Sixth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum
27 -30 September 2011
United Nations Office in Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
September 28, 2011 - 16:30PM
***
The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the Sixth Meeting of the IGF, in Nairobi, Kenya. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> Could we ask the tech guys upstairs to turn the PowerPoint on, please? Thank you.
>> Guys, can we try that again with the PowerPoint? Thank you.
[Waiting for session to begin]
>> So thank you so much for joining this panel, which is on the Framework for International Cooperation on Child Online Protection.
And it's organized jointly by ITU, and UNICEF ‑‑ and I am going to moderate this panel.
So I am very pleased to welcome you to the panel and also introduce our six panelists that we are very pleased to have here today. Maybe we should just do round of introductions, and then we can start the panel. Maybe if you want to go first?
Mr. John Car, the expert advisor of the ‑‑ for Child Safety organization and advisor to the U.K. Government and then we have ‑‑ Gillian Murray from ‑‑ and John ‑‑ inspector Child Safety Crime group, Queensland Police Service Australia. Cybercrime research in Germany.
Then we have Andrew ‑‑ chief of Child Protection at the Research Center. And JeoungHee Kim from ITU. Let me just give you a brief introduction to the panel.
As we all know, ICTs have provided great opportunities for children and benefits for children in the past decade. And providing opportunities for vacation and social purposes, facilitating information, culture, entertainment, communication and social networks. It has also helped children to actually be protected from violence and exploitation, as they can now report violence through mobile phones, or Internet help lines. Also seek assistance and support.
However, as we have seen in some of the other workshops yesterday and today it also poses some risks to children. And this is for the well‑being and safety and ‑‑ as children are exposed to different forms of abuse and exploitation and new forms of harm and what we will focus on here today.
And since Internet is global and cross‑border, it's critical that we cooperate at an international level, looking at legal, technical and institutional challenges. And that's the purpose of this panel today.
So I am very pleased to introduce to you Mr. Andrew Matson who will start and give some perspective from UNICEF.
>> Welcome. My presentation is too long and as Clara my colleague from UNICEF is moderating time, I will move swiftly on. She covered the very first points I would like to make. I think it's important when we talk about protection to for people to realize we are not being naysayers or negative about the Internet. It's extremely important that protection as a child's right to protection as defined under the Convention of the Rights of the Child as the other rights and benefits the child can get from the Internet, including as Clara pointed out, that the ICTs in general, are also affording a whole new opportunities for building stronger protection for children.
But as she also pointed out, there are some hazards and it's not that these are necessarily particularly new, just the ICTs offer new avenues for some old and familiar problems, around child sex abuse and exploitation to name two. Those are, are the two issues I will focus on today. We at the Research Center, small UNICEF research center based in Italy ‑‑ what evidence from research around the world on child sex abuse images and sex exploitation and bullying, areas of behavior involving offline and online behaviors converge, not a purely online issue, but also what people do in the offline worlds.
And, of course, the bulk of evidence to date is primarily from the United States of America, Europe and parts of Asia, where Internet penetration is at greatest. Brazil, South Africa, parts of Asia, points out these kinds of issues around sex abuse images and sex exploitation are becoming issues as access expands in other parts of the world.
And I think this is an important message for places where in a sense this might be perceived as a bit of a issue or non‑issue at the moment. Two things is the research is really not taken place in many low‑income countries what really is taking place and that's important for us to notice and fill that gap and to the now and in the immediate future, but also the likelihood is the hypothesis at the moment shall we say, that as access expands to will the geographical spread.
Our review has been looking at ICT usage by children, forms risk and harm, who is vulnerable and who is not. Child protection and law enforcement responses. And what would be the components of an effective strategies that countries around the world both international cooperation and at national levels might be seeking to put in place, in essence, building blocks. Hopefully coming out in a few month's time. Here some relevant ‑‑ many of you come from industrialized are countries not necessarily particularly new, but it's nevertheless worth repeating.
As I have said, online sex abuse exploitation is a subset of abuse, takes place in other contexts. It has some specific dimensions and impacts ‑‑ not necessarily particularly different from what happens or what was happening before the Internet was invented.
And I think another important finding and one which is causes discomfort sometimes is for certain types of abuse, absent bullying ‑‑ but it's important to stress is they are part of the solution.
There's the popular fear, maybe manifested in media and elsewhere that the Internet endangers all children is not supported by the ‑‑ so far certainly from Europe and other industrialized countries. It's also important not to regard children as a block. Sometimes when discussions somehow people under the age of 18 are regarded as one mass of people and all the same, and obviously they are not. Nor Internet savvy young people necessarily socially skilled or adept at identifying risk and age, experience, background, the wider social context around the web, et cetera, are all factors that influence people's in a sense their vulnerability.
Of course, different locations of access carry overlapping different risks. If you are accessing the Internet through a Internet Café, the kind of risks which you ‑‑ the majority of access in many low‑income countries the kinds of risks are different than the ones which exist if accessing through home or your school.
You are in proximity with adults who are possibly downloading pornography or other risk factors. Nevertheless when you are at home you are maybe in your bedroom and you are actually accessing without parental supervision and going off into a great world of meeting new people, et cetera, getting up to getting things. But which are also potentially risky. Just because you are at home doesn't necessarily mean the risk is taken away.
A point, which is obvious and my colleague ‑‑ mobile phones, will speak to mobile phones, are the future of access and are already socially indispensable in many parts of the world. Bringing benefits and hazards. Parents, for example, and children being able to communicate with each other and around risk factors. But also hazards in terms of the ability, for example, of parents to supervise what children are up to. Issue, I think, it's been phrased by other researchers, more knowledgeable than I, it's personalization of the whole route of access, which is, of course, exciting, but also brings hazards with it.
Now here's an interesting finding which it may seem obvious to people from industrialized countries, but not so immediately obvious you it lock look at lower income countries. In much of the same way, meeting people having fun, exploring new frontiers and boundaries. Having an active social life, of course, merging offline and online. In Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, people doing similar things on social networking sites as in the U.K. and North America.
Another important point, posting information online is effectively now normative behavior amongst young people and not to post personal information is to be extremely dull. I think that's the thing when one ‑‑ when I talk about framework for response, to say to young people not to post personal information on the Internet is a waste of time. Even to an adult seems like an obvious thing to do.
Another point causes more discomfort virtually everywhere in the world is adolescent sexuality. Adolescents at a time when people are also heavily involved in social networking is a time of exploring sexuality, testing limits, pulling away from parents, at least in industrialized countries. And this is a factor in how young people use the Web.
Communication around sex and sexuality is important part of this, and I am sure that will remain so.
Children tend to turn to each other for support and advice. Not so much to parents or other adults. And one of the factors that there is a concern by many young people that the adult response will be as far as their concerned, inappropriate and excessive. It will involve taking away the mobile phone and limited Internet access which are counterproductive. Nevertheless, there's evidence from industrialized countries that active parental engagement in children's experiences are a strong protective factor.
I am going very fast and I apologize to the print out there. Around building protective environment, evidence points towards four strategic areas, both national and international response and I will talk to just one and half of one of these.
One, empowering children and enhancing resilience to harm, an area working with young people and their parents and support to them.
Preventing impunity for abuses law enforcement agenda. Reducing availability and access to harm. This, of course, also is a law enforcement agenda, but it's also very much an issue for industry in terms of the issue about content means of access, et cetera, what is being provided in terms of helping reduce availability of harm.
