveat bringing about successful prosecutions
while also ensuring that the interests of theindividual children concerned remain theparamount consideration.
The online environment of the 21st century has
transformed criminality in a number of ways:
as an advanced vehicle for communications,
it has created a transnational environmentthat provides new opportunities for harmful
activities, and the virtual nature of the online
environment means criminal activity cansometimes fall outside the jurisdiction of thecriminal justice process.87 Crime prevention
may no longer be only about surveillance andinvestigation within the immediate community
12 Child Safety Online

but instead may cross local, national andinternational boundaries. It may not be easy toassign a jurisdiction to a crime committed in
the virtual environment. Moreover, particularcrimes might also involve many victims fromdifferent countries, thus complicating legal
and child protection processes even further.
Crimes of online sexual abuse and exploitation
may involve offenders who perpetrate themin locations thousands of miles away from thechild victims. This poses serious challenges
and requires greater collaboration among thepolice forces in different countries, spanningvery different jurisdictional protocols, social andcultural environments, political expectations,and levels of capacity, technical expertiseand resources.88
Establishing that a crime of online sexual
exploitation or abuse of a child has occurred isoften not a straightforward process. A uniquecharacteristic of the online environment isthat physical contact between a child and an
offender does not need to occur for a crime tohave been committed. The challenges for law
enforcement agencies are particularly great
when the law does not provide clear definitionsof criminal activity. For example, to establishthat a crime has been committed is it sufficientto establish ‘intent’ to lure a child even if noactual physical contact has been made; whatevidence of ‘intent’ is required; what constitutesa ‘pornographic’ image of a child? In somejurisdictions, for example in Canada and theUnited Kingdom, both simulated and real
images of children engaged in sexual behaviour
are criminalized.
Children who are the subject of childabuse images or those groomed for sexual
exploitation may experience feelings of shameand complicity. Therefore, many victims ofInternet crime do not disclose their experiences
until the pictures or images are discovered,most typically by law enforcement agencies
during an investigation. However, even here
matters can be complicated. There havebeen recorded cases where even though law
enforcement officers were in possession ofimages of a child being abused, the child being
victimized has gone into denial and refused toacknowledge that they were featured.89
Most sexual abuse of children goes
undisclosed. When that abuse takes place
online, the level of disclosure is even lower.90
Some children who have been abused perceive
the persons they have formed a relationshipwith online as their boyfriends or girlfriends,
and they are emotionally dependent upon them.

Some children who are vulnerable to grooming
may be isolated and lacking in social support,
and are thus less likely to report victimization
to law enforcement agencies and others.
Furthermore, many children do not realize thatthey have been victims of a crime because
innocent images of children may be digitallytransformed into pornographic material anddistributed across the Internet without thevictim’s knowledge.91
The disclosure of abuse entails several
challenges that are often underestimatedand misunderstood. Children needacknowledgement of their feelings and fears
in order to cope with this experience. It is not
unusual for children to retract their allegations
due to fears of repercussions on them, theirfamily, others who are important in their lives
and the perpetrator of the abuse. Children are
not only affected by the abuse itself, but may
also be further traumatized by the disclosure orits consequences.92
The process of identifying children who appear
in child abuse images in order to protect themand offer appropriate psychosocial support canbe difficult. Images on the Internet can circulate
for many years, so a picture of a 5-year-old
girl, for example, may still be online 20 years
later. To help identify victims, INTERPOL (theInternational Criminal Police Organization) andsome national law enforcement agencies haveproduced databases of child abuse images.
By applying sophisticated image analysis
software, the police can assess whether animage of a child contained within, for example,
a collection that has just been seized, is identicalto ones that have already been discoveredby law enforcement agencies, and included
in a database of known images. Some ofthe software can also help identify children
who have been abused over long periods oftime, whose physical appearance may havechanged dramatically as they grew older.
This is important both for the developmentof a comprehensive case against an alleged
perpetrator and for determining the durationand nature of the abuse a child has suffered inorder to support recovery.
Databases of victim photographs are valuable
resources. They can save a great deal of police
time and reduce the need for officers to lookat the images directly. This latter aspect isparticularly important. Until relatively recently,
police work often necessitated repeatedviewings of images. However, new technology
has been developed that enables photographic
images to be reduced to a digital code, known

as a ‘hash’, which can then be used to track,
trace and compare images, without a police
officer needing to view the actual image.93
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on
the sale of children, child prostitution andchild pornography has pointed to the needfor explicit ethical policies that clarify how theimages are used, who has access to them, inwhat circumstances, and the rights of victims to
information about where and how the images
are held.94 Police units and hotlines that handle
child abuse images will typically have in place
protocols that govern the amount of time andthe locations for viewing and storage of images.
The harrowing nature of the images may posea challenge for those who work with them. It is
not uncommon to find that counselling services
are made available to police officers and staff
who work in hotlines where viewing abuse
images is an unavoidable part of the job.
The Internet is commonly perceived to offer
users, including potential offenders, anonymity,
enabling them to construct identities anddetermine when, how and to what extent
personal information is communicated to othersin the online environment.95 By so doing, theirpersonal identity or personally identifiable
information remains private. This presumed
anonymity creates a sense of security andsecrecy for both offenders and potential
victims.96 Traditionally, in an offline context, inorder to find their victims child sex offenders
needed to stalk playgrounds, social clubs andother public places where children tended togather. Today, the high level of social interaction
by children online provides offenders with a
new environment to target children, and therisks that they previously faced when making
face-to-face contact may appear to them,erroneously, to have been eliminated.
Investigations into online criminal activity arecomplex and time-consuming. They often
involve coordination across jurisdictions andconcern a huge network of offenders. There
are a number of constraints to effectively
carrying out such investigations. The first islimited specialist expertise. Tackling online/
offline child sexual abuse and exploitation
requires combined expertise in policing,computer and Internet technology and childprotection. Specialist units are largely absent
in many middle- and low-income countries,
meaning that staff are unlikely to have thenecessary training to investigate online crime.
Even where staff do possess the requisite
skills, the technology to investigate such crimes
may not be available. Consequently, many law
enforcement officers are at a disadvantage in
Building a Protective Environment 13

detecting, investigating and prosecuting onlinerelated crime.97
Another challenge is the lack of multiagency collaboration and coordination. Law
enforcement departments may not always
view online sexual exploitation as a protection
issue. Rather, in many countries, online/
offline sexual exploitation is categorized as‘cybercrime’. E-crime or cybercrime police
units are often primarily focused on fraud andorganized crime and may therefore have little
or no expertise, or professional interest, inchild protection. Whereas commercial childabuse websites may legitimately be classified
as organized crime or be investigated by police
officers more accustomed to dealing with fraud
or terrorism, much of the exchange of sexual
abuse images and grooming does not fall under
this umbrella. Police need to deliver a childcentred response, which rarely happens when
they investigate online abuse and exploitationof children on their own. The integration of childprotection specialists into an investigation, apractice recommended by the Child Exploitation
and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) in the
United Kingdom, ensures that the young
person is adequately safeguarded and theirwelfare is taken into account at each stage ofthe investigation.98
There is limited evidence available on how social
welfare professionals are responding to the
new challenges of child protection in the online/
offline environment. Two recent reports point toa lack of knowledge and awareness among social
workers of the risks of Internet abuse. Althoughboth are from northern Europe (Germany and
Norway), the pattern they identify is likely to be
replicated elsewhere.99 The studies suggest that,in general, professionals who come into contact
with children − schoolteachers, nursery andschool nurses, health personnel, police officers,social workers and counsellors/psychotherapists− are not sufficiently aware of the risks of abuse
via new technologies. If, for example, they wereconcerned about changes in a 13-year-old’s
behaviour, they might not consider that thechild could be the victim of abusive behaviour
online, and therefore would not ask the childabout his or her online life. Furthermore, these
professionals are not always prepared or able tohear what children want to tell them. The causes
identified include lack of professional confidence,
inadequate training, work pressure, emotional
barriers, their own values, attitudes and beliefs,
insufficient knowledge of the issues and lackof support. Bearing in mind how increasingly
central ICT is to children across the world, this

14 Child Safety Online

lack of awareness means that professionals are
failing to identify and investigate an increasingly
important context for abuse.100
To gain an overview of available rehabilitationand therapeutic services for children who
have been abused or exploited online, an ad
hoc survey of professionals and researcherswith expertise in the field was conducted
as part of this study.101 Responses werereceived from 10 of the 20 countries that wereinvited to participate − Australia, Bahrain,
Denmark, Germany, Iceland, India, Latvia,
the Russian Federation, South Africa and theUnited Kingdom – and they produced thefollowing findings:●● In some countries, there is separate anddistinct guidance for the police and social
workers; in others there is guidance only forthe police. In some countries, the existingguidance is not adhered to and is out-of-date.

●● Staff in centres that offer recovery services

to children who have experienced trauma
report they do not feel confident in working
with such cases.

●● Six countries were able to describe examplesof national/regional police and social workers
working together. These included specificinvestigations that had been carried out andongoing service delivery, such as hotlines.

