Title :Child Pornography on the Internet: VICTIM IDENTIFICATION PROJECT (VIP)

Daphne Programme – Year 2000

Final Report

Project Nr.:2000/DAP/067/C

Title :Child Pornography on the Internet: VICTIM IDENTIFICATION PROJECT (VIP)

Start Date :January 1st 2001End Date :December 31st 2002

Co-ordinating Organisation name:

Childnet International

Contact person :

Name :Will Gardner

Address :Childnet International,

Studio 14, Brockley Cross Business Centre, 96 Endwell Rd

Postal code : SE4 2PDCity :London

Country :UK

Tel. N°.: (00 44) 020 76396967Fax Nr. :(00 44)020 76397027

e-mail :

Partner Organisations’ names and countries :

1)Radda Barnen, Sweden, and

2)The COPINE Project, Department of Applied Psychology, UniversityCollegeCork, Ireland.

DAPHNE Programme Final Report:

Victim Identification Project Year One

Aims of the project:

What problem did the project aim to address?

The Victim Identification Project is looking at the problem of child pornography on the Internet, and looking at this from the child victims’ view. The project is investigating and assessing the process of identification of the children in child pornographic images and the issues that arise from this process, in addition to investigating the support and counselling the child receives once identification has been successful.

Who are the beneficiaries?

It is obviously hoped that in the long-run the child victims will be the beneficiaries, as the project is bringing a needed victim focus to the issue of child pornography. However, more immediately the beneficiaries will be those involved in working in this area, namely national and international law enforcement and social services, as we disseminate our findings amongst them and share current ideas and initiatives.

What was the expected result?

The VIP project is a pioneering project and as such it is a pilot project, and it is difficult to anticipate exactly what the results of the research will be. We expect that the results should contribute to a greater understanding of child pornography on the Internet, including a greater awareness of the different successful identification techniques, an understanding of the impact on the child of appearing on the Internet in such images, and a greater understanding about the barriers and obstacles that prevent successful identification.

Implementation of the project:

The project is proceeding as planned. We held four project team meetings last year as outlined on the Project timetable, attended by all the project partners. We have also held two Ethics Advisory Panel meetings. On Tuesday 4th December we held an Experts meeting at Earls Court, London, which was attended by over 20 experts from seven different countries.

We are researching the cases for Strand 1. Strand 1 of the VIP project is the detailed investigation of a number of recent cases of child pornography on the Internet where the child has been identified and any legal proceedings are complete. We are researching four cases of successful identification in the UK, three such cases in Germany, and four in Sweden. This research is nearing completion. For each of these cases, the research is investigating detail about the image, the child, the offender, the investigation and the support offered the child upon successful identification. Essentially we are using all this information to ask and attempt to answer the questions,

• ‘what was it about this case that enabled the successful identification of the child?’, and
• ‘what support was given the child once identification had taken place?’

Were any unforeseen activities implemented?

No unforeseen activities were implemented, although the planned publication of interim and final reports on the websites of the partners has been cancelled. It has become clear since the beginning of this difficult and sensitive project that it is crucial that the project remain at a low profile. There should be little public information about this project available, and media interest must be positively discouraged. The reasoning behind this is that the project is dealing with and producing extremely sensitive and confidential information. It has become clear that keeping a low profile is essential to build on the relationships that we have made with various law enforcement bodies that have given us access to confidential information. Furthermore, it is apparent that the findings of the project might not only encourage media campaigns by newspapers in the attempt to identify children, and it is also possible that such information might aid child pornographers in learning how to keep their images anonymous.

Did you revise the timetable at any point and why?

There was no fundamental revision of the timetable. The small-scale changes that did occur were:

• The case investigation did not start as early as we had projected because attaining the necessary cooperation and authorisation of law enforcement agencies to get access to confidential and sensitive information took time. Now we have the authorisation and cooperation of the key law enforcement agencies in the UK, Sweden and Germany. Explaining that the project was receiving European Commission backing was a help in receiving the endorsement and cooperation of these agencies.
• The Experts’ meeting was moved from September to December. This change allowed the project team to report on further progress on individual cases. This in turn enabled the feedback we received from the invited experts to be more informed and detailed.