And, of course, promoting the recovery of children who may have been exposed to harm.
A cross‑cutting theme, I think, which is relevant to this particular session, is that this we should be looking at international cooperation in all of these areas, including they very minimum, exchange of good practice in child protection.
I am being flagged here. So I am going to be two minutes. Thank you.
By empowering children, a false dichotomy, sometimes set up, which is basically that somehow, protection child protection is somehow about limiting people and about stopping things from happening. Well, it is stopping certain things from happening, it has to be said in terms of abuse and exploitation.
But in order to do that, we certainly would argue that empowering children is effective ‑‑ is essential for effective addressing of child protection and bullying. Not possible ‑‑ participation of children, they are the experts in their own Internet usage.
And I am giving some examples here very quickly, of information that helps children make informed choices and avoid risks, find and offer help be themselves, points of reference for the people, friends, what have you.
And working in Brazil ‑‑ educational ‑‑ get the messaging right. Work with young children to get the messages right, because they are the ones who will understand how to frame them in a way that makes sense. Effective reporting mechanics. Hot lines, in U.K. the whole INHOPE structures.
And, of course, strengthening parental capacities.
I think another area, point I would like to make which my colleagues on the panel will talk about, law enforcement, I want to make the point from a child protection perspective integrating child welfare into investigation is absolutely fundamental from the very start. That involves creating the ability to do that in investigations right at the beginning.
Now final message is, as you see I have run out of time, but three key points, I think: Building access means safer access. Responsibility for business and governments. And integral ‑‑ strategies to online ‑‑ should be part of wider child protection strategies not a separate thing on its own tangent. Just a normal part of the infrastructure of child welfare and child protection as it exists in the rest of society. Just as now the Internet is exactly that.
And, of course, my point to repeat the point I just made previously, child welfare and protection need to be integrated into law enforcement.
Thank you very much.
Apologies for the rush.
>> Thank you, Andrew. I think your presentation links very well with the next presentation of Mark.
Who is going to speak to what are the legal considerations we need to take into account when it comes to sexual exploitation of children.
>> Is my time already running?
>> No.
>> First of all, thank you very much to the organizers of the panel for inviting me.
Legal topics are not necessarily a blockbuster. I am trying to make it as entertaining as possible without having a PowerPoint presentation.
Do I need to add ‑‑ anyway, I will guide you through this without the PowerPoint presentation if that's necessary.
So some points for you. The first one when it comes to legislation we have to think of latest trends a lot of legislation developed in the last ten years is legislation that was dealing with technology that was used at that time. Today, technology is different.
When you are look at what offenders, when consuming child pornography is not necessarily downloading the material, but using streaming video a process to watch something online content online and it's not downloaded, which can create difficulties if your legislation is criminalizing the possession of child pornography; they are not gaining access online. What we have to face is when it comes to legislation we need to update them on a frequent basis and we can't projection the politicians they have to do if they did it once.
Next point is challenges in investigation. Today we are facing the fact that more and more offenders are using encryption technology. You are running into a suspect, and you might have child pornography on the computer system, but you cannot get the evidence, because the evidence is encrypted. So when we are talking about investigation, we also need to talk about investigating in cases where such technology is used and law enforcement needs to be prepared for it next point is that a lot of the evidence that you are collecting in child pornography investigation is today electronic evidence. And electronic evidence has a number of advantages.
Whenever you are surfing on the Internet you are leaving so many traces, like spreading DNA traces all over the place. However, it is also has a couple of disadvantages. You can, for example, it can easily be altered and what something a defense lawyer will look into and was that manipulated during the investigation process? We need trained investigators and need courts that can accept electronic evidence.
Coming from a European country, that does not have specific legislation dealing with the admissibility of electronic evidence, you can have the most beautiful legislation and have perfect procedure instruments but at the end there's a judge saying sorry it's not admissible. I was coming from a instrument from Council of Europe of cybercrime, a comprehensive approach doesn't mention the word electronic evidence. Unlike the Commonwealth countries that have developed something in this regard.
Next point is harmonization. It is transnational. People don't necessarily have to store the content in the country they are living in and they can do it abroad and it gives an international dimension. Therefore, a basic harmonization is key. Not only in Europe or Africa we will see shortly after African ‑‑ we have to do a globally. One of the fundamentals elements that are necessary when we want to interact with other countries is we have a similar legislation in place. Principle the legal principle is called ‑‑ dual criminality ‑‑ don't get me wrong: Cooperation can be very effective, but we have to make sure the details are similar.
Next one is the speed. One of the things we should not underestimate is the Internet is very speedy thing. There's a report and I discussed with some of my colleagues from Interpol and local police, there's a study where an NGO was observing a commercial child pornography website for 48 hours and within 48 hours it changes its location more than 200 times. Means on average every 50 minutes. Even if you are fast and aware there's a child pornography website, it might have already moved to another place. In the life of a prosecutor, 50 minutes is tough. A challenge. Next to point.
Public/private partnership is key. Looking at the number of websites you will see decreased over the last years. You might wonder why is this? One the reasons it might have decreased there's a public/private partnership called Financial Coalition where the provider of service of payment systems decided they will very actively fight against the use of the payment system in purchasing online child pornography. I get the five minutes and returning mercy sign.
This is very important that we have somebody here from Microsoft another example. Microsoft developed a tool that can be used by law enforcement in tracking exploited missing and exploited children and this is a great thing where you can see that law enforcement gave the impulse and said we need this the private sector developed it and made it available free of charge. It has a capacity building components. Whether we look at approaches to child pornography we should not solely look at law enforcement. Or legislation.
I mean, as a law professor, I tend to say a that is, of course, the most important thing that actually it's a very small component. There are so many other things. Crime prevention is important. You don't have a victim. Now, I have beautiful slides for you. Slides that I wanted to underline the importance of training. When you are an investigator and coming to a crime scene and your job is to seize all the storage devices you might look for CDs and DVDs, and USBs ‑‑ that USB key can look a pen. We have pens that are USB key or look like a toy, a child's toy. Or they can look like a watch or a pendant. So we need to train law enforcement because otherwise they will never identify the right things and these are things where criminals can hide electronic evidence.
So my last message, key message is: We need to tell the people that are in charge of this that this is a very dynamic process and we need to make sure that legislation is updated. Strategies are updated and training is done on a constant level. We have Gillian Murray doing a lot of work in the field. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. We need sustainable approaches on a constant basis. And so when we do training, especially in developing countries it's important it continues. We need adequate legislation goes beyond criminal law. Don't look at only criminalizing thing, but procedural law, electronic evidence the liability of Internet service provider, all these to be covered. We need harmonization and final training. Thank you.
>> Thank you. I'm sorry for keeping the time, but we apologize, we had some technical issues starting the panel is why we tried to be on time so we have time for the discussion.
Let's see if the technology works. It did just now and seems to work right now. So John, if you want to speak to the more practical experiences of law enforcement.
>> Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I am going to attempt tomorrow contextualize with respect to our ability to cooperate across borders the best way to do that is show you cases.
What I will do hopefully the audio is working.
Discuss the case of ran over three years. Undercover operation involving one of my police officers in Brazil. We infiltrated and monitored activity over a three‑year period, obviously generate targets in multiple jurisdictions.