●● Nine of the 10 countries consulted do nothave national systems for recording thenumbers and nature of Internet-mediatedcrimes against children. Within somecountries, there are pockets of informationfrom sources, such as helplines, CEOP
and ad hoc recovery services. Iceland,
however, was the exception. It has one
central point-of-call through which childprotection referrals are channelled. Known
as Kinder House (Children’s House), it offersa universal service to all children throughout
the country who have been victimized, andruns a multidisciplinary model working in
partnership with police, social workers,
lawyers and counsellors.

●● Four of the respondents stated that

there were no examples of their country
working collaboratively on international
investigations; one additional respondent
did not know of any, while the remaining fivedescribed complex international operations
that have lasted several months and involved
a number of countries, which have resulted

in children being safeguarded and theperpetrators of abuse being convicted.
●● Bahrain, which has little in place regarding

a strategic response to Internet-related
crimes against children, reported that it had
conducted a State of the Nation Review
of Internet Safety in 2010. In addition toproviding a comprehensive analysis ofInternet safety issues among adults andchildren, it establishes recommendations forchild Internet safety.

While this survey was limited in scope andconducted specifically for the purpose of thisproject, these findings reveal a mixed patternof provision. Some good practice does exist,
but there is a need for more systematic andcoordinated processes across government
and involving all relevant agencies, if effective
protection of children is to be achieved.

A framework for response
Recognizing the major benefits the Internet andassociated technologies can bring, the huge
potential to transform lives and the way they
have become integral to modern society and are
now an intrinsic part of young people’s social
landscape, this report proposes a strategic
framework for protection that addresses four
key objectives:
1. Empowering children and enhancing
resilience to harm
In much of the reporting of Internet crimes
by the media, there is a tendency to portraychildren and young people, particularly girls,
as actual or potential victims with little agency.
With regard to online child abuse images,
which generally involve children younger than10, their consent or capabilities usually havelittle bearing on whether or not they have comeinto harm’s way. However, studies from acrossthe globe indicate that for online grooming or
cyberbullying, child agency is critical.
Specifically in relation to grooming, young
people’s experimentation, exploration andinterest in defining themselves socially andsexually are all risk factors. Conversely, young
people’s exploratory orientation enables themto access the many benefits of the Internet
in terms of education, culture and creativity.
Hence, preventive and protective responses
must take into account the extent to whichchildren’s participation in online communication
potentially engages them in risk-taking
behaviour but also plays an important role intheir identity construction, self-efficacy andsocial network production in a social space thatyoung people have made their own.
Active participation by children and young
people in developing and implementing
protective measures will lead to strategies
that make sense to them and are therefore
more likely to be effective. Ensuring that they
have the best possible information about thenature of risks associated with online activities,
empowering them to take the necessary actions
to prevent exposure to harm, and providingthem with necessary support from key adults
in their lives are all important. Children andyoung people need to know where to go for
help, recognizing that they, themselves, area key source of much of that help. They need
opportunities and means to report unacceptable
activity or behaviour, counselling when needed,
and confidence not only that action will betaken when they are harmed or abused, but thatthey will be respected as active agents. This
will involve:●● Providing information to children thatenables them to make informed choices,
avoid risks, and find and offer help whenneeded. Many countries have developed
innovative materials to communicate withchildren that can be adapted to different
country contexts. SaferNet Brasil, forexample, has created an educational kit
on Internet safety designed for educatorswith the aim of improving their students’
online safety.102 In the Bolivarian Republic ofVenezuela, the children’s group Manos porla Niñez e Adolecencia (Hands for Children
and Adolescents) promotes Internet safety
for children, adolescents, adults and Internet
cafe owners.

●● Introducing effective reporting mechanisms,

such as hotlines, report abuse functions,and online supports to pre-empt abusive
situations. In some social networking sites,
an icon on the home page allows children
who are worried about the behaviour ofsomeone communicating with them can,with one click, share their concerns and thenbe linked to a law enforcement agency.

●● Strengthening parental capacities toprotect children through programmes that
inform parents about the benefits andrisks associated with ICT, strategies that

Building a Protective Environment 15

children and young people can adopt tokeep safe, potential sources of help, and theimportance of dialogue and engagementwith their children.
●● Building capacity among professionals

who work with children to alert them to therisks children face and teach them how torecognize warning signs and symptoms.
In Thailand, for example, a digital literacy
initiative on safe Internet usage resulted
in a training module which has been used
to train some 300 teachers. Those teachers
subsequently delivered safety messages tomore than 70,000 children.103●● Involving children as campaigners andadvocates, and utilizing their uniqueinsights and experiences to inform thedevelopment of more effective protection.
In Benin, the Gambia, Kenya, Mozambique,
Nigeria, South Africa and Togo, with ECPAT
support, young people have createdpublic awareness campaigns on the risks
associated with the online environment andthe responsibilities of governments and
ICT providers to ensure better protection ofchildren online.104●● Tackling cyberbullying through thedevelopment of initiatives that promote a
commitment to zero tolerance of violence
and abuse in schools, including cyberspace,
and that create educational measures basedon principles of acceptance, respect anddecency among students.105 In Croatia, forexample, a national campaign to confront
cyberbullying led to significant changes
in schools, including the reductionof violence.

2. Removing impunity for abusers
As long as abusers are confident that they can
get away with exploiting or abusing children
without the risk of prosecution or social
condemnation, they will continue to do so. It istherefore essential to remove impunity for those
who continue to do so in the merged online/
offline environment.
Sexual abuse and exploitation of children online
is a global problem that can only be addressed
effectively through coordinated action at alllevels: national, regional and global. Without
this commitment, perpetrators of child abusemay choose to concentrate their efforts incountries that offer the least protection tochildren and where exploitation is, from their

16 Child Safety Online

perspective, easier to carry out and less likely
to be detected and prosecuted. Building acommon approach across jurisdictions isimportant, as it allows for consistency incriminalization and punishment, raises publicawareness of the problem, increases services
available to assist affected children, andimproves overall law enforcement efforts at thenational and international levels.106
Given the huge differences in existing legal
frameworks in jurisdictions across theworld, safeguarding children from online
abuse and prosecuting abusers presents
a daunting challenge. Drafting legislation
to protect children in the merged online/
offline environment is complex. Establishinga coherent global approach intensifies thedifficulty of that task significantly. Building
an environment that challenges the ‘cost
benefits’ to abusers and removes their impunity
requires a holistic approach. Such an approach
must seek to secure the indivisible nature ofchildren’s human rights, and must be global,
implementing the relevant international
standards and promoting collaboration andcommunication among governments.
The following key approaches are proposed
as fundamental building blocks in establishing
the legislation and law enforcement framework
required to remove impunity for abusers:●● Introduction of effective national legislation,

including clear definitions of a child,sexual consent, and what constitutes childpornography or child abuse images; thecriminalization of the sexual exploitation ofchildren by adults, including possessing,
downloading or creating child abuse images,
grooming, sexual abuse without contact
and attempt crimes; effective sanctions andpenalties; and measures to address thechallenges of jurisdiction and extradition.

●● Adoption of a broad range of law

enforcement strategies, including close
collaboration with social welfare and childprotection agencies, covert operations andvictim identification. Social workers, teachersand psychologists can provide invaluableguidance to ensure the use of appropriate
interrogation and interview techniques,
and can help police maintain a clear focus
on the protection of victims during theprosecution of offenders. Some countries,
including Australia, Canada, New Zealand,
the United Kingdom and the United States,
which work together as part of the VirtualGlobal Taskforce, have introduced specialist
units that focus on the prosecution of
online sexual exploitation and abuse ofchildren, enabling different professionals tocollaborate on cases.
●● Cooperation with Internet service providers(ISPs), the online payments industry andother private sector stakeholders to trackchild sex abusers and to close down
channels to this type of crime. Examples
include: the Financial Coalition against
Child Pornography, set up by the National
Center for Missing & Exploited Children in
the United States and supported by banks
and other institutions; and the European
Financial Coalition against Commercial
Sexual Exploitation of Children Online, which
was initially led by CEOP and supported by
MasterCard and Visa, among others. In 2009,
the Financial Coalition in the United States
established an Asian initiative involvingbanks and financial institutions based in
Singapore. Microsoft has also partneredwith law enforcement agencies and ISPs
in various countries to develop initiatives
to stop child sexual exploitation overthe Internet.