Describe the role, the activities and the contributions of every partner.

Childnet International:

Childnet have had the coordinating role in this project and have been responsible for project management. Childnet have organised and hosted the project team meetings and kept the project on time and to budget. Childnet have coordinated the Ethics Advisory Panel and organised the Experts Meeting. Childnet have liaised with the European Commission, and were also responsible for negotiating the cooperation of the UK police.

Nigel Williams, the Director of Childnet, has chaired meetings and given direction to discussions between project team members. Will Gardner, the Research and Policy Officer, has produced the minutes and action plans stemming from each meeting.

Radda Barnen:

Radda Barnen, Save the Children Sweden, have helped ensure the project has retained a focus on the child. Radda Barnen have been active in gaining access to sensitive information and access to the relevant law enforcement officers in Sweden. Lars Loof is in charge of the researching of the Swedish cases. Anders Nyman of Radda Barnen is doing much of the research here, assisted by Per-Erik Astrom, and he compiled the section in the Questionnaire for Strand 1 research on the nature of support for the child. Radda Barnen’s good relationship with the Swedish police will be very useful for Stand 2 of the project.

UniversityCollegeCork: Professor Max Taylor and Gemma Holland of the COPINE Project at UCC have been active in the research area of this project in the UK and Germany. COPINE drew up the Questionnaire, which was essentially the result of the methodology discussions for the Strand 1 cases. Gemma Holland, the research assistant for the VIP project, has travelled to the BKA in Germany to explain the project to them and gain the support and cooperation of the German police. She has also conducted the interviews with the case officers in the UK for the Strand 1 cases. COPINE has good links with law enforcement which have been useful so far and will prove invaluable when the project reaches Strand 2.

Results of the project:

Which results were obtained from the activities described above?

A full presentation of the results from the Strand 1 investigations was made at the Experts’ Meeting in December. The crucial success to date has been to achieve the cooperation of international and relevant agencies from different sectors for looking into an area that has not been looked into before. This is a significant achievement and it has put us into a unique position to carry this research forward.

We are now in a position to analyse why, in the cases we have access to, the children were able to be identified, and what support was offered to them once they had been identified. These cases are taken from 3 different European countries, and the contrast in skills and techniques could lead to a sharing of knowledge through our research.

How did you evaluate the results?

We have outside evaluators in the form of the Ethics Advisory Panel. We have three panellists, chosen to reflect different areas of expertise, to deliver effective external advice and opinions. On the panel we have

Cathy Cobley, a law lecturer at CardiffLawSchool, whose research interests include Child Abuse, Family Law and Criminal Justice. Cathy not only brings us a legal/ethical perspective on the VIP project, but she has extensive experience of conducting similar research projects requiring access to sensitive and confidential information.

Björn Wrangsjö is a child psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, having a PhD whose thesis was on family therapy. Björn has also trained as group-, family-, body-, and music psychotherapist. He is the Director of the Institute for teaching and training child and adolscent psychotherapy in Stockholm. He has published about ten books in Swedish on therapeutic/clinical subjects. Björn brings the Panel expertise in child welfare and support.

Detective Chief Inspector Kathy Morris. Kathy is a police officer with the Metropolitan police, and she has direct experience in this field. She was very involved in the operation after Operation Cathedral (following the Wonderland case) that circulated sanitised images of the children in the seized child pornographic images to regional social services in the UK. In fact, the most senior UK police officer dealing with child protection issues nominated Kathy to fulfil this role on the Panel.

The Panel reviewed the methodology that we had proposed for the first Strand of the project in the first meeting. In the meeting in December they reviewed the practice of the research to date, and also discussed the proposed methodology for Strand 2 of the project. The Panellists have also been on hand to offer advice during the course of the research as it is requested.

The Experts Committee is not a formal evaluator, but it contains the people who are most directly involved and experienced in this field and thus are in a good position to assess the project as it has progressed so far and advise on future directions of the project.

