Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during Fifth Meeting of the IGF, in Vilnius. 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.
>> ANJAN BOSE: We'll wait two more minutes and give the opportunity for people to join us and we'll be starting very soon I guess, in two minutes. Good morning, everyone. And thank you for coming in early. Sorry for the delay. We were looking for a few more people to join us. But I think we have enough around the table to start. So, to start with, I would welcome the executive director of ECPAT international, Mrs. Carmen Madrinan to situate and to describe us the purpose of the workshop and to set the scene where we are heading to and our panelists, copanelists, we have Mr. John Carr from UK, we have Nevine Tewfic, CyberPeace initiative and JeoungHee Kim from ITU and Joy Hilton from CIOP who will present their organizational perspectives on that. I invite Carmen to start the session.
>> CARMEN MADRINAN: Thank you very much Anjan. Not only do we have the graveyard slot but we always have this room we have to compete with our neighbors in terms of shouting. I hope everybody can hear me. And I'm really very sorry that there is this kind of competition overhead. But we better get used to it. I'm very pleased that we can come together around this workshop. I think it's an important -- we'll have some very important interventions from the panelists who will bring the perspectives from initiatives that they're undertaking from their organizations and to look at integration of child safety concerns within larger bodies. And it's not -- I just come from a workshop which says -- which was looking at young people and the internet, and looking beyond safety. Certainly the message there was that there -- we should not be looking at young people only in terms of safety, but also the myriad of possibilities that the internet offers for children and that safety should be integrated into those concerns and into those possibilities and into those Innovations.
And I think the challenge for us is to make sure that the safety issues are not seen as simply focusing on prohibition, and that -- or restriction of their possibility to use the internet in an innovative and open way. So, this workshop is in essence a challenge to us to look at structures that will enable us to do that because most of us work very specifically on safety issues. We focus on those elements. And more and more, what we're seeing is that within our own agencies and with our own activities, that those can be integrated into larger concerns and larger issues related to children's rights. However, instruct actually there are certain structures that permit us to do that that help us to take the isolation of the concern on safety, and put it and imbed it into larger concerns about children and children's rights and the production of children's rights holistically. So I think that the challenge is to look at what we're talking about in terms of structures or protection for children. Traditionally the structures for children essentially have focused a great deal on the types of institutions that come together to look at child protection and child safety. And those it institutions rally are Government institutions. They're Ministries of Government. They are the institutions of non-Government civil society, academic institutions, that come together in country around the world in different ways. We know, for example, as a civil society organisation working in different countries that oftentimes we are invited into those policy dialogues where you have social welfare, you have issues related to security, health, education and those are the Forums where you have the planning of national plans for children.
Those national plans look at children's issues in general within that, there are issues related to protection of children, and those become further defined around particular issues of protection. But they are usually part of a national plan. Even if we pursue them separately, those institutions that are responsible for specific elements of child protection. What seems to be largely the problem around I would say the way that we're looking at safety and where we seem to be now addressing that problem, is that the on-line protection in on-line safety has been seen as we're approaching its a systems -- symptomatic response to a protection issue. By that I mean we define it as a discrete problem, away from the range of things that put children in a vulnerable position. That it's not the Internet. That's it's a range of other issues that affect children that make them one or other child particularly vulnerable around their interactions on the Internet.
It's not an isolated issue and it's not an Internet issue necessarily.
By isolating that, we also isolate our response and we tend to categorize that as a particular kind of problem. What we are seeing now is more and more, and I was very, very taken by the fact that even young people are calling for this more and more, not to look at safety alone when we're talking about internet safety or on-line safety. But to imbed that and make sure that it doesn't get misinterpreted. And it's really looking at a more interlinked response, looking at internet safety in the systems that we use for looking at children's issues and children's rights issues in general. By that I mean that the structures through which we work on children's issues tend to be the old structures. We have not actually changed them to take into consideration that we're talking about on-line. We're using the off-line, the same structures we use to address children's issues off-line, we're using the same ones for the on-line with the exception perhaps of law enforcement.
So, today we're going to be looking at how to look at interrelated, what are the structures that allow us to address issues in an interrelated way? And that allow a broader system of response, a wider impact, an a longer affect and more efficient use of resources by bringing multiple players on board into those discussions.
Now the link system -- the traditional system of child protection and looking at child protection issues off-line, generally speaking, it involves the usual players, the Social Services system and social welfare system, education, health, and those come together in order to look at planning interventions around how to support children and how to protect children and how to protect their rights. Notably absent from those dialogues is usually now the telecommunications authority. The ICT industry. More and more we're seeing young people involved, and their voices entering into that dialogue. But essentially, child protection planning is really mostly done by the social welfare, by justice, security, education, and health and in that mix, even though we're talking about on-line issues, we actually don't have any of these significant players that are involved in looking at on-line policy development, on-line tools, on-line experience.
They are nor there. So it's somehow that the system of child protection has not integrated on-line issues into its structures. We're still working with structures that primarily look at off-line issues.