●● Consideration of mandatory reporting byprofessionals who work with children on
suspected abuse, bearing in mind that
effective reporting is dependent on thequality of services available to respondto reports.107 Mandatory reporting could
be extended to include others who may
discover evidence of child sex abuse
as a consequence of their profession(for example, ICT professionals, photodevelopers and computer servicing
companies).108●● Collaboration among law enforcement

agencies at the international level andthe development of tools that help gather
evidence in criminal cases and facilitate
data exchange among police forces
across countries. INTERPOL, for example,
coordinates large-scale investigations
that involve multiple member countries
and utilize an effective law enforcement
tool known as the ‘Green Notice’. The tool
alerts the international law enforcement
community to offenders who are likely torepeat the same crimes in other countries.109●● Assurance that children involved in online

sexual offences will not be held criminallyliable. Children should be acknowledged

as victims, regardless of whether they are
a compliant victim or a non-cooperative
witness. Where children under 18 areengaged in sexual abuse or harassment
online and the child’s behaviour was deemed
to be illegal, the response of States shouldbe through the juvenile justice system
in collaboration with the child protection
system, rather than the criminal justicesystem, in line with international standards.110
3. Reducing availability and accessto harm
While the primary goal is the elimination of
online/offline sexual exploitation and abuseof children, the reality is that many millions ofchild abuse images continue to be available on
the Internet and are likely to remain there forthe foreseeable future. Strategies are needed toreduce the numbers of images being created,
stored and circulated, as well as to limit accessfor both potential abusers and the children
who may encounter harmful sites while online.
The continued presence of child abuse images
encourages further exploitation of children,
leads to increased numbers of abusers, andresults in children being exposed to repeated
and indefinite abuse. The best interests ofchildren must be ensured by making thegreatest possible efforts to ensure that theirimages are quickly removed from further
circulation, that access to commercial sites isblocked, and that mechanisms are introduced tolimit availability and access.
Some children will continue to behave in risky
ways regardless of the information provided
to them, through their spirit of exploration,lack of awareness of the implications of theiractions both socially and in terms of the natureand consequences of technology, misplaced
confidence that they are in control, andassumptions that it is others, not themselves,
who are at risk.
As stated earlier in this report, the ICT industry
has an important set of responsibilities todischarge in relation to reducing risk. Whileleadership by committed companies isessential, so too is collective action. To stem theavailability of abuse images and reduce harm,close collaboration is required by governmentswith private sector actors, including ISPs, social
networking sites, Internet cafe owners and sitehosting services. Joint efforts should include:●● Developing codes of conduct and systemsof self-regulation. These offer a mechanism

Building a Protective Environment 17

through which businesses can express andmeet human rights standards by adopting
voluntary, non-binding best practices asa guide for management and employees.
Drafting codes of conduct poses challenges,
as companies may consider profits, public
relations and human rights as mutuallyantagonistic. The experience of the United
Kingdom suggests that codes of conduct thatare not linked to demonstrably independentand effective means of monitoring
performance will fail to inspire publicconfidence.111 A conflict of interest may arise if
multinational companies monitor themselves
or are monitored by their subcontractors.
Without independent third-party monitoring
there may be little real incentive for abusiness entity to observe the terms outlinedin the code.
●● At the local level, promoting codes ofconduct in Internet cafes to encourageowners to introduce measures thatwill prevent children who use theirestablishments from being exposed toinappropriate sites, materials or abusive
behaviours (and ensuring clear liability forcafes that fail to protect children).

●● Blocking websites that contain child abuse

images in order to deny access by potential
abusers. Blocking is controversial as itraises fears about wider censorship. If used,
it should remain in place only until theillegal material is removed at the source.112
Although blocking tools are not always
considered effective (images are historic,use of small secure areas of the Internet has
increased, illegal content may be hosted indifferent countries), blocking measures may
still be needed to target child abuse material.

●● Taking down sites in order to remove

abusive images from the Internet altogether,commonly known as ‘notice and takedown’.113 When a child abuse image site orcontent is identified and reported, the ISP
that hosts the site is notified and is required
to remove the illegal material. Moderating
abusive activity on these sites representsa challenge, given the volume of material
involved. Notice and take-down has proved
effective in some countries, including acrossthe EU.114 However, despite the fact thatchild abuse images are illegal across many
jurisdictions − which might be thought tofacilitate effective take-down − their removal
tends to be dealt with less speedily thanother kinds of illegal Internet activity.115 Partof the challenge lies with inadequate police

18 Child Safety Online

resources and the priority often given to
pursuit of offenders rather than preventive
measures, such as the removal of sites.
●● Leaving aside child abuse images, there

is also a clear need for a wider set of childprotection measures, such as developing
strong, easy-to-use and optional security
measures built into interactive forums suchas chat rooms or SNS, and ensuring that thedefault position on safety settings is opt-out
rather than opt-in.

●● Filters and other types of parental control

software enable parents to manage andsupport their child’s access. Evidence shows,
however, that despite this availability, justover half of parents actually activate thefiltering software on their computers.116
Some think it is activated automatically,
while others believe that their children
can bypass the controls. For example, theHong Kong Council of Social Service is raisingawareness of effective ways to use online
filtering services and software by providing
free filtering services and educating parentson their use. Even simple measures such as
ensuring that a web browser is set to ‘safe
search’ can provide added protections forchildren, yet few parents may know how
to put that in place. The challenge for the
search engine community is to determine
whether to install safe search on all browsers
by default, or to make much clearer how tolaunch it on all computers, particularly thoseused by children.

4. Promoting the recovery of children
exposed to harm
Despite legislative, policy and protective
mechanisms introduced to prevent sexual
abuse and exploitation, the fact is that somechildren have already experienced harm andothers will be harmed in the constantly evolving
world of cyberspace and its interface with theoffline environment. The available researchon effective strategies for minimizing theimpact and supporting children’s recovery andrehabilitation in this context is still in its infancy.
What exists has almost exclusively been
undertaken in the industrialized world. However,there is sufficient knowledge of the implicationsof online abuse and its links with children’s
offline experiences to begin to identify the key
strategies required to provide the necessary
psychosocial support for children. While thepath to abuse may be particular, good practicewould entail integrating the Internet dimension
into recovery systems that deal with abusemore generally, rather than setting up specialist
services. This will require:●● Treatment interventions for abused childrenthat address building trust and that supportand help children to make sense of theirexperience. Some children victimized byonline grooming experience feelings ofshame because they were ‘fooled’ into an
online relationship with an abusive adult.
Others see themselves as having autonomy
and control and therefore do not recognize
themselves as victims who are in need ofassistance.117 Most children abused throughonline grooming are conflicted; they perceive
themselves as acting like an adult online,
yet they continue their role as a child/young
person offline.118 Assistance to parents is
also needed so they can understand theirchildren’s online experiences and offer
them support.

●● Child-sensitive approaches to discovery

during criminal investigations that take
into account the profound difficulties often
experienced by children and young people indisclosing online abuse. Consideration needs
to be given, for example, to ensure the proper
timing and pace of interviews, recording themto avoid repeated testimony, and helping
the child gain a sense of agency and control

that has been denied during the experienceof abuse. In response to the need to protectabused children from further trauma during
the investigative process, some countries
such as Canada, Iceland, the United Kingdom
and the United States have adopted
one-stop centres. In those centres, trained
professionals from law enforcement, mental
health, victim advocacy and health-care work
together to gather forensic information andprevent retraumatization of victims.119●● Preparation for court to ensure thatchildren understand the process, their rolein the proceedings, what support will beavailable to them, and how to protect theirconfidentiality, as well as offering debriefing
and counselling when court experiences
have been difficult.120●● Treatment for young people who display

sexually abusive behaviours online. Suchtreatment should be rooted in the same
approaches used for those who commit
sexually harmful acts offline. This should
include a comprehensive assessment of
the child and how to effectively intervene
through rehabilitation and counselling;assessment of the child’s development
and motivation; and active involvement of
parents in the process.

Building a Protective Environment 19

© Penny Tweedie / Panos Pictures

COnClUSIOnSThe powerful impact of the Internet on the livesof children throughout the world will continue
to grow and evolve . While Internet accessand child usage are highest in industrializedcountries, the global pace of web access andbroadband penetration, and the exponential
uptake of mobile phone technologies, coupledwith increasing capacities and decreasing costs,
means that the rest of the world is beginning tocatch up . In the next few years, it is anticipatedthat the most dramatic changes will occur inlow- and middle-income countries .
At the moment, most of the evidence related
to certain kinds of abuse comes from theindustrialized world . Likewise, most of theevidence of the ways young people use theInternet and associated technologies, and therisks they face therein, comes from the same
regions . Yet even there, major knowledge gaps
exist . There is little information, for example,
about online use by children with disabilities,
cyberbullying and the challenges faced bylesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young
people . The gaps in knowledge about risk andInternet usage in Africa, as well as in most partsof Asia and the Middle East, are significant andrequire urgent research .
The limited research available from low- andmiddle-income countries, however, indicatesthat the issues raised in this report are
globally relevant, or will soon be . For example,
researchers are already learning that children
from virtually all countries use SNS in largely
similar ways, creating easy opportunities forpotential groomers to interact with them .
Children from low- and middle-income countries
are less likely to use the Internet from home, andare more likely to go online from cybercafes,
where they are at greater risk of encountering
inappropriate images and online and offline
solicitation . Lack of parental awareness andknowledge, difficult economic conditions
and underdeveloped regulatory frameworks
can further exacerbate potential risks and thelikelihood of harm . Hence, it seems that the gaps
in protection for children and young people in
the online environment may be greater in lowand middle-income countries, where gaps inoverall child protection already exist .

