Child Sexual Abuse Content - The Numbers
- 31,266 URLs contained illegal imagery in 2014
- Hosted on 1,694 domains worldwide
- They were traced to 45 countries
- Just 5 percent of 660 arrests in a U.K.-wide police operation were of registered sex offenders
- U.K. police estimate 50,000 individuals in the U.K. (population: 64.6 million) download and share indecent images of children
- Research shows that 55 percent of those who view child porn also abuse in real life!
Netclean, a private Swedish tech firm established in 2003 and still owned by its founders, as well as original and angel investors, says that few firms initially accept its assertion that 1-in-1,000 corporate machines are used to view illegal images.
“A lot of companies don’t believe us when we say that number. But if you don’t look you won’t find it,” founder Christian Berg says.
Alarm, Raid, ConvictionIn late August 2012 an Ericsson network engineer in Texas remotely logged onto the firm’s network using a company laptop, triggering a Netclean alarm. Ericsson reported the incident to local law enforcement on Sept. 7, according to court documents from a prosecution in the Western District of Texas Court.
On Dec. 14, 2012, 17 law enforcement officers, including FBI agents, arrived at the engineer’s house. He refused to let them in, so they broke down the door and began searching the building while he and his wife lay on the floor, the court documents show.
Told that his employer had traced child pornography to his laptop, the engineer said they would find more images on his flash drive. Even as the search continued, he prepared a written statement: yes, he said, he had visited child sexual abuse websites, but he had never harmed any children. He planned to beg his family for forgiveness, he said.
Court documents show that the engineer later told the court he had been coerced into making the statement. The judge rejected this and denied his request to have the evidence struck out. The engineer’s attorney didn’t respond to e-mails and phone calls seeking comment.
In March this year the engineer – no longer an Ericsson employee – pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography, after losing his application in front of the judge. On Aug. 26 he was sentenced to five years in federal prison at Bastrop, Texas.
When he’s released he will have to attend a sex offender treatment program. He faces 20 years of supervision by probation officers.
No PrivacyNetclean says its software is unique and effective, but British lawyer Myles Jackman urges caution, warning that companies could trigger a “witch hunt” based on what he sees as potentially flawed evidence. Jackman, an obscenity law specialist, denounces genuine indecent material, calling it “reprehensible.” But while the technology may not deliver false positives, he says he knows of numerous occasions where police have misclassified images as illegal. Misclassified images, once in the police database, would still trigger a Netclean alarm.
“The reality is that the basic data-entry inputting is done by humans and humans get things wrong. It happens in every database,” says Jackman.
He also highlights a “grey area” in countries such as the U.K., Canada and parts of the U.S., where the age of consent is lower than the age of majority.
“Between 16 and 18 a child has the right to have sex, but as soon as they create an image of that act they are in possession of an illegal image and are committing an offence by distributing it. That disparity is a problem and our legal system simply has not caught up with morality and social values,” Jackman adds.
New technology giving companies the power to monitor employees’ online behavior can raise uncomfortable questions for managers who spot their workers viewing illegal content.
The Internet Watch Foundation, a British industry body set up with a global remit to tackle criminal content, says misuse of corporate equipment is a “genuine issue” – particularly now that more people work from home.
Ericsson employees sign a form consenting to being observed. Does that equate to spying on staff? As long as companies are upfront and explain to employees they are being monitored, there “can’t be any expectation of privacy,’’ says Stuart Neilson, a London-based employment lawyer.
That’s important, because there are also risks for any company that knows its equipment is being used illegally and doesn’t act. “If the organization has evidence that an employee has been accessing these sites but has done nothing with that evidence, then the employer might be liable,’’ Neilson says.