This presented as you can imagine significant challenges for us, but in the end the was successful and identified some issues I will bring in at the end. I will play a video clip and see if the audio works and if it doesn't I will stick the microphone in front of the ‑‑ and see what happens.
Operation Achilles' involved ultimately in the end, the New Zealand police where it started. And it was passed over to us in Queensland where we ran are the operation and brought in the FBI and the United Kingdom Interpol and Europol. Literally a global operation.
[ Music ]
[ Video ]
>> Good evening and welcome to ‑‑ we bring a special program. Child abuser.
Global police investigation operation Achilles' arrested more than 20 predators across ‑‑ countries and rescued children from pornographic images. Targeted men considered by police to be the hardest core of the online pedophile networks.
We will be joined live by the executive assistant director of the FBI, and John ‑‑ the head of task force ‑‑
>> We have found ourselves now as this case demonstrates that we have groups as sophisticated as any other criminal organization that have the wherewithal and have the means to literally pursue children and to exploit children at a level that has surprised us.
>> It's not a sickness or illness or disease. It's obsessive behavior control over someone who helpless. It's subtle and it's secretive. It's seductive and it's successful.
>> The ease and network of men scattered across the world had reached what they considered the pinnacle of success. Seasoned pedophiles, the sophisticated had made them untouchable. In that safe zone, they commissioned and traded images of the youngest children involved in the worse sex acts. Legal documents obtained by LifeLine today showed how at ease the men were, as they ‑‑
>> I have a few 5‑year‑olds you don't have.
>> These girls are heavily drugged and too fucked up ‑‑ around 8 or 9 years old.
>> The assessment of the importance of the child sex network.
>> To together make the greatest group of ‑‑ to gather in one place. Honored to be part of it.
>> What the men didn't know that their group was about to be destroyed from within, because the world's police finally caught up with the computer techniques. In the end it was a group of Queensland police that brought the downfall of the network.
>> Our capacity originated in Queensland and through that portal we were able to get in and we were able to watch how they worked. That's an important part of being able to charge them as an enterprise to show that they would literally structured in a way that was to conduct a business and the business was child exploitation.
>> I probably used most of my time playing the video, but this operation went three years to articulate what it meant is difficult in 7 to 10 minutes. This group used very sophisticated means to defeat law enforcement. Fully encrypted ‑‑ proxies, monitoring what we said and the media said on a operational basis and changed encryption keys on a monthly basis.
Monitoring the group we identified a total of 58 offenders changes nicknames and keys on a daily basis, done mostly using a cooking or car theme. One month would be vehicles and Thunderbird or Jaguar and Chardonnay or steakhouse. If monitoring a group like this law enforcement perspective, it's very difficult.
Where they operated was actually in the news groups one of the oldest forms of communication on the Internet. Bulletin boards if you look. Once again, extremely challenging for police to monitor and look at what happens in this area. Traditionally we focus our areas in ‑‑ binary pictures, erotica that kind of thing.
PGP and different encryption areas. If you did manage to ‑‑ PGP encrypted messages. If you didn't have the key you wouldn't know anything and in the message it would tell you where to find the ‑‑ videos and photographs you wanted to see. We thought we could focus on the victims and rescue them. This case is known globally as ‑‑ we listened to the audio. Clearly was a European dialect.
Now, sitting from Australia I could take the position that's somebody else's problem, but we choose not to do that and police around the world choose not to do that. We found the website those children are featured on, and we sent that material and we have the capability now to do this and we have had this capability which you probably are not aware of for quite some time.
Within 40 minutes that ‑‑ was at Interpol. Full evidence we gathered and from the Interpol is where the operation to find ‑‑ began. Basically a major incident room in the Cloud was set up and agencies that could help locate the children were brought into examine the images. Everything was encrypted. All of the messages from the group were posted into there as well and the full reconstruction of that, the legal website.and had what happened within 10 days was the father of those two children was arrested in Bruges in Belgium. And he provided information about this man. Sergio who was the webmaster from Italy. That information was passed to the Italian authorities who raided his house. He was 100,000 in euro trying to flee the country. The father of the children also received ten years of imprisonment. Within the space of two to three weeks, that spawned a operation known globally as Koala. Focused mainly on the people paying for access to that website. That then brings me to operational closure of. We ran for three years and there's a lot of information, but I don't have the time. I want you focus on the fact I am using people's faces. Our key plan in the United States who ran the operation. Operational closure there you can see the red dots went from west to east with the United States targets.
Coordinated simultaneous takedown. 70 terabytes of data was used. Minimum of 15 to 50 years imprisonment for each of those men. In the United Kingdom SEOP, in Brisbane ‑‑ two targets arrested there. This one received two years and the other received 25. This was the No. 2 in this network.
In Germany, Inspector Daniel ‑‑ what I will do now quickly is very you what we did. We would seize, inspector the material and analyze it. I will show you a video clip now intercepted in Brisbane. Shows you what faced with on a daily basis.
[ Video ]
>> [inaudible audio on video]
>> Live on demand, sexual abuse of the child at the instruction of a male using some type of VoIP. Key things that came out of that, though, from watching the new video and listening to with the German dialect, further on a radio station playing in the background. Significantly the child said her name. Daniel ran the name Google basic search and found the family web page. This material was with the German BK within 24 hours. It's not rocket science to find the details and the father was arrested within 36 hours.
Grand total, that's the world stats for operational Achilles' from a group we never thought we identified and offended because the kind of technique with 26 victims rescued along the way. Operational Koala. The 20 in the Ukraine were brought willingly by their parents. This is daily business for us, and I will make it quick.
When one of my operators comes to work be this is one using on Yahoo.
Detective Sergeant set this profile of up. And number groups ‑‑ family rape support. The kind of groups that exist to facilitate communication between child sex offenders which provides a support network. She was engaged in text conversation by this individual. That's a screen grab of the conversation.
It started at 20 past 9 in the morning and he sent multiple images to our operative.
Obviously I have cropped and moved some of the images so you are not exposed to child exploitation material. He articulated he was raping two children that were the grandchildren of the woman he was in a relationship with and she was blind.
That communication was intercepted at ‑‑ and another friend of ours from the Ontario police was contacted. Offender was arrested once again within 48 hours for the sexual abuse of the two children. This is the environment we work in now across jurisdictional boundaries. Big challenges for us that come out, is it requires cooperation. And currently as you can see I am dealing with individuals not with agencies.
You saw the people I am working with. Acting in isolation will not have any strategic impact. Current process where we formally disseminate information organization intelligence is so far behind technology it's disgraceful and we can't do it in this environment for a form exchange of information with countries.
It is still an issue in many countries the criminalization for possessing, distribution and reproduction of this material is not illegal.
I will read you what one of my colleagues said and I will say anytime I speak. This is not child ‑‑ we need to remove from our ‑‑ if I speak in the media or in a room like this, I will not use the word pornography and I am happy to debate that with someone who has an opposite position. Other thing technically capable countries needs to implement investigative capability. Can't do it on our own and finally people should be focusing on the victim of the crime in the image. Zero minutes. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, john. Thank you so much for the concrete work in law enforcement, which is very much disturbing. I would like to now invite John Car to share some of the challenges and maybe key recommendations for key elements that we need to take into account for Framework for International Cooperation on Child Online Protection.