Globally, the evolution of ICT usage is at achallenging juncture . Only a small proportionof contemporary adults had access to ICT
when they were children, particularly thetools that have facilitated the revolution ininteraction and communication . This has
probably affected the ability of adults tounderstand and empathize with the ways
children and young people use the Internet,
mobile phones and other new technologies .
This may be especially true in societies
where children’s social activity, particularlythat of adolescents, has been under fairly
direct parental observation or control .
Over time that situation may change, astoday’s computer-literate, social-networking
young people become parents themselves .
They may have less anxiety about the riskof exploitation and abuse because they
will have been part of the generation thatdeveloped ways of handling it . On the other
hand, the nature of the creativity unleashedby ICT means there will always be newelements that pose new avenues for risk that
require innovative strategies for response .
Where access is widespread, ICT has in avery short period of time revolutionized theway people live their lives and interact witheach other . In those places where accessis expanding, these changes are currently
unfolding . We know that considerable
changes are still to come, but we do not
yet know what those changes will be .
Cyberspace throws into sharp relief thesocial roles and responsibilities of actors
beyond the State, namely the private
sector and individuals themselves . It has
the potential to enrich individuals andsociety alike, helping to remove barriers
between people, paving the way forinteraction, education and development,
but also presenting opportunities forwrongdoing . Children are at the forefrontof this dilemma . While children and young
people are intrinsic to building a safer
Internet, the onus is on governments andthe private sector to ensure that protection
is integrated into promoting expansionof access and the positive benefits theInternet brings .
concluSIonS 21

Notes

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online,‘The Right Click: An agenda for creating a safer
and fairer online environment for every child’,
European NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online,
eNACSO, Copenhagen, June 2010, pp. 2, 5, 8, 17,available at: www.enacso.eu/images/stories/
Documents/manifesto/afafinal6may.pdf, accessed
22 August 2011.
Lobe, B., et al. (with members of the EU Kids Online
network), Cross-National Comparison of Risks andSafety on the Internet: Initial analysis from the EU
Kids Online survey of European children, EU Kids
Online, London School of Economics and Political
Science, London, August 2011, p. 13.
United Nations General Assembly, Report of theSpecial Representative of the Secretary-Generalon the issue of human rights and transnational
corporations and other business enterprises, John
Ruggie, Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect,
Respect and Remedy” Framework, A/HRC/17/31,
United Nations, New York, 21 March 2011, Guiding
Principles 11 and 13 (b).
Livingstone, S., et al., ‘Risks and Safety on theInternet: The perspective of European children, Full
Findings and policy implications from the EU Kids
Online survey of 9–16 year olds and their parents
in 25 countries’, EU Kids Online, London School of
Economics and Political Science, London, 2011.
Livingstone, S. and L. Haddon, EU Kids Online:
Final report, EU Kids Online, London School of
Economics and Political Science, London (ECSafer Internet Plus Programme Deliverable
D6.5), June 2009, p. 10. The study covered 21
European countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Carr, J. and Z. Hilton, Digital Manifesto, Children’s
Charities Coalition on Internet Safety, London,
2009, p. 29.
Carr, J., ‘Briefing Note on Child Abuse Images
and the Internet’, Children’s Charities Coalition on
Internet Safety, London, July 2010, p. 2.
Internet Watch Foundation, Annual and Charity
Report 2010, IWF, London, 2010, p. 1; Quayle, E.
and T. Jones, ‘Sexualised images of children on theinternet’, Sexual Abuse, vol. 23, no. 1, March 2011,
pp. 7–21.
See, for example: Office of the Federal
Ombudsman for Victims of Crime [Canada],
Every Image, Every Child: Internet-facilitated childsexual abuse in Canada, Department of Justice,
Government of Canada, 2009, p. 8, available at:www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/pdf/childp-pjuvenile.pdf;
Wolok, J., D. Finkelhor and K. J. Mitchell, Child
Pornography Possessors Arrested in Internet-

22 Child Safety Online

10

11
12

13

14

15
16

17

18

Related Crimes: Findings from the National Juvenile
Online Victimization Study, National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, Alexandria, VA,
2005, pp. vii, 5, 6.
Internet Watch Foundation, Annual and Charity
Report 2010, IWF, London, 2010, p. 8, available
at: www.iwf.org.uk/accountability/annualreports/2010-annual-report; Internet Watch
Foundation, Annual and Charity Report 2006,
IWF, London, 2006, p. 8, www.enough.org/
objects/20070412_iwf_annual_report_2006_web.
pdf.
Internet Watch Foundation, Annual and Charity
Report 2010, p. 8.
Baines, Victoria, ‘Online Child Sexual Abuse:
The law enforcement response – A contributionof ECPAT International to the World Congress
III against Sexual Exploitation of Children andAdolescents’, ECPAT International, Bangkok,
November 2008, p. 2.
Webster, S., et al., Scoping Report: European Online
Grooming Project, European Online Grooming
Project for the European Commission Safer
Internet Plus Programme, London, April 2010, p. 7.
The report defines young persons as those aged
16 or younger.
Mitchell, Kimberly J., et al., ‘Use of Social
Networking Sites in Online Sex Crimes Against
Minors: An examination of national incidence andmeans of utilization’, Journal of Adolescent Health,vol. 47, no. 2, August 2010, pp. 183–190.
Webster, S., et al., Scoping Report: European Online
Grooming Project, p. 13.
Ethel Quayle, ‘Sexualized Images of Children on theInternet’, Sexual Abuse, vol. 23, no. 1, March 2011,
pp. 7–21.
Wolak, J., et al., ‘Online “Predators” and their
Victims: Myths, realities and implications forprevention and treatment’, American Psychologist,
vol. 63, no. 2, February–March 2008, pp. 111–128,
available at: www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/
amp-632111.pdf.
See, for example: Wolak, J., D. Finkelhor and
K. J. Mitchell, Child Pornography Possessors
Arrested in Internet-Related Crimes: Findings
from the National Juvenile Online Victimization
Study, National Center for Missing & ExploitedChildren, Alexandria, VA, 2005, available at: www.
missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC144.pdf;
Sullivan, C., ‘Internet Traders of Child Pornography:
Profiling research’, New Zealand Department ofInternal Affairs, Wellington, 2005; Webb, L., J.
Craissati and S. Keen, ‘Characteristics of Internet
Child Pornography Offenders: A comparison withchild molesters’, Sex Abuse, vol. 19, 16 November
2007, pp. 449–465; Bates A., and C.A. Metcalf,‘A Psychometric Comparison of Internet and
Non-Internet Sex Offenders from a Community

Treatment Sample’, Journal of Sexual Aggression,
vol. 13, no. 1, March 2007, pp. 11–20; Baartz,D., ‘Australians, the Internet and TechnologyEnabled Child Sex Abuse: A statistical profile’,Australian Federal Police, Canberra, Australia,
2008; Quayle, E., L. Loof and T. Palmer, ‘Child
Pornography and Sexual Exploitation of Children
Online: A contribution of ECPAT International to
the World Congress III against Sexual Exploitationof Children and Adolescents’, ECPAT International,
Bangkok, November 2008.
19 See, for example: Wolak, J., K. Mitchell and D.
Finkelhor, ‘Unwanted and Wanted Exposure to
Online Pornography in a National Sample ofYouth Internet Users’, Pediatrics, vol. 119, no. 2,
February 2007, pp. 247–257, available at: http://
pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/2/247.
full.pdf+html; Mossige, S., M. Ainsaar and C.
Göran Svedin, eds., The Baltic Sea Regional Studyon Adolescents’ Sexuality, NOVA, Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, Oslo, 2007,
p. 37; Soldatova, G., ‘Russian School-children as
Internet Users: Types and risk groups’, Foundation
for Internet Development, 1999; Muhammad T.,‘Danger for children at Pakistan’s cafes’, ECPAT
newsletter No 48, July 2004, p.5, citing Pakistan
Paediatric Association and Save the Children
Sweden, Exposure of children to pornography atInternet cafes of Pakistan, 2001.
20 See, for example: Liao, Lih Mei, and S. M.
Creighton, ‘Requests for Cosmetic Genitoplasty:
How should healthcare providers respond?’, BMJ,
vol. 334, no. 7603, 24 May 2007, pp. 1090–1092;
and Braun, V. and L. Tiefer, ‘The “Designer
Vagina” and the Pathologisation of Female Genital
Diversity: Interventions for change’, Radical
Psychology, vol. 8, no. 1, 2010, n.d.
21 See, for example: Lo, Ven-Hwei, and Ran
Wei, ‘Exposure to Internet Pornography andTaiwanese Adolescents’ Sexual Attitudes
and Behaviour’, Journal of Broadcasting &Electronic Media, vol. 49, no. 2, June 2005,
pp. 221–237; Livingstone, S., et al., Risks andsafety on the internet, Full findings, 2011; CWIN
Nepal, ‘Protecting Children in Cyberspace’,
Kathmandu, 2009, available at: www.nta.gov.np/
articleimages/file/Protecting%20Children%20
in%20Cyberspace%20WTIS.pdf, accessed 21
August 2011; Rauniar, Deepak, ‘Cyber Cafes of
Nepal: Passage to cyber crime?’, South Asia
Partnership International and Bellanet Asia,
Lalitpur, Nepal, March 2007; Chetty, Iyavar, andAntoinette Basson, ‘Report on Internet Usageand the Exposure of Pornography to Learners
in South African Schools’, Film and Publication
Board, Houghton, South Africa, November 2008.
22 See, for example: Cross, D., et al., Australian
Covert Bullying Prevalence Study (ACBPS), Child
Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan
University, Perth, Australia; Livingstone, S., etal., Risks and safety on the internet, Full findings
2011; SaferNet Brasil Surveys 2009, available at:www.safernet.org.br/site/prevencao/pesquisas;Davidson, Julia, State of the Nation Review
of Internet Safety 2010, Telecommunications
Regulatory Authority, Kingdom of Bahrain,
Manama, 2010; Shariff, Shaheen, Cyber-Bullying:
Issues and solutions for the school, the classroom