Childnet International, the project coordinators, were also very pleased to have an in depth discussion with the DAPHNE Programme Evaluator, Dr June Kane. Whilst this was obviously a monitoring visit we found Dr Kane’s comments constructive and helpful in planning the next stage of the project. We invited her to the Experts’ Meeting in December 2001, though unfortunately she could not make it, and she has expressed a firm interest in coming to the Experts’ Meeting in 2002.

What did you learn from that evaluation?

The involvement of and the comments from the Ethics Advisory Panel have been crucial in ensuring the project could command support from important agencies, essential for the success of the project.

The Ethics Advisory Panel have also reassured the project team that research in this area, whilst difficult, was important, and they encouraged us to overcome the barriers that we would inevitably come across.

The Experts’ Meeting has helped to spread awareness of this project among the people who will find this research very relevant to their work, and in this way will help to secure assistance from these people in the work for Strand 2. We have learned that there is interest in this research from the relevant people.

How were the ultimate beneficiaries involved in the project and in the evaluation of the results?

In that the child victims are the ultimate beneficiaries of this project, it is not possible to include them in evaluation. However the agencies that stand to benefit from the research are represented on the Ethics Advisory Panel and the Experts’ Committee.

What are the impacts of the results on the beneficiaries and/or other audience?

At this stage of the project it is too soon to judge the impacts of the results on the beneficiaries.

Dissemination and follow-up:

How and to whom did you disseminate your results?

It became clear the beginning of this difficult and sensitive project that it is crucial that the project remain at a low profile. There should be little public information about this project available, and media interest must be positively discouraged. The reasoning behind this is that the project is dealing with and producing extremely sensitive and confidential information. A low profile was and still is essential to build on the relationships that we have made with various law enforcement bodies that have given us access to confidential information. Furthermore, it is apparent that the findings of the project might not only encourage media campaigns by newspapers in the attempt to identify children, and it is also possible that such information might aid child pornographers in learning how to keep their images anonymous.

Thus the dissemination of results required some caution owing to the subject matter of this Project. We have shared the preliminary findings from Strand 1 research with those who are working in related fields at the Experts Meeting we held in December. The Experts that attended this meeting were drawn from the fields of law enforcement, social services (both statutory and voluntary), and research academia, thus were people who could find these results directly useful.

What are your intentions for further dissemination?

We will be holding a further Experts’ meeting in the autumn of 2002, and thus be able to share our findings again with the leading persons working in related fields. With regard to further dissemination, this is an issue that we will consider as Strand 2 of the project progresses during Year 2, and we will obviously consult the Ethics Advisory panel here. Among the possible options is a (carefully-written) report translated into the main European languages which could potentially be put on the websites of the main partners.

What do you think the follow-up of your project should be?

We are involved in Year 2 of the VIP project at present. We will be considering the options as the year progresses, and will make a judgement on whether further work or dissemination would be necessary. VIP is a pioneering project and it is difficult to anticipate what the results of the research will be.

What are your plans to ensure yourself (part of) this follow-up?

All the partners in this Project are committed to ensuring that the findings of this research reaches all the relevant bodies that can find it useful. We are actively involved in Strand 2 Year 2 of the Project at present, and later in the year we will take a decision as to whether the research would benefit from another Year.

How did you ensure the visibility of the European Commission contribution to this project?

We have always made clear that this is an EC-funded project. This has been a point we have stressed as it can help to gain the cooperation of people/organisations. For example, the enclosed Childnet International Annual Review, which has been sent out to a wide audience, which mentions the EC contribution to VIP very clearly on page 2 (under ‘Protection’).

Conclusions:

The Victim Identification Project is looking at the problem of child pornography on the Internet, and looking at this from the child victims’ view. The project is investigating and assessing the process of identification of the children in child pornographic images and the issues that arise from this process, in addition to investigating the support and counselling the child receives once identification has been successful. The project is being carried forward in cooperation with law enforcement and social services with whom the results will be shared.

Childnet International

February 2002

ANNEX 1 : KEYWORDS

The main purposes of the Daphne Programme are to create networks and to encourage the exchange of information and best practice. The Commission has therefore set up a database containing the details of all completed Daphne projects. This database is accessible via the Daphne page on the EC web-site :

(