The key components tend to be looking at the normal framework and laws that protect children and looking at coordination across Governments, good knowledge on child protection issues, the researching the norms and standards and the procedures, looking at very highly trained child protection workforces in the areas that we work, and funding resolves around what comes out of that planning around children. At national level, very definitely national plans are developed in that way. Unfortunately, because of this lack of integration of on-line issues into national structures and national planning, very often it tends to be quite isolated responses that don't really have a wide impact on children on-line. Now, overall, what we're seeing is a recognition that safety and -- safety on-line needs to be considered in the broader context of child rights and child protection.
And that in order to do that, we need to bring the right players to the table, and that those who are those -- who are those players? Today, what I think we're going to be looking at is some example withes from different context of people who have either been involved or are involved with doing that within the context of law enforcement and Social Services system, for example, or looking At larger structures, policy structures, different models to integrate on-line and off-line issues around children and protection of their rights.
So that's just to situate and now I believe you have other speakers.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Thank you very much Carmen for leading us into this session. And situating the framework. I would invite Nevine Tewfik from CyberPeace initiative. Just a brief introduction for Nevine for those who don't know her in person. She's direct for CyberPeace initiative of the peace movement and for the last two years her work as resolved around distribution of knowledge and implementation of the agenda for children and young people in Egypt and reaching out to the region as well and engaging Egypt actively in the international dialogue on the subject. I know her personally for quite sometime and she's a very good speaker on the subject and hopefully she'll be able to give us insight of what is happening inside Egypt and the formation of her special working group which she will elaborate on. You can use the remote.
>> NEVINE TEWFIK: Thank you. Thank you so much Anjan for the introduction and thank you for inviting me to the panel. I came sort of late to the panel. My apology if I have -- for the people who have seen the presentation before, I think that the topic of the panel is very relevant to the situation in Egypt. And that we have in Egypt been working very hard to look for this integrate add approach about child on-line safety. To look at on-line safety in a comprehensive way and at the same time Lincoln line safety to other issues and concerns that relate to children. I would like to present to you what we did in Egypt in an attempt actually to make sure we're not discussing on-line safety in isolation but within a coordinated way and with synergy was relevant bodies. We're looking at child on-line safety as touching upon five main areas of concern, of course, law enforcement, technology solutions, educational and content creation awareness and advocacy and legal and self-regulatory systems.
For each of these different areas of work, we have several actors involved. These actors come from the Government, of course, from the private sector and from civil society. When we started our initiative in 2007 we launched initiative with the first lady of Egypt, Minister of Communications, and International Telecommunication Union in Sharm El Shiekh. We thought that we have a very clear sort of roadmap in front of us. Very clear actions and that we're going to move ahead and that's it. A year later, we learned from our experiences and from the different experts that it is not that simple. That it is much more complex than that. And that the different actors have different perceptions about child on-line safety and what should be done and what should not be done. Locally and also internationally. So, a year later we started to think seriously about with creating a body, an integrated body, what we call now the E safety working group and national eSafety working group that would have as its members the main actors involved in child safety and childish use in Egypt.
And this was an attempt to have constructive dialogue together on the national level. So in actually 2009 we created our group and if can I give you an idea of the membership and entities involved first we have official entities so ministry of communication information technology and we have the national telecommunication regulatory authority and its membership. So we're trying to bridge this gap between the different Government authorities and the sector. And then we have the ministry of education, higher education. Family and population who are mandated to work on childish use, child rights and responsibilities, and we also have the ministry of interior ministry of justice. This is from the official side. Then we have the private sector because we were also very keen to make sure that we have a representation from the sector that could give us real idea of what is happening in the on-line world.
And that would enrich the discussions so we have Microsoft and this month we're going to have other entities with us, IBM, oracle as well, in addition to the private sector and official entities or Government entities we have NGOs active with us in the dissemination plan whether for young people, the youth, or the parents or educators. So we tried in a way to have a representative sample in the working group. Personally, I think that there are two important entities that are still absent from the group. And we might not be yet ready for them. But I think they should be included very soon the academia, research part, and there are -- they are still absent and media but they are on our action plan on our plans for integration. So what is this group doing? What are the areas of coordination?
The most important thing we realize is important in child on-line safety and children issues in general is knowledge and information sharing. And this was the first issue that we encountered as an obstacle bays realize the different entities are doing so many activities and that we know very little about these activities, which leads to redundancy, waste of resources, et cetera. So, one important point we have regular meetings for knowledge sharing and information sharing within the eSafety national group and other point is capacity building and training. We realized also that many of the entities involved with us in the issue of child on-line safety, do not have trained officers or officials who could really disseminate the message or work on it. And can I mention with some examples maybe ministry of education and this is why you created our educator's focus group.