23

24
25
26

27

28

29

30
31
32

33

34
35

36

37

and the home, Routledge, London and New
York, 2008; National Children’s Home and Tesco
Mobile, ‘Putting U in the Picture: Mobile bullying
survey 2005’, NCH, n.d.
See, for example: Shariff, S., Cyber-Bullying:
Issues and solutions for the school, the classroom
and the home, Routledge, London and New York,2008.
Livingstone, S., et al., Risks and safety on theinternet, Full findings 2011.
See: Sharif, Shaheen, Cyber-Bullying.
See, for example: Keith, Susan, and Michelle E.
Martin, ‘Cyber-Bullying; Creating a culture ofrespect in a cyber world’, Reclaiming Children andYouth, vol. 13, no. 4, Winter 2005, pp. 224–228; andSharif, Shaheen, Cyber-Bullying.
Raskauskas, Juliana, and Ann D. Stoltz,‘Involvement in Traditional and Electronic Bullying
among Adolescents’, Developmental Psychology,
vol. 43, no. 3, May 2007, pp. 564–575.
See, for example: Hasebrink, U., et al., Patternsof risk and safety online: In-depth analyses fromthe EU Kids Online survey of 9-16-year olds andtheir parents in 25 countries, London School of
Economics and Political Science, London: EU Kids
Online, August 2011, pp. 7, 22, 31.
International Telecommunication Union, ‘Useof Information and Communication Technology
by the World’s Children and Youth: A statisticalcompilation’, ITU, Geneva, June 2008; Lenhart, A.,et al., ‘Social Media & Mobile Internet Use Among
Teens and Young Adults’, Pew Internet & American
Life Project, Washington, D.C., 2010.
Livingstone, S. and L. Haddon, EU Kids Online:
Final report 2009, p. 5.
Livingstone, S., et al, Risks and Safety on theInternet, Full findings, p. 31.
International Telecommunication Union, ‘Use ofInformation and Communication Technology by
the World’s Children and Youth ; Livingstone, S.
and L. Haddon, EU Kids Online: Final report 2009.
Safer Internet Programme, Eurobarometer,
Towards a safer use of the Internet for children in
the EU – A parents’ perspective, Eurobarometer,
European Commission, Brussels, December 2008,
p. 13.
Livingstone, S., et al., Risks and Safety on theInternet, Full findings, p. 26.
Davidson, J. and E. Martellozzo, State of
the Nation Review of Internet Safety 2010,
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority,
Kingdom of Bahrain, Manama, 2010, available at:www.tra.org.bh/en/pdf/SafeSurf_TRA_Report.pdf,
accessed 7 September 2011.
Chetty, Iyavar, and Antoinette Basson, ‘Report on
Internet Usage and the Exposure of Pornography
to Learners in South African Schools’, Film andPublication Board, Houghton, South Africa,
November 2006, p. 23.
Center of Studies on Information andCommunication Technologies, ‘Survey on the Useof Information and Communication Technologies
in Brazil 2009’, CETIC.br, Brazil Internet Steering
Committee, São Paolo, 2010, p. 227, available at:www.cetic.br/english/. This percentage includes
individuals who declared having accessed
the Internet at least once in their lives fromany location.

Notes 23

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

ITU, ‘Use of Information and Communication
Technology by the World’s Children and Youth’,pp. 29, 41.
Symantec, ‘Norton Online Living Report 09’,
Mountain View, CA, 2009, pp. intro, 4, 13, 14.
The countries surveyed were Australia, Brazil,
Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy,
Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom and theUnited States; the survey is available at: www.
protegiendoles.org/documentacion/estante4/
NOLR_Report_09.pdf, accessed 19 August 2011.
International Telecommunication Union, ‘The
World in 2010: ICT facts and figures’, ITU, Geneva,
2010, pp. 4–5; available at:www.itu.int/ITU-D/
ict/material/FactsFigures2010.pdf,accessed
26 August 2011.
Center of Studies on Information andCommunication Technologies, ‘Survey on
the Use of Information and Communication
Technologies in Brazil 2009’, CETIC.br, 2009; pp.
54, 133, 239.; Center of Studies on Information andCommunication Technologies, ‘Survey on the Useof Information and Communication Technologies
in Brazil 2008’, CETIC.br, 2008; p. 228; Centerof Studies on Information and Communication
Technologies, ‘Survey on the Use of Information
and Communication Technologies in Brazil 2006’,
CETIC.br, 2006, p. 113.
Data provided by the Japanese Delegation to theOECD , Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development, The Protection of Children
Online: Risks faced by children online and policies
to protect them, OECD Digital Economy Papers,
No. 179, OECD Publishing, Paris, May 2011, p. 10;
and Eurobarometer 2008, annex tables andsurvey details, Towards a safer use of the Internet
for children in the EU – A parents’ perspective,
analytical report, table 21b, p. 112.
ITU, Use of Information and Communication
Technology by the World’s Children and Youth,
2008, p. 33. Chapter 5, p. 19 of the report includes
the following classifications: Children refers toindividuals in the age group 5–14 or younger; andYouth refers to individuals in the age group 15–24.
Lenhart, A., et al., ‘Social Media & Mobile Internet
Use Among Teens and Young Adults’, Pew Internet& American Life Project, Washington, D.C., 2010,
available at: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1484/
social-media-mobile-internet-use-teensmillennials-fewer-blog, accessed 9 June 2011.
Livingstone, S., et al., Risks and Safety on theInternet, Full findings, p. 5, available at: www2.
cnrs.fr/sites/en/fichier/rapport_english.pdf,
accessed 12 October 2011.
Socialbakers.com, ‘India Facebook Statistics,
Penetration, Demography’, Socialbakers Ltd.,www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/
india#chart-intervals, accessed on 12 October
2011.
Socialbakers.com, ‘Brazil Facebook Statistics’,
Socialbakers Ltd., www.socialbakers.com/
facebook-statistics/brazil, accessed on
12 October 2011.
Byron, T., Safer Children in a Digital World: The
Report of the Byron Review, Department forChildren, Schools and Families, Annesley, UK,
March 2008, available at: http://media.education.
gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/s/safer%20children%20

24 Child Safety Online

49

50
51

52

53

54

55

56
57

in%20a%20digital%20world%20the%202008%20
byron%20review.pdf.
See, for example: Davidson, J., E. Martellozzo
and M. Lorenz, ‘Evaluation of CEOP ThinkUKnow
Internet Safety Programme and Exploration ofYoung People’s Internet Safety Knowledge’, Centre
for Abuse & Trauma Studies, Kingston University,
London, July 2009, available at:http://cats-rp.org.
uk/pdf%20files/Internet%20safety%20report%20
4-2010.pdf, accessed 21 August 2011; Davidson,
J. C. and E. Martellozzo, ‘Educating children about
sexual abuse and evaluating the Metropolitan
police safer surfing programme’, Project Report,
Metropolitan Police, London, 2004; Donath, J.,and d. boyd, ‘Public displays of connection’, BT
Technology Journal, vol. 22, no. 4, October 2004,
pp. 71–82, available at: www.danah.org/papers/
PublicDisplays.pdf; and Child Exploitation and
Online Protection Centre, ‘Understanding Online
Social Network Services and Risks to Youth:
Stakeholder perspectives – A preliminary report on
the findings of the CEOP Centre’s social network
seminar series’, Child Exploitation and Online
Protection Centre, London, 2006.
Donath, J., and d. boyd, ‘Public displays ofconnection’.
See, for example: Davidson, J., E. Martellozzo
and M. Lorenz, ‘Evaluation of CEOP ThinkUKnow
Internet Safety Programme; International Youth
Advisory Congress (A CEOP led VGT initiative),‘IYAC Children and Young Persons’ Global
Online Charter Supplementary Document’, Child
Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre,
London, 2008.
Lobe, B., et al. (with members of the EU Kids Online
network), Cross-National Comparison of Risks andSafety on the internet: Initial analysis from the EU
Kids Online survey.
See, for example: SaferNet Brasil Surveys, 2009;and Davidson, J., State of the Nation Review ofInternet Safety 2010, p. 4.
See, for example: van der Gaag, Nikki, Because
I Am a Girl: The State of the World’s Girls 2010 –Digital and urban frontiers: Girls in a changing
landscape, Plan International, Brussels, 2010,
available at: <http://plan-international.org/girls/
resources/digital-and-urban-frontiers-2010.php>,
accessed 27 August 2011; SaferNet Brasil Surveys,
2009; Lenhart, A., et al., ‘Social Media & Mobile
Internet Use Among Teens and Young Adults’, Pew
Internet & American Life Project, Washington, D.C.,
2010, p. 8; CWIN Nepal, ‘Protecting Children in
Cyberspace’.
See: Lenhart, A., ‘Teens and Sexting: How and why
minor teens are sending sexually suggestive nudeor nearly nude images via text messaging’, Pew
Internet & American Life Project, Washington, D.C.,
15 December 2009, available at www.pewinternet.
org/~/media//Files/Reports/2009/PIP_Teens_and_
Sexting.pdf.
Lenhart, A., Teens and Sexting, and SaferNet Brasil
Surveys, 2009.
Ybarra, M. L., and K. J. Mitchell, ‘How Risky
Are Social Networking Sites?: A comparison ofplaces online where youth sexual solicitation andharassment occurs’, Pediatrics, vol. 121, no. 2,
1 February 2008, pp. e350–e357; available at: http://
pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/121/2/e350.