>> Okeydoke. Wave your hands when I have two minutes left? Will you wave your hand? I am useless at timekeeping at these events as anybody who heard me speak before will know.
One of the things that the Harvard University Study concluded, by the way, I shouldn't assume everyone knows what the Harvard University Study is, let me briefly explain.
A few years ago there was a big hue and cry in the United States following the emergence of social networking sites ‑‑ place was the biggest one at the time and a number of children I think or 4 children, 3 or 4 children had been groomed by predators through the social networking site. The children subsequently met these guys in the real world, where they were raped. And this understandably caused huge amounts media coverage and the politicians all started jumping all over it.
But rather than rush straight away into new legislation, although various attempts were made, Harvard University the Bergman center in particular put together a big study of all the risks and hazards to children in the online space.
And they basically concluded that the media frequently exaggerated the nature and had scale of the risk. Which we could all agree with, that doesn't mean to say the risk isn't real or there, but they felt it was too much knee‑jerk reaction going on and too many politicians capitalizing on it rushing to the wrong answers and questions. One the recommendations ‑‑ was the importance of education and awareness across the whole community.
Parents, the best possible defense for any child is what they have got between their left ear and right ear is what they know. What we as parents, we as teachers, we as schools, have passed on to them. That's the best possible defense. No question about that.
And this very authoritative and distinguished groups of academics what studied this obvious conclusion nevertheless they documented thoroughly and very well. Lots and lots of effort that we all put into are about reaching children, reaching their parents so parents can help them in life on the Internet, as they do in life.
And it is a very difficult thing to do, particularly in relation to parents who often feel that their kids, because they know so much more than they do it's very difficult for them to reach. But one of the themes that came out of the Harvard study was the notion of shared responsibility. In other words that everybody in the space, that's industry, governments, parents, teachers, schools, children themselves, has got a part to play.
And who could argue with that proposition? That it is obviously sound and correct. My worry, though, sometimes when you hear people speak about a shared responsibilities is what they really mean is it's not my responsibility. It's somebody else's responsibility. That's the problem and the difficulty with that concept is the shared responsibility it's very easy for people to sort of pass the buck. There are challenges around that, this idea of shared responsibility. And I don't, by the way, I don't dissent but the people who run the big companies, the people who own the technology and develop the programs and applications and make a lot of money out of it, very often have got to be a key part of it.
But when you actually look at what is happening in practice on the ground, it is very striking. If you take EU level, for example, and the U.K. specifically as well, companies actually finally started to move in a rapid way, let's put it that way ‑‑ when the Commission started to make it very, very clear to them that if they didn't the sanctions could follow.
And there have been all kinds of ‑‑ there have been two specific initiatives which the EU very strongly pushed. One on social networking sites one on mobile telephones. Both of which involve independent scrutiny and independent examination of what companies were actually doing, rather than saying they were doing. And those two things were pushed by the Commission, pushed by the European Union and industry responded and I can't help but feel sometimes, that one of the reasons that they did do that, even though they had always said as it shared responsibility in the end they moved because they are scared of the Commission in a way they are not scared of us. Because the Commission has economic power and it has got through the more complex machinery of the European Union and the ability to make its wishes and its policy objectives felt.
But another point to make in this is when we speak about the industry, it's often a very misleading term, because the range of companies that are involved in what with we now think of as the Internet industry is vast and covers a very, very wide spectrum. I am sitting next to ‑‑ from the mobile phone industry. The mobile phone industry I don't want to left them off the hook and had over‑complement them or be too nice because it's not to my nature. When you look at the way the mobile phone industry responded the way ‑‑ they really are in a model and it would be wrong, for example, when you describe the Internet industry to think that the mobile phone companies were the same as, say, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, MySpace, a very wide range of approaches rooted in the histories of the companies, the nature of the regulatory environments they already worked to so it's very important to keep that in mind.
They all experiment and we have all experimented all of these companies ‑‑ I have done education awareness initiatives. Trying to reach parents in supermarkets. I have done them in hospital waiting rooms. All kinds of places that you find parents that you can get this message out to if you only rely on schools, which is traditionally or at least originally was the view, you will miss a whole raft of parents and families who don't particularly see schools, sadly, as being a friendly and welcoming and inviting place. Certainly is in the hard‑to‑reach chirp children and families, if you rely solely get I couldn't go safety and awareness messages, across I am afraid you will fall far short, because that's almost the last place that some of these children and some of the their families and so on will be paying attention. Two minutes. Okay.
So a key project that's under way at the moment, that Natasha might refer to European Union is the development. ICT principles document. In essence what all of these different companies who have come together in a rare kind of a attempts at cooperation said we want to develop a EU‑wide code of practice to describe how we will deliver online services to children in each of the 27 member states.
A document published, we as the children's organizations and NGOs have commented on it. A couple of meetings due next month to see how far we have got with it. It's an extremely important development. Meant to be a comprehensive statement as the Internet as a whole will look at and think about questions of children online safety. Central again to the ‑‑ this document and the concept and the approach is this notion of independent scrutiny and measuring of what the companies are actually doing in practice. We are very strongly supporting this initiative. We are sending it in our comments. We are looking forward to the discussions next week on how it's working out. Because it really will be a sort of major milestone to get so many big companies engaged and involved in this sort of.
My final word is this: What are the key recommendations that I think is important in this space?
One of the reasons as I said earlier you can that, I think, it works at EU level and certainly works within the U.K. is because there are elements of the accountability there. The EU has power. It has got resources. It has a relationship with all of these companies.
The same is true within the U.K. What's missing on the global scale ask anything equivalent to that.
There isn't a sort of central committee of the Internet industry that you can go to and say let's talk about this. IGF is the closest thing we have at the moment and let's not forget the IGF is expressively not about making decisions and; in fact, sadly, most of the Internet companies that are represented here are not represented by very senior management from those companies. So we are not getting the opportunity to speak to the highest level of people within the Internet industry and we should. And this spills over from time to time, into frustration that you get being expressed by governments. Look at what Sarkozy did at G8. Why it he feel it was necessary to make such a great deal ‑‑ I will get nudged and I will ‑‑ why did Sarkozy feel to go through the G8 group to make such a big fuss about child online protection? In is part some people say he's coming up for reelection. Suppressing a frustration that many governments feel about the inability to get to grips within the industry on a global level and on a national level sometimes. So solving ‑‑ my key aim would be to solve this problem. How do we get a global focus on the Internet industry? How do we have a sustained global dialogue with them at high level that they will pay attention to? Because that's really the thing that's missing at the moment.
>> Thank you so much John and bringing this the aspect of the I.T. industry and it fits with Natasha from GSM A.
>> We have 850 members who are all mobile operators you will know in your local countries. We work together on issues that are not single national issues, but ones that need to have more of an international approach taken.
I am just going to reflect first on some of the comments we heard earlier and give industry perspective on that. I think one of the first things I saw this Andrew's presentation was a quote that said building access means building safer access in the industry carries major responsibilities in this. I think that's something and I think you heard it from John and thank you John for the positive comments. But that's something that the mobile industry has taken onboard and working in the area of child safety for quite a number of years. Admittedly mainly in the developed markets so in Europe a lot of work and U.S. and countries like that. But as the Association we have been pushing out the messages and the learnings we have got there to our members around the world 20 encourage them to take responsible approaches. And brings up actually one of the first challenges that we have.