58

59
60

61

62

63
64

65

66

full, accessed 26 August 2011; Ybarra, M. L., etal., ‘Internet Prevention Messages: Targeting theright online behaviors’, Archives of Pediatric andAdolescent Medicine, vol. 161, no. 2, February
2007, pp. 138–145, available at: http://archpedi.
ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/2/138.
Optem, ‘Safer Internet for Children: Qualitative
study in 29 European countries – Summary
report’, Eurobarometer, Brussels, May 2007,
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/quali/ql_safer_internet_summary.pdf.
Ybarra, M. L., et al., ‘Internet Prevention
Messages’, pp. 138–145.
See, for example: UNICEF Regional Office forWest and Central Africa, ‘Promoting Synergies
between Child Protection and Social Protection:
West and Central Africa’, Overseas Development
Institute and United Nations Children’s Fund,
London and Dakar, 2009, available at: www.odi.
org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=3477&title=childprotection-social-protection-west-central-africa.
Mitchell K. J., D. Finkelhor and J. Wolak, ‘Risk
factors for and impact of online sexual solicitationof youth’, The Journal of the American Medical
Association, vol. 285, no. 23, 20 June 2001,
pp. 3011–3014; Dawes, A. and A. Govender, ‘The
Use of Children in Pornography in South Africa’,
Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria,
2007, available at: www.hsrc.ac.za/Research_
Project-796.phtml.
Livingstone, S., ‘e-Youth: (Future) policy
implications – Reflections on online risk, harm andvulnerability’, Presentation at ‘e-Youth: balancing
between opportunities and risks’ (26–28 May 2010,
Antwerp, Belgium), London School of Economics
Research Online, London, June 2010, available at:
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27849/.
van der Gaag, Nikki, Because I Am a Girl: The Stateof the World’s Girls 2010.
van der Gaag, Nikki, Because I Am a Girl: The
State of the World’s Girls 2010 ; Bawagan, Aleli,and Anjanette Saguisag, ‘The Role of the Private
Sector, particularly ISPs and Internet Cafe Owners,
as Active Partners in Protecting Children from
Sexual Abuse and Exploitation in the Philippines:
An on-going case study by UNICEF Philippines’,
UNICEF, Makati City, Philippines, n.d., available
at: <www.unicef-irc.org/files/documents/d3600-Working-with-internet-ser.pdf>, accessed
21 August 2011; Plan India, ‘Girls in a Changing
Landscape: Urban and digital frontiers – The
state of the girl child in India 2010’, New Delhi,
September 2010.
See, for example: Long Island Networkof Community Services/BiasHELP,‘STOPtechNObullying: LGBTQ – Lesbian, gay,bisexual, transgender and questioning youth’,
Hauppauge, New York, 2011, available at: http://
stoptechnobullying.org/lgbtq.php, accessed 22
August 2011; and Shariff, Shaheen, Cyber-Bullying.
‘Understanding social networking services
and risks to youth, Stakeholder perspectives’,
a preliminary report on the findings of the
CEOP centre’s social network seminar series,
Child Exploitation and Online Protection
Centre, London, 2006; SaferNet Brasil Surveys
2009, available at: www.safernet.org.br/site/
prevencao/pesquisas

67 Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre,‘Understanding Social Networking Services andRisks to Youth: Stakeholder perspectives – A
preliminary report on the findings of the CEOP
Centre’s Social Network Seminar Series’, CEOP,
London, 2006, available at: www.ceop.police.uk/
Documents/socialnetwork_serv_report_221206.pdf.
68 ‘Staying Safe Survey 2009: Young people andparents’ attitudes around Internet safety’,
Department for Children, Schools and Families,
Government of the United Kingdom, Runcorn, UK,
December 2009; Livingstone, S. and L. Haddon,
EU Kids Online: Final report.
69 Livingstone, S. and L. Haddon, EU Kids Online: Finalreport.
70 See, for example: Davidson, J., State of the Nation
Review of Internet Safety 2010 ; Staksrud, E. and S.
Livingstone, ‘Children and Online Risk: Powerlessvictims or resourceful participants?’, Information,
Communication & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, 2009,
pp. 364–387; Gallup Organisation, ‘Towards a
Safer Use of the Internet for Children in the EU’(Eurobarometer), http://ec.europa.eu/public_
opinion/flash/fl_248_en.pdf.
71 ‘Staying Safe Survey 2009: Young people andparents’ attitudes around Internet safety’; andLivingstone, S. and L. Haddon, EU Kids Online:
Final report.
72 Cho, Chang-Hoan and Hongsik John Cheon,‘Children’s Exposure to Negative Internet Content:
Effects of family context’, Journal of Broadcasting& Electronic Media, 1 December 2005, pp. 488–509.
73 See: Staksrud, E. and S. Livingstone, ‘Children and
Online Risk’.
74 See, for example: Voices of Youth, ‘Survey on
Internet Use, 2010’ (internal document), United
Nations Children’s Fund, New York; van der Gaag,
Nikki, Because I Am a Girl: The State of the World’s
Girls 2010.
75 See: Davidson, J., E. Martellozzo and M. Lorenz,‘Evaluation of CEOP ThinkUKnow Internet Safety
Programme and Exploration of Young People’s
Internet Safety Knowledge’.
76 Livingstone, S., et al., Risks and safety on theinternet, Full findings 2011.
77 For a comprehensive overview of legal frameworks,
see: Newell, P., ‘Legal Frameworks for Combating
Sexual Exploitation of Children’, UNICEF Innocenti
Research Centre, Florence, 2008.
78 Third World Congress against Commercial Sexual
Exploitation of Children, ‘The Rio de Janeiro
Declaration and Call for Action to Prevent and Stop
Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents’,2008, p. 6, available at: www.ecpat.net/
WorldCongressIII/PDF/Outcome/WCIII_Outcome_Document_Final.pdf, accessed 7 September 2011.
79 United Nations, Report of the independent expert
for the United Nations study on violence againstchildren, A/61/299, United Nations General
Assembly, New York, 29 August 2006, p. 32, para.
114 (j).
80 International Centre for Missing & ExploitedChildren, ‘Child Pornography: Modellegislation & global review’, 6th ed., ICMEC,
Alexandria, VA, 2010. Information available
at: www.icmec.org/missingkids/servlet/
PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_
X1&PageId=4346, accessed 22 September 2011.

Notes 25

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Directiveon Combating Sexual Abuse, Sexual Exploitationof Children and Child Pornography, repealing
Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA’, European
Commission, Brussels, 29 March 2010, available
at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.
do?reference=MEMO/10/107.
European Union, Legislative Acts and Other
Instruments – Directive of the Parliament and of theCouncil on combating the sexual abuse and sexual
exploitation of children and child pornography, andreplacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/
JHA, European Union, Brussels, 4 November 2011.
Also see: Council of the European Union, ‘EU takes
action to combat sexual abuse of children andchild pornography’, press release, Council of theEuropean Union, Brussels, 15 November 2011.
GSMA, Mobilising Europe’s Digital Agenda, GSMA,
London, 2010, www.gsmworld.com/our-work/
public-policy/gsma_europe/mobilising/downloads/
GSMA_UmbrellaStory_A5Brochure.pdf; GSM
World, European Framework (webpage), see: www.
gsmworld.com/our-work/public-policy/framework_
mobile_use_younger_teenagers_children.htm.
Donoso, V., Results of the Assessment of the
Implementation of the Safer Social Networking
Principles for the EU. Individual Reports ofTesting of 14 Social Networking Sites, European
Commission, Safer Internet Programme,
Luxembourg, May 2011, available at: http://
ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/
social_networking/eu_action/implementation_
princip_2011/index_en.htm. Also see: Donoso,
V., Assessment of the implementation of theSafer Social Networking Principles for the EU
on 14 websites: Summary report, European
Commission, Safer Internet Programme,
Luxembourg, 2010.
‘Memorandum on the Protection of Personal
Data and Privacy in Internet Social Networks,
Specifically in Regard to Children and Adolescents’,2009, PDF available, in order of language, in
Spanish, Portuguese, English and French, www.
iijusticia.org/esp_port_eng_fran.pdf, accessed 30
August 2011.
Gregorio, Carlos, ‘Sexual Abuse and Exploitationin the Converged Online/Offline Environment: A
point of view from Latin America’, unpublisheddocument; InSafe Annual Report 2010, InSafe,
Brussels, October 2010.
See, for example: Wall, David S., ‘The Internet
as a Conduit for Criminal Activity’, Chapter 4 inApril Pattavina, ed., Information Technology andthe Criminal Justice System, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA, 2005, pp. 77–98, available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=740626, accessed 7 September 2011.
Stephens, Gene, ‘Policing the Future: Law
enforcement’s new challenges’, The Futurist,
March–April 2005, pp. 51–57, www.policefuturists.
org/pdf/M-A2005Futurist_Stephens.
Palmer, T., ‘Sexual abuse and exploitation in theconverged online/offline environments: Referral
services and rehabilitation, (unpublished paper for
the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre).
See, for example: Palmer, Tink, ‘Behind theScreen: Children who are the subjects of abusive
images’, in Quayle, Ethel and Maxwell Taylor,

26 Child Safety Online

eds., Viewing Child Pornography on the Internet:
Understanding the offence, managing the offender,
helping the victims, Russell House Publishing,
Lyme Regis, UK, 2005; Palmer, T. and L. Stacey,
Just One Click: Sexual abuse of children and young
people through the Internet and mobile phone
technology, Barnardo’s, Ilford, UK, 2004; Von
Weiler, Julia, Annette Haardt-Becker and Simone
Schulte, ‘Care and Treatment of Child Victims ofChild Pornographic Exploitation (CPE) in Germany’,
Journal of Sexual Aggression, vol. 16, no. 2, July
2010, pp. 211–222.
91 Palmer, T., ‘Sexual Abuse and Exploitation in theConverged Online/Offline Environments: Referral
services and rehabilitation’, 2010 (unpublishedpaper prepared for the UNICEF Innocenti ResearchCentre).
92 Quayle, E, L. Loof and T. Palmer, ‘Child pornography
and exploitation of children online. A contributionof ECPAT International to the World Congress
III against Sexual Exploitation of Children andAdolescents’, ECPAT International, Bangkok, 2008.
93 Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft 2010 Corporate
Citizenship Report, Microsoft Corporation,
Redmond, VA, 2010, p. 47 ; Cornell University
Law School, Legal Information Institute, Use tocombat child pornography of technical elements
relating to images reported to the CyberTipline,
U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 110, No. 2258C,
available at: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_
sec_18_00002258---C000-.html.
94 Maalla, N. M. ‘Report of the Special Rapporteuron the sale of children, child prostitution and childpornography’, A/HRC/12/23, United Nations, New
York, 13 July 2009, p. 12; available at <www.unhcr.
org/refworld/docid/4ab0d35a2.html>, accessed
1 September 2011.
95 Nissenbaum, H., ‘The Meaning of Anonymity in
an Information Age’, The Information Society,vol. 15, 1999, pp. 141–144, available at: www.nyu.
edu/projects/nissenbaum/paper_anonimity.html,
accessed 22 September 2011.
96 Farfinski, S., UK Cybercrime Report, Garlik,
Richmond, UK, n.d., available at www.garlik.com/
press/Garlik_UK_Cybercrime_Report.pdf.
97 See, for example: Police Commissioners’
Conference Electronic Crime Working Party, ‘The
Virtual Horizon: Meeting the law enforcement
challenges – Developing an Australasian law
enforcement strategy for dealing with electronic
crime’, ACPR-RS-134.1, Australasian Centre for
Policing Research, Payneham, Australia, 2000.
98 Interview with the Child Exploitation and Online
Protection Centre, March 2011.
99 Von Weiler, J., A. Haardt-Becker and S. Schulte,‘Care and Treatment of Child Victims of Child
Pornographic Exploitation (CPE) in Germany’,
Journal of Sexual Aggression, vol. 16, no. 2, July
2010, pp. 211–222. Berggrav, S., Omsorg på nettet:
Er det mitt ansvar?, Barnevernets utfordringer i åmøte overgrepp på internett, Redd Barna (Care on
the Internet: Is it my responsibility? The challengesof the Child Welfare Services in meeting online
abuse, Save the Children Norway), Oslo, 2010.
100 Palmer, T., ‘Sexual Abuse and Exploitation in
the Converged Online/Offline Environments’(unpublished paper prepared for the UNICEF
Innocenti Research Centre).

101 Survey conducted in September 2010 by Tink
Palmer, United Kingdom for the purposes ofthis paper.
102 SaferNet Brasil, ‘Nética: Ethics and education fordeveloping cyber-citizenship in Brazil’, 2010, http://
files.eun.org/insafe/blog/Netica.doc, accessed
31 August 2011.
103 Child Protection Partnership (CPP) Digital Literacy
Initiative, in collaboration with IICRDTrend
Microsystems and Certiport Implementation
by The Aspire Group Company (TAGC), 2010
(unpublished document).
104 Odhiambo, Victoria, ‘Youth Mobilization to Promote
Codes of Conduct in Internet Cafes in Africa’,
Presentation for Corporate Engagement in IT
Companies Seminar, ECPAT World Congress III,Rio de Janeiro, 27 November 2008; available at:www.ecpat.net/WorldCongressIII/PDF/
Publications/T4_WS3c.pdf, accessed
31 August 2011.
105 Sharif, S., Cyber-Bullying, p. 256.
106 International Centre for Missing & ExploitedChildren, ‘Child Pornography: Model legislation &global review’.
107 Human Rights Council, ‘Joint Report of theSpecial Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child
Prostitution and Child Pornography, and theSpecial Representative of the Secretary-Generalon Violence against Children’, A/HRC/16/56,
United Nations, New York, 7 March 2011, available
at http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/
document/a-hrc-16-56_204.
108 International Centre for Missing & ExploitedChildren, ‘Child Pornography: Model legislation &global review’.
109 International Criminal Police Organization,‘Notices & Diffusions’, INTERPOL, Lyon, France,
22 June 2011, available at: www.interpol.
int/Public/Notices/default.asp, accessed
2 September 2011.
110 United Nations Economic and Social Council,‘Guidelines on Justice Matters involving Child
Victims and Witnesses of Crime’, Resolution
2005/20, United Nations, New York, 22 July 2005.
111 Few of the codes of good practice developed
within the United Kingdom under the auspices ofthe Home Secretary’s Task Force on Child Internet
Safety had any monitoring provisions attachedto them. This approach was expressly rejected
in a review conducted in 2008 by Professor
Tanya Byron, available at: www.education.gov.
uk/ukccis/about/a0076277/the-byron-reviews,
and further endorsed by the Bailey Review, www.
education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a0077662/
bailey-review-of-the-commercialisation-andsexualisation-of-childhood-final-report-published.
112 Internet Watch Foundation, 2009 Annual andCharity Report, IWF, Cambridge, UK, 2009, available
at: www.iwf.org.uk/assets/media/annual-reports/
IWF%202009%20Annual%20and%20Charity%20
Report.pdf.
113 Moore, T. and R. Clayton, ‘The Impact ofIncentives on Notice and Take-Down’, in Managing
Information Risk and the Economics of Security,
Springer, New York, 2009, pp. 199–223.
114 See, for example: Using blocking to combat online
child abuse images: Questions & Answers, Q3.
Can’t sites known to contain child abuse images
just be taken down, as they are illegal?, European
NGO Alliance for Child Safety Online.
115 Moore, T. and R. Clayton, ‘The Impact of Incentives
on Notice and Take-Down’.
116 Ofcom’s Submission to Safer Children in A Digital
World, p. 95.
117 Nyman, Anders, Abused Online, BUP Elefanten(Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Unit) and theCounty Council of Östergötland, n.d. ; Palmer T.,‘Sexual abuse and exploitation in the converged
online/offline environments’ (unpublished paper
prepared for the UNICEF Innocenti ResearchCentre).
118 Palmer T., ‘Sexual abuse and exploitation in
the converged online/offline environments’(unpublished paper prepared for the UNICEF
Innocenti Research Centre).
119 See, for example: Office of the Federal
Ombudsman for Victims of Crime [Canada], Every
Image, Every Child, p. 30.
120 Lansdown, G., Article 12: The Right of the Childto be Heard: A resource book for governments,
UNICEF/Save the Children/OHCHR, London,
forthcoming.