Quite often, when we go into other countries or we are talking to companies in other areas, it's almost impossible at first to identify the person that you can talk to in these companies about these issues and often the knowledge about any of the issues is it's zero. We have written ‑‑ it takes a long time to educate people up to the level that we are at in terms of what industry can do. That's just on termed of what technically companies can do. I mean, we are Internet, and telecoms companies, we are not experts in child protection and we rely on that cooperation with the experts in the area to help that. That's one of the areas, I think, we find a challenge and if we could find a way that helps, have that public/private partnership on those sorts issues continue, we would welcome that. This brings together diverse participate of people in those areas is really important in that and it's helpful. But we haven't found a model to roll out into other countries. Where it's regional like in Europe it's easier, but when you have a issue in one country, say Southeast Asia, it's not practical for us to go into every country. Finding a mechanism ‑‑ that learning curve to have more detailed conversations about what role their companies can play would be helpful.
John's point of lack of discussion at high levels at some companies. Some companies are dealing with the issue for the first time and this is so clearly not in their comfort zone. They are often quite scared in a way to put their senior people out there on platforms where they will get criticized. Immediately for saying the wrong thing or doing it. A little recognition for the companies for whom this is new would be much appreciated by us. Second area is, again, the Mark referred to it and public/private partnership.
And things like the financial Coalition and the Microsoft example. And John went into the whole sort of child sexual abuse content area.
We actually talked about these issues a few years ago at our Board level and we had seen stories similar to the one shown in the video about child exploitation and we took that to our Board and said this is something we shouldn't tolerate on mobile networks. Mobile networks are going to be the way most people access the Internet in the future and we don't want to go down that road. So we have a voluntary initiative global about operators who want to take action against this sort of content on their networks, working together.
And that was not done with any threat of regulation. John referred to the idea of pressure put on it certainty in Europe ‑‑ in termed terms of ‑‑ not using the word pornography and respect be that there's something absolutely no discussion about these operators we don't want it on our networks and we will take action on that. There's quite a few issues we have and challenges in implementing some of those things. We to be a member of the Alliance that we have the Mobile Alliance on that companies have to commit to take action mainly to obstruct the use of the networks by the criminals. On it. What we ultimately want is the criminals to be put away while we can help in the fight that our recommendation for where we could see the most benefit in this area is referred to earlier by John it's about resource and capacity building in countries to get those prosecuted and get the criminals captured and prosecuted. We will work on technical side where we can to share and learn new technologies and we are talking with people like Microsoft about their new system at the moment and we will continue to do that. Ultimately we need to get the capacity building out there with law enforcement as well.
And that, again, is something that in the countries where this hasn't been a subject of debate for a long time, it's very difficult for us to start those conversations and identify people in the companies there who can have that conversation.
They used a conversation with law enforcement officials on other issues, but child abuse it's very difficult. Things like I have had a the training in place. Having a database of images that industry can easily access without having freer conversations of what sort of how the database is kept. What's included, whether it's safe and secure. That would speed up terrifically in terms of action we have to do.
And also reporting hot lines. We see as vitally important, but doesn't seem to be a standardized approach in hot lines and if we can get more standardized approach, we could share a lot more best practice with people. And we think that would be bring great efficiencies. We published ‑‑ law enforcement also gave us information on that. Which we now push out to our members and it starts with the basics of: What is a hot line? And how you go through and work with one? How you try to promote the setting up of one in countries? We don't feel that's something the operator should be doing.
We want to have more pushing out of the standardized hot lines supported by governments and national countries and we are willingly cooperating with them. My final point was going to be on measurement.
John said it, on self‑regulatory aspects, but in general the scope of the problem and tracking of any of the initiatives we take is crucial so that we know we are actually make a difference and if not we will change tack and do it in a different way. Thank you.
>> Thank you so much, and you brought up important points, especially the last one the measurements. Something we really haven't addressed in some of the previous workshops, I think. It's true we need to see how we track progress within all the areas, look at law enforcement, Child Protective Services, the work with parents, children, professionals, et cetera.
Now, I am very pleased to introduce to you the last speaker. Mr.‑‑ who is senior advisor at ‑‑ in Africa for Addis Ababa. ITU wanted to convey in regards to this topic.
>> Thank you.
Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen. The presentation I am going to make is on the Framework for International Cooperation on Child Online Protection.
As you can see on this picture, children are always confronted to those threats and risked on the Internet. So there are a number of threats to ‑‑ let's simply say that there are too many.
As use of the Internet grows, so does the risk it presents for children. Children already spend large amount of time on the online environment.
Children are often more vulnerable when it comes to Internet safety, as they are still develop and learning.
These are the consequences for the ‑‑ identify and manage potential risk on the Internet.
The risk children are exposed to ‑‑ given the global nature of online communications.
But the biggest risk children could be can vary from one country to the other. With the arrival of new method of communication on the Internet children are more and more exposed to complex and ‑‑
International cooperation on child online protection.
So Child Online Protection, COP, is a global challenge. The reach has been more often regional and national. It's a global problem. So there are even some differences between Internet usage among children in developed countries and developing countries. For instance the location of access and mode of access.
Although the strategy for online safety issues among children vary by country the most researchers of developed countries focus. The work is faced with the challenging task of developing strategies at the global level. And implementing these with the various relevant national and international stakeholders in the countries.
Now, let's talk about ITU's role in Child Online Protection. At the conference in 2010, which is the biggest ‑‑ decision‑making body. ITU member states adopted a new resolution role in Child Online Protection.
This resolution encourages the ITU to continue its COP initiative to raise awareness and stakeholder on this important issue. For instance, for the details, the resolution instructs the ITU Secretary‑General to develop greater efforts to cooperate with other UN agencies.
And to coordinate child online protection activities with other ‑‑ stakeholders.
For instance. So in Child online protection, launched in 2008. Which means three years ago. Within the framework of its global service agenda. GSA. Safe and secure online experience for children everywhere. Talk about the objectives for COP. First is to identify the risk and vulnerabilities. The second is to create awareness of the risk. The thirds one to develop particular tools to help the membership. And the fourth and last point objective is to share ‑‑ experience on child online protection. So ITU is working with couple of partners in the framework of Child Online Protection.
So ITU has been supported by a wide range of partners, from all stakeholders groups, which are governments, industries, NGOs, other UN agencies as well as the UN Secretary‑General. On my right of the presentation, here you have the list of the organizations and agencies that ITU is working with.
For instance Mr. John Car who is with us. And Natasha and Clara. We are all working together on those initiatives.
Child online protection Guidelines. So ITU has worked with some COP partners to develop a first set of guidelines for different stakeholders. Available in the EU languages and translated those guidelines into the local languages.
And as here we are in Africa it would be a good opportunity for some of the African countries to translate those guidelines as well as in their languages as well. For instance, the Swahili.
Now, let's talk about what information society ‑‑ the 2009 theme of the WTISD was protecting children in cyberspace. Action for 2009‑2010. Mandate states organization responded with their own initiatives in creating public awareness. In COP. Supporting the development of the ITU guidelines on COP identifying risk and vulnerabilities. Building of resources, the repository for general use, promoting capacity building.
And ( Inaudible ) who is the patron of WTISD in 2009. ITU conducted national survey often Child Online Protection. And the survey was to addressing a broad range of issues connected to national policies and practices in the field of COP., for instance, the develop the scope of ‑‑ COP across the world. Established a database what's happening in the COP. As of September 2011 more than 90 countries participated in the survey and the result is available on the ITU's website.
Click on this link and graphs are placed and shown on the left. This was one of the questions asked to the 90 countries. You can see that on the 12 questions. Countries more tan ‑‑ at least 49 countries out of 90 need assistance for 12 of those ‑‑ which makes a ‑‑ at least 54.
Child Online statistical framework.
This document gives some indicators, some indexes that the countries can use to develop the Child Online Protection the National Child Online Protection Framework. For instance, the index is compared with what is developed locally, if there are some areas that need improvement then the countries can focus on that.
And bring some improvement to it.
Now, let's talk about the COP Global initiatives.
Excellency of Costa Rica, became of patron of Child Online Protection, in 2010.
And in November 2010, the ITU Secretary‑General together with Excellency President ‑‑ launched global initiatives. So for that initiative, ITU is taking the next step to develop a cyberspace strategy for Child OnlineSafety. With delivering significant benefits. So in 2008 we started with a COP launch. 2009 we got ‑‑ and now we are working on COP implementation.
So the COP it has five pillars, strategy pillars.
Which are the first one is level measures. Second one is technical measures. Organizational structures. Fourth one is capacity building and last one is international cooperation. So it is designed to ‑‑ translate COP guidelines by leveraging the active support provided by the COP partners.
So international cooperation. That's what we are doing here since we are working together.
It's stemmed to ‑‑ harnessing the power of multi‑stakeholder ‑‑ by developing the COP online platform with other UN organization, working closely with COP stakeholder partners, and with other initiatives. In conclusion while we can say it's never possible to remove ‑‑ in technology awareness and communication can do a great deal to help. The international cooperation based on multi‑stakeholder approach and the belief that every organization whether online or mobile ‑‑ is best for everybody. Has something to contribute. Moreover the online network, respects neither boundaries or borders. So creating a safe Internet requires cooperation. Stakeholders in countries can achieve this ‑‑ confronting Child online risk with ‑‑ cooperation. Thank you very much.
>> For other information go to the COP website.
[ Off microphone ]
Thank you very much.
>> Thank you so much. For presenting this important initiative of ITU that I know also not only is on the panel, but we have a lot of members in the audience who collaborate on the Child Online initiative. We now invite you for questions and answers. And to the different panelists. And I know that we have quite short time. So if we can keep the questions short, we will take a few questions at the time and the different panelists can answer. And I would like to encourage us to think about what are the challenges we see and what are the opportunities? When it comes to Framework for International Cooperation on Child Online Protection.
And what are the good models that exist and how can we build on them? So if you would like to build on this discussion of the panel we will be very happy. Any questions? Or comments?
Maybe starting with the lady here to my right.
>> Thank you. My name is ‑‑ and I am from the Society Organization against cybercrime. Based in France and we closely cooperated with the Ministry of Education of France. For young people and parents in order to promote the Cybersecurity. Safer and secure Internet. Do you have ideas or initiatives?
>> Anjan you had a question?
>> Mine is more of a comment. Do you want me to ‑‑
>> I think it's fine. And we can take more questions and then ‑‑
>> Great. Well, my comment is for two panelists to add to what Marco presented. We are looking at these shift between static images, child abuse images and streaming contents. I have two observations. One is he mentioned that the legislation is ‑‑ and completely agree. Because to give an example, in Thailand, four years ago, they passed legislation on the I.T. Act that content would be static content ‑‑ being stored on the server. They are very specific and they completely missed the whole issue of streaming content. The other issue I want to point out here which the presentation from the law enforcement pointed out. We saw on‑demand offending. A child has been exploited on‑demand and payment is for some kind of transaction.
The conventional form we are off is through credit cards, or similar transaction that can be traced, to the financial coalition that is working on it and that's getting reduced.
What we have seen in this domain is the non‑conventional form of money transfer. So offense like that, can be supported by a very innocuous payment form like Western Union or similar money transfer which cannot be tracked with that event and that adds to the complexity of the investigation. Two things and finally, I think, the peer‑to‑peer network should be also included, including increasingly a format to where child abuse images are being transmitted.
>> Thank you any other questions and also please ask you to introduce yourselves? I see one question back there?
>> Good afternoon, Sabrina for the Council of Europe. I have two short comments. And one question. To support the views and shared the importance of legislation of developing standards at the Council of Europe. We have developed various regional instruments which are also open to Global ‑‑ such as the Convention on cybercrime. Human Trafficking and protection of child and sexual abuse.
Second aspect is also indeed the educational aspect. And I would like to agree in particular with the person who said, children also part solution and first step is be aware of what a violation is for young children they don't necessarily know where to draw the line. That is where the Council of Europe came up with a campaign called one in five campaign. Which states that about one child out of five is a victim of sexual violence. And there is a full package about teaching educating children about what is reasonable and what is not.
My question is: All panelists address are the issue at a specific angle of abuse of adults on children. And young people. What are your views when offenders are actually also children and young people and what would be your recommendations in that field?
Thank you.
>> Maybe we will give the Panel an opportunity to answer, especially with these two first questions. I don't know if John, do you have any comment? Then I know that Andrew has also commented on the piece on child protection and participation.
>> I will take the last question first. Because it's one that's greatly concerning us. The question of children as a offenders in the Internet environment.
The way in which this is expressing itself most frequently at the moment is in relation to the phenomenon of sexting. That's to say, children taking sexual pictures of themselves engaging in sexual activity and sending it to their boyfriend or girlfriend, some misplaced sense of affection or whatever. And then unfortunately typically very often what happens is the relationship ends and then one or the other out of some sense of revenge or hurt feelings, posts it on the Internet. Leaving aside the ‑‑ the posting a crime if child under the age of 18, then it counts as a child abuse image. In some countries children who have been found making and distributing these images, typically to boyfriend or girlfriend are being prosecuted for creating and distributing are child abuse images N's this is serious and we have read of cases in the United States and led to the example one place he was offered a University it was canceled and withdrawn. In case of another one woman the cadetship with the American Army was withdrawn and.they were both labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. This seems to us a completely inappropriate way of trying to deal with this type of issue.
In the United Kingdom, plot police have not prosecuted a single child for this type of activity. Of course, they reserve the right to prosecute. Because there could be egregious or persistent examples of particularly horrible or nasty things. But in the main these are kids making mistakes. They are kids who are making errors of judgment. Often out of the sense of being in love or infatuated or whatever it can be; they just have the misfortune. God help us if the Internet had been around in my day. They are making these mistakes in the days of the Internet when the medium is there and the possibility of a permanent record is available. Who these kids need is help, counseling and support but not a criminal record. If convicted in the United Kingdom whatever your age you go on the sex offenders register for a at least years a serious thing. It could ruin your life and close down all kinds of career opportunities and when it's based on a impulse and foolishness; it's a very inappropriate response. I agree, peer‑to‑peer we have been so successful and this is a great complement to the police and network of hot lines around the world we have been so successful in driving a lot of child abuse images off the web. It's my grating in a big way, the ‑‑ Web is still important, but it's migrating in a big way to peer‑to‑peer networks. Where hot lines have little or no scope to act. It's a matter for the police and it's very resource‑intensive or can be. The numbers of people that have been detected, I don't know if anybody is here in Ireland, but they did a special documentary in Ireland not that long ago, relatively small country, population of around 4 million, I think, it is. And one, me monitored the exchange of child abuse images over one peer‑to‑peer network over period of a week I think it was and they identified 1100 people who were exchanging minimize over one peer‑to‑peer network. That's a very big number for a small country.