Notes 27

28
© Bjoern Steinz / Panos Pictures

Acronyms

CEOP

Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (United Kingdom)

ECPAT	End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for
Sexual Purposes
EU

European Union

ICT

information and communication technology

INTERPOL

International Criminal Police Organization

IRC

Innocenti Research Centre (UNICEF)

ISPInternet service provider

ITU

International Telecommunication Union

IWF

Internet Watch FoundationLGBT

lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (people)

OPSC	Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children,
child prostitution and child pornographySNSsocial networking site

Acronyms 29

Glossary

Terms relating to sexual abuse and­exploitation of children
child – Every human being below the age ofeighteen years unless under the law applicableto the child, majority is attained earlier (article
1, Convention on the Rights of the Child).
child abuse images – Representation, bywhatever means, of a child engaged in realor simulated explicit sexual activities or any
representation of the sexual parts of a childfor primarily sexual purposes (see ‘childpornography’ below). Although there is nointernationally agreed definition of ‘child abuse
images’, this report uses the term as defined
above and is preferred over child pornography
because it leaves no doubt that abuse andexploitation are involved.
child pornography – Any representation,by whatever means, of a child engaged inreal or simulated explicit sexual activities or
any representation of the sexual parts of achild for primarily sexual purposes (article 2,
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the
Rights of the Child on the sale of children,
child prostitution and child pornography).
In this report, the term ‘child abuse images’
is preferred.
child prostitution – Use of a child in sexual
activities for remuneration or any other formof consideration (article 2, Optional Protocol
to the Convention on the Rights of the Childon the sale of children, child prostitution andchild pornography).
child sexual abuse – As defined in article
18 of the Council of Europe Convention on
the Protection of Children against Sexual
Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (CETS No. 201,
also known as ‘the Lanzarote Convention’):(a) Engaging in sexual activities with a child
who, according to the relevant provisions ofnational law, has not reached the legal age forsexual activities;(b) Engaging in sexual activities with achild where:
30 Child Safety Online• use is made of coercion, force or threats;• abuse is made of a recognized position oftrust, authority or influence over the child,including within the family;• abuse is made of a particularly vulnerable
situation of the child, notably because of amental or physical disability or a situationof dependence.
The provisions of paragraph (a) are not intended
to govern consensual sexual activities between
minors [children under 18 years old] (article 18.3).
child sexual exploitation – Child prostitution,
child pornography and the participation of achild in pornographic performances, including
recruiting, coercing or causing a child toparticipate in pornographic performances, or
profiting from or otherwise exploiting a childfor such purposes and knowingly attending
performances involving the participation ofchildren; intentionally causing a child who has
not reached the legal age for sexual activities
to witness sexual abuse or sexual activities,
even without having to participate; and thesolicitation of children for sexual purposes(Council of Europe Convention on the Protectionof Children against Sexual Exploitation and
Sexual Abuse, articles 18–23).
online child sexual abuse – Production,
distribution, downloading or viewing of childabuse material (both still and video images),
also known as child pornography; online
solicitation of children and young people toproduce self-generated child abuse material,
to engage them in sexual chat or other online
sexual activity, or to arrange an offline meetingfor the purposes of sexual activity, also known
as grooming or luring; and facilitation of anyof the above. There is no agreed definition of
online child sexual abuse in international law;for the purposes of this report, the term isdefined as noted above.
online grooming – Defined by various
authors and used in this report to describe aprocess intended to lure children into sexual
behaviour or conversations with or without
their knowledge, or a process that involves

communication and socialization between theoffender and the child in order to make him or
her more vulnerable to sexual abuse. The term
‘grooming’ has not been defined in international
law; some jurisdictions, including Canada, use
the term ‘luring’.
online/offline environment – The interface
between computer-mediated communicationand face-to-face communication. ‘Online’ entails
non-physical communication and ‘offline’
involves physical interaction.
paedophile – A diagnostic category referring
to an exclusive sexual orientation towards
prepubescent children. It does not accurately
portray those who sexually abuse children
via the Internet and mobile technology, manyof whom are married or in long-term sexual
relationships with adults. Therefore, in thisreport, the terms ‘child abuser’ or ‘sexual
abuser’ are used.
sale of children – Any act or transaction
whereby a child is sold by any person or groupof persons to another for remuneration or any
other consideration (Optional Protocol to theConvention on the Rights of the Child on thesale of children, child prostitution and childpornography, article 2(a)).
sexual abuser – Anyone who sexually offends
against children or engages in any sexual
activity with a child, commonly called a‘paedophile’, but as noted above, the terms‘child abuser’ or ‘sexual abuser’ are more
appropriate. There is no internationally agreed
definition of this term.
solicitation of children for sexual purposes –The intentional proposal, through informationand communication technologies, of an adult tomeet a child who has not reached the legal age
for sexual activities, for the purpose of engaging
in sexual activities or the production of childpornography (adapted from Council of Europe
Convention on the Protection of Children
against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse,article 23).

broadband – A high-capacity digital connectionthat facilitates a faster Internet connectionand enables a more rapid exchange oflarger files such as videos, games andsoftware applications.
browser – A software program that is selectedby the consumer and used to locate anddisplay pages on the World Wide Web (webpages). Popular browsers include Microsoft’s
Windows Internet Explorer, Firefox, Google
Chrome, Safari and Opera.
chat room – Virtual ‘meeting rooms’ where
people can communicate by typing inmessages to each other, or chat, in real time.
Most chat rooms focus on a particular topic,
but some are more general and are created
to provide a forum for individuals to meetother people.
cyberspace – The virtual shared universe of
the world’s computer networks. The term wascreated by William Gibson in his 1984 novel
Neuromancer. It is often used interchangeably
with ‘the Internet’.
download – The process in which data arecopied to a computer from the Internet or
another source such as an external drive, adisk, a phone or other devices. Data that are
typically downloaded on to a computer forviewing, storage and future access include text
files, photographs, videos and music.
email – Short for ‘electronic mail’, a tool thatallows someone to send a message, or ‘email’,to another person’s electronic mailbox over acommunications network such as the Internet.

Terms relating to the online environment

filter – A mechanism to sift out and block
access to certain material. Most child-safety
software packages use a filtering component;
the program may be designed to operate on
an individual personal computer or it may
be applied to a network of computers. Oftena filtering component is provided ‘free’ as
an integral part of a computer’s operating
system, or it will come as part of a connectivity
package from a user’s Internet service
provider. Customized filters have also beendeveloped for mobile phones and consoles.

blog – Websites that have entries, or‘posts’, including text and images, typicallydisplayed in chronological order. Entire
blogs or particular posts can be public andavailable to everyone online, or private andavailable only to users who are authorized by
the blog owner/author.

information and communication technology(ICT) – Any communication device orapplication, encompassing radio, television,
cellular phones, satellite systems, andcomputer and network hardware andsoftware, as well as associated services andapplications such as videoconferencing anddistance learning.
Glossary 31

instant messaging (IM) – Text-based
communications service similar to a chatroom. The key difference is that chat rooms
are usually public spaces where anyone canparticipate, while IM systems generally rely
on a ‘buddy list’ or some other list of people
predetermined by the user. Only people on thelist can communicate with the user, hence eachuser has control over whom he or she includes
in instant messaging. Google Chat, MSN and
Twitter are examples of IM services; most social
networking sites (see definition below) have an
IM function.
(the) Internet – Worldwide network of
hundreds of thousands of interconnectedcomputer networks, using a common setof communication protocols and sharing acommon addressing scheme. The Internet
facilitates the transmission of email messages,
text files, images and many other types of
information between computers.
Internet service provider (ISP) – A commercial
enterprise that provides users with direct accessto the Internet, usually for a fee, or a businessthat provides Internet services such as website
hosting or development.
online – Controlled by or connected to acomputer network or the Internet, and any
activity or service that is available on or carriedout via the Internet. A person is ‘online’ when sheor he has logged into a network of computers, or
has connected a computer or other device to theInternet. The term ‘offline’ describes activity thatis not carried out online as well as the conditionof being disconnected from the Internet.
peer-to-peer (P2P) – Software that allows
transmission of data directly from one
computer to another over the Internet, usually
without needing to involve a third-party server.

smartphones – Mobile phones thatincorporate a complete operating system
and are able to access the Internet. In many
ways, they are like tiny computers, withmore memory and bigger screens thanordinary phones.
social media – Primarily Internet- andmobile-based tools for sharing anddiscussing information. ‘Social media’
most often refers to activities that integratetechnology, telecommunications and social
interaction, and are used to share words,
pictures, videos and audio.
social networking sites (SNS) – Online
utilities that enable users to create profiles,
public or private, and form a network offriends. SNS allow users to interact withfriends via private and public means,such as messages and instant messaging,and to post user-generated content,such as photos and videos. Examples of
SNS include Facebook, MXit, Myspaceand Orkut.
text messaging/texting – Short text
messages sent using mobile phones,
wireless handheld devices (such as Sidekick)and personal digital assistants (basic
handheld computers known as ‘PDAs’).
upload – The process of transmitting datafrom a user’s machine to a server.
video sharing – Like photo sharing (seeabove) but for videos. These videos areoften user-generated; the largest video
sharing website is YouTube.

penetration – How widely a technology gets
adopted among people to whom the technology
is available.

virtual worlds – Online simulated threedimensional environments inhabited by
players who interact with each other via
avatars (movable icons representing aperson in cyberspace). Second Life, ormore popularly with young people, Teen
Second Life, are examples of virtual worlds.

photo sharing – An application that enables
users to upload, view and share photos; users
can allow either public or private access.

webcam – A video camera that is built
into or connected to a computer that isconnected to the Internet.

sexting – A form of text messaging/texting (seedefinition below) in which people send picturesof a sexual nature or sexually explicit text. Thisis especially common among teenagers.

World Wide Web (WWW) – A hypertextbased system for finding and accessing
data on the Internet. The Web hosts
documents, called web pages, which
may be linked with other documents orinformation systems. The Web is a portionof the Internet and not all servers on theInternet are part of the Web.

short message service (SMS) – The common
text messaging service available on mobile
phones, other handheld devices and computers.
32 Child Safety Online

Front cover photo: © UNICEF/NYHQ2010-3011/Pirozzi

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre
Piazza SS. Annunziata, 1250122 Florence, Italy
Tel: (39) 055 20 330
Fax: (39) 055 2033 220
florence@unicef.org
www.unicef-irc.org

ISBN: 978-88-6522-004-7
IRC stock no: 645U
© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
December 2011