>> Yeah, and inputted also John, you had some comment in relation and Andrew want to comments on child participation point.
>> Just put the laptop on the screen for a minute.
Just in context of host country. Two comments have been made about peer‑to‑peer and you may or may not be aware of police are quite effective in this area. Mapping of the child exploitation material that is being distributed across peer‑to‑peer networks in country and I didn't have time do all of it. Focusing in on South Africa.
Each of those is a effectively what I just call a node. Which carries a lot of traffic. And each of those expanded is a confirmed IP of confirmed child exploitation material distributed in this country right now. That's the last 60 days capture.
Just moving up a little bit further north.
The other place to look at was actually Nairobi. My point I guess is, it is here. The problem is here already.
It's not coming. That it will get worse as I guess particularly what we have there is one person trafficking through that particular node and down here is just a few.
As the uptake of the Internet in this country increases and as the availability and the accessibility of home PCs in this country increases, this problem is only going to become as big as it is across the rest of the global. It's a global problem and I can throw up a map of any country in the world is shows you this particular issue of distribution by the peer‑to‑peer networks is significant.
>> A thank you. Andrew.
>> Very quickly on the participation of children in producing messages and delivering them. I think there are actually quite a few examples of work where this is taking place and I would be happy to give you examples afterwards.
Ones I know of, in Venezuela, that's been worked on by children. Working with the ‑‑ I am not going to try in pronounce in Spanish. Help for children and adolescents worked with to help with the messaging. I heard of an example recently which, I think, came from Malta involving the ombudsman for children custom Malta and through his office with messaging involving children around issues around safety, risk management, et cetera, and I heard of examples from West Africa. Ghana, I think. I think others who have many other examples at their fingertips.
>> Thank you. So I see we have at least two more questions in the room, but before that we have a remote question.
>> He's asking what can be done from the general public to create children ‑‑ by creating pressure and ‑‑ and awareness within countries?
>> Thank you. We will take the other two questions.
First and then the panel can respond.
>> My name is ‑‑ I have frequently cooperated with Federal Police of Mexico and actually some of the people in the cybercrime unit trained in ‑‑ some very aware of ‑‑ I am not minimizing the hideous nature of the crimes in any way. The duty of loyalty to the Chair and the Panel because I have made some comments I feel obliged to make face‑to‑face. Just the duty of human loyalty to you. I find striking the cognitive disjunction between some of what has been said in this panel and what is said by young people in the Youth panel. Simultaneously. Young people from Egypt, they are saying, awareness and education is what they need.
And I have seen very little of education, especially in the larger scale, ITU initiative. I mean it's a paragraph within the five pillars, but it's not even one of the five pillars.
I think that the meta‑issue this brings us to is that we really need to use the IGF for cross‑dialogue. Why civil societies or organizations were not attracted enough had to sit here and participate on the same terms we are hearing from the other parallel panels. The need for cross‑dialogue is really in need of a very intense input of energy. And the last point I was very impressed with Natasha ‑‑ I'm sorry I don't have your family name in view ‑‑ comments from the GSMA Alliance. It's impressive for me even telephones where you have a certain level of identification of the device and level of potential identification of the user, feel expresses things that felt to me that you feel your efforts on telecom level cannot scale. If that's true for the telecom level where the nodes are known, that tells me that telecoms tools won't work for the Internet. On a problem of this size. We have to really look for an approach ‑‑ as youth are telling, help youth not commit the crime ‑‑
>> Thank you.
We will take the last question, I think. From the gentleman here.
>> Thank you very much.
First thing is I like to make a couple comments. My name is Adrian Dwyer. INHOPE is a network of 40 national hot lines. We are an EC project, we are funded primarily by the safer Internet program by the Commission and many of the hot lines are operate outside of the European Commission.
I like had to first of all, acknowledge the work that GSMA carried out in their very formative workbook on setting up an Internet hot line and work to the INHOPE standards.
It's certainly a book which we recommend for people who are interested in setting up hot lines to go to first. It really is a very good guide from the starting from a very blank sheet of paper. On how to develop a hot line and meet the international standards set by INHOPE.
And recognized by law enforcement as well.
My final comment would be, talking about standardizing hot lines. And dealing with those.
Hot lines have to work with their own national protocols. And set laws and so they are in the process and many of them in EU countries are leading the way in helping industry and law enforcement to actually start looking at these issues. So they are there dealing with that, but they have to work within their own national guidelines, which I can appreciate for many multinational companies, this can be quite burdensome.
And INHOPE is well aware of that and the members themselves are looking at trying to simplify or ease this bottleneck that there is.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
So unless we have any other questions, I see one more question. We will comments tell take that one and wrap up.
>> Thank you. Madam Chair.
Malcolm from links, the London Internet Exchange. I have been struck by how little discussion there has been in this session about technical measures such as blocking and filtering, especially since I know that some of the panelists have been very actively campaigning for legislative measures to require such things. I have noticed that there are numerous other sessions in the course of this IGF workshops, devoted to questioning, or attacking or certainly challenging whether such methods are advisable, appropriate, or actually harmful and counterproductive. I hope the people here who might be on one side of the debate and other people in the other sessions who on the other side of that debate will take the opportunities of the IGF to speak to each other. Because if the IGF is anything, it's an opportunity to get out of usually echo chambers and engage with those with a different point of view.
>> Thank you for being in ‑‑ before we bring up the debates I would like to give the opportunity to respond to the previous questions. First give the floor to Gillian and thing then Marco and John wants to come in on the last question.
>> Thank you. I wasn't ‑‑ I am just picking up on some of the points people have been making, make some notes here.
Prevention and awareness, yes, I am completely with you on that it's vital.
I think the only way to address this whole thing is in a completely comprehensive holistic approach with everyone involved and all angles covered. One area on its own whether it's law enforcement or the legislative side or the prevention or education will not got results and in my view I like very much people who said the active involvement of children in this process. Now, in some countries that may not be so easy. We work in the UN and we see different situations or different modes of operation in different countries, but I think to me it sounds like a very good idea.
What else I had here?
And I do agree that a lot of this does come down to individuals to drive forward. A lot of contacts we make and a lot of action that has some of us can take on it does come down to the fact that you want to drive it forward, you will pick someone who will work with you in the same way, you can pick up the phone and get things moving. We are three UN bodies. Everyone knows what the UN is. It's a huge machinery and bureaucratic but ‑‑ UNICEF ‑‑ UNODC, to drive the process forward. We are also working in many cases with GSM A is here and Microsoft and lot of support from them. We have to just pull everyone together and move it. Global machinery has a role when we reach out to developing countries in particular is where we provide technical assistance and capacity building is that's absolutely crucially taking into account the holistic approach and all the different angles. And I take onboard also the comments Natasha, yes, I think right there and I will stop here, because I probably said enough, but thank you for all your comments and when we leave here, we will actually build on this. The three organizations and hopefully be able to try to take something concrete and practical with good results out of it. Thanks.
>> I think on Gillian said, very I want to reiterate what she said not repeat it, but say it is a number of different areas of operation working together and I know she said none of it will succeed in reducing risk combating and addressing abuse unless all of these different elements work ‑‑ are there. Empowering children is a fundamentally important part of it.
And information, education, et cetera. And I think John mentioned it, the primary protection is what goes on between the two ears of children. But I think one of the things I have learned from this session, personally is, is the sophistication of the law enforcement operation and we are in some other areas, perhaps behind some of that sophistication all power to them. A necessary part. Just to go quickly to the INHOPE.
Very much thank you for saying that. My presentation zipped past INHOPE. If you went quick you wouldn't have seen your name flashing on the screen. A very important initiative. I think one thing we would say about hot lines is not only they are extremely important as part of giving children an effective mechanism to take action if something is happening. But as INHOPE knows it's a technically difficult, because they are a referral portal in a sense. They have to take action. One of the areas that, of course, comes with that in terms of expanding hot line capacity is what happens after the child has made that report? Or had that contact with a hot line?
There's a referral to law enforcement, of course, which is important, but there's also are the issue of how to help that child and what are the services available or not available in order no help that child. And what are the mechanisms that need to be place for a response to be made and that's an issue, again, around cooperation and capacity going, once you building awareness amongst social services sectors, among other parts of protection systems, about the kinds of issues which brought up through these hot lines and also make the connections institutional connections and practical connections. Continual challenge there and it's an important part of in a sense amongst many areas of capacity building has to be here, this is one of them. Thank you.
>> Thank you. I am JeoungHee Kim from ITU. I don't want to have you are moderator have problem with time. I think it could be a reply from one of the question from Julia. Our workshop itself has use participants and use get involved the workshops. I would like to introduce ‑‑ [ Inaudible name ] Jonathan and happy to have them here. And I have ‑‑ [ Inaudible name ] who are working with UNICEF to have their provide their critical viewpoint for the UNICEF activities.
And we have the one ‑‑ I believe that she is the youngest participate one of the youngest participants during whole workshop. They are name is Tamara ‑‑ and she is 14 years old. Because of her such a minor, she came with her mother. If time is available or to hear about international frameworks I think it would be great. Thank you.
>> Thank you, I don't know in any of the youth participants feel prepared to say something.
>> Advertise the workshop organized by ITU and UNICEF on Friday. I believe it's 11 to 12:30. And then you will hear definitely all the perspectives from the different youth delegates. Any one of you want to say something briefly now?
>> Yes. My name is ‑‑ we wanted to invite all of you to this session because we don't want to take much time of your panel today.
And we prepared the presentation and we invite all you. We want to do notify for ‑‑ it's very important not just do something, but to be here and to like to be part of the solution. And the participation at this conference is they give us overview of what is going on in the world and what is role of use participants of children exactly.
And so please come to tomorrow. Or on Friday and we can discuss what we prepared. Thank you.
>> Thank you. We will definitely be there.
And now, to the last and maybe the most interesting question for some people here. Blocking. Marco and John.
>> I wanted to point out there was a question on why blocking and why we don't discuss blocking here. John and myself are for ‑‑ if feels like ‑‑ dealing with this issue. I wrote several studies, John is an expert involved in various parliamentary legal reform projects. You could put us in a room right now we could start right now asking the interpreters stay for a longer and for hours and hours give you entertaining thing. We have completely different views on this and still like each other very much. And it would have definitely taken away from the focus from very important topics that were discussed here. Doesn't mean we are not aware of it. We are not discussing it. Even during lunch, we discussed is it. So it's everywhere.
>> I could talk about blocking in my sleep and my wife tells me that I sometimes do. So I am not in the least ‑‑ it wasn't what I was asked to speak about. I am happy do it. I must say the silos ‑‑ I am not sure I will change Marco's mind. He's definitely not going to change my mind. I will say this: Maybe unfair I am speaking after him. A very great techy friend of nine who disagrees with me, said you can't argue that blocking has zero effect. It has some effect. The question is: Is it proportional to all of the other issues of the day and how easy can it be done? Damage? All these things. All I can say to that is proportionality, like of beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I take a different of value of achieving that one thing. Others thing it can be done better more cheaply and efficiently in other ways. That's an unbridgeable gap. A question of values, beliefs, proportionality and the truth is you know what, most people who argue about this question, they are really mainly concerned about its spreading things like copyright protection, gambling websites and all the other issues. Actually if you get them in a room, on the room and say if we could be 100% certain that this would be limited only to dealing with child abuse images, we would agree with you and go with it. All I say is we shouldn't make child abuse images a bargaining chip. The question of music and video rights and all of these other things is a different question. It's not my question. It's not ‑‑ I don't have a dog in that fight. And I don't think we should make children a bargaining chip with Hollywood. Basically. Is what I think.
>> Thank you John and personally I must say I completely agree with you. Just to wrap up. Maybe I will give the floor to the speakers who have had the least possibility to say more things. Mr. [ Inaudible name ] and then Natasha.
>> Thank you. Just to elaborate on one of the technical pillars that I presented among the five pillars in my presentation. Just to say that ITU set up I.T. security group working on standards, those standards can serve the industry to develop some tools. Industrial tools to protect children online and those tools will be dealing with ‑‑ identification and ( Inaudible ).
Thank you.
>> Just a few final points. First from the blocking area. We are an Association of 850 members. So we don't have Agreement either. Many different views one thing, I think, common agreement is we shouldn't really mix up blocking of child sex abuse images with any sort of defense of commercial interests and copyright. The two should stay firmly apart. Legal certainty is crucially the topics we talked about. Dealing with child abuse. Two other follow‑up points. About children's involvement number child safety. We publishing a report in November. And on that it will show that when we ask children from developing countries and diverse countries like Egypt and India and Paraguay, who do they go for advice? It's always the parents. Like up in the 90% to go to parents. But by the age of 13, 14 switches over to friends and schools were right at the bottom of the pile. So actually having children and older teens talking to other kids think is vitally important.
And finally, just in terms of the scale and thank you very much from for the comments back to me on that. I admit we do struggle to scale, but I hope it's the case we can't scale and continue to work like this so we can find solutions that we can all scale. Thank you.
>> Thank you and I will give the final words to John. Who wants it to say final words.
>> My colleague mentioned with respect to the video I played before, which was sexual abuse on‑demand. They instruction of a child sex offenders. This isn't always about money. There was no financial exchange between those people. A lot of it is about power. A lot about showing that you have access to a child which raises your position within child offender communities. Going back to older forms ‑‑ the image of child being abused or a video is actually a form of currency on the Internet.
So it's not always about dollars with these people. So this was a first thing. And finally just I would like to thank the UN for inviting me over. I was disappointed I only have one very tall Norwegian police officer as a colleague and I haven't been to any previous ones, but helpful to have more police officers in these forums to engage with you and talk about our side of the issue and perhaps if that happens, then we might be more effective as Gillian mentioned this is about a joint effort to stop this crime. We will never prosecute our way out of this problem.
>> Thank you so much.
And lastly I wanted to thank you all of you for staying so long and we apologize for taking more time and I want to reiterate that Gillian said, UNICEF ITU and we will continue to collaborate against violence and ‑‑ exploitation related to ‑‑ multi‑stakeholder approach to promote international cooperation.
Thank you so much.
[ End of File ]
10:27 AM CT.
****