The third point is to work on awareness and dissemination effort. Again the project, CyberPeace project in isolation cannot reach to 5 million citizens so there was very important interest in working with the different entities and private sector for dissemination awareness. The first point and I think it's very important is to work together on the identification of the problems. What are the problems with working -- we're working on? Are we talking about crimes? Are we talking about risks? Are we talking about what exactly psychological problems? So we needed to hear from the Ministry of Family and Population and needed to hear from the Ministry of Interior what is their conception of what is going on and then statistics and indicators. Out this national eSafety working group we formed a small group to work on indicators and this was done in coordination with ITU because indicators issues was an important point on the strategy that we developed with the ITU.
So we had had this small working group at least discussing what it means to have indicators in the fields of child safety. I think this is another topic that would require a whole session for itself.
Then we worked also on the coordination of new initiatives and validating different options, for instance, new technology solutions, the child exploitation tracking system and this is something that was explained in our working group. And it's currently under discussion. And the last point, which we have not reached yet, but we are working on, is the formulation of an integrated strategy. What is our integration approach? How are we bringing all these people who come from different completely different back with grounds, different mandates, different agendas, different accountability system, together? The first point in our integration approach was to work or to use very well the political support that we were getting on child on-line agenda. And I keep saying that everywhere that the political support was crucial for the creation of this group.
So now there is a national commitment that child on-line safety is a priority in Egypt. And the second point in our integration approach was to establish the overall structure, the group itself. Clearly, mandated with the necessary approval, and the necessary blessing and legitimacy of I think this is well known in developing countries that unless we have this we cannot go on so we've done that and have educated coordinator for the group because it's a full-time job.
Then we decided that we were not going again to reinvent the wheel that we have to build on exiting efforts and we have to acknowledge what each entity has done and to try to tap on the existing effort and build on it. We are also encouraging very much transparency in work and collective ownership. And collective ownership is extremely important because there is strong competition between members of the group. So we have -- they have to feel that the whole group or the whole initiative is their collective -- it's their work and it is their ownership. It's their property as well. And this is something that we need to do in a very diplomatic way in our meetings. But I think it's very important to sustain the group.
And we have also a very strict reporting system and regular follow up mechanism. And we have also we continuously update the working group on what is happening regionally and internationally. For instance, I'm going to have a meeting of the working group immediately after the IGF and I would like to debrief them about what happened here and get their feedback owe so they are linked to the international trends in the field. Building the capacities of the group, this is very important. And mainstreaming suggested activities into the responsibilities of each member. Trying to find a way to include our agenda into the regular working of each entity. Whether the ministry of justice or interior or education. So it becomes with integrated in their work plan and integrated in their accountability system.
And the last point is the phase planning we did that incrementally and we cannot do it immediately because it takes a long time for people to internalize the system and accept it.
And I don't want to go through the activities the different efforts of each entity, but if you don't mind, I would like to mention some of the valuables affecting the planning our planning process. The first one, the first variable is definitely there is absence or reduction in resources because what has been keeping us alive so far is the availability of resources. So this is very important. And in this respect I have to say that the private sector is very much supportive. So the private sector training for the educators et cetera. And the second point that could be a strong valuable affecting our work is the absence or lack of empirical data of reliable empirical data and we're trying to remedy that. Also competing challenges of the different entities. For instance, if human trafficking is the main issue now, then it's very difficult for me to impose child on-line safety as the priority.
I'm just giving an example. So the competing challenges are also sometimes an obstacle. The competition between the different entities is something that has to be taken into consideration as well as institutional culture of each entity because there are different institutional cultures. And the change in officials involved, because we do capacity building. So if we have the representatives of a particular ministry changing then we have to start the process very much from the very beginning and to make sure that the new person is on board with us. And, the last challenge is the lack of leadership or knowledgeable thought leaders. This is something we work on. We have been able to compensate to that or always find thought leaders from different places but it's very important to have an expert who is knowledgeable about this area of work who comes and talks to us or advises us on what to do next.
So this is briefly our experience. I hope I was not too long. Thank you.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Thank you very much, Navine, it was really interesting to see how you are approaching this integrated approach in the context of Egypt and I would like to open up the floor for any questions that they might have for you. Is there any question before we move on? Yes, okay.
>> First of all I would like to congratulate you Navine you did a beautiful job of creating holistic. What is the opportunities and options to include the ministry of health or health department in some of these out reach? That's one of the areas we see the least amount of coordination is with the health community. Well, I don't have an answer.
>> NEVINE TEWFIK: I don't have an answer but do you think this is one of the entities that should be included our ministry of health mandate is not I'm not sure to what extent it covers issues related to children psychologically or -- so you do you think this would be a priority or Ministry that should be included? I know there is a concept of health issues in the states, for instance, that is broader maybe than the -- we're adopting. And this is where I'm a bit reluctant or maybe questioning, would the Ministry of health be a suitable candidate in such group.
>> AUDIENCE: So research shows that clearly that what youth do on the internet affects how they feel about themselves and sense of well-being. So the relationship as rounds them and how they identify themselves. Particularly youth at risk are more marginalized and the community groups on anorexia, violence, hate speech, cutting, the types of things that actually would be psychiatric issues. So, we're watching general trends in the health community where we are recognizing that you can identify those youth earlier. You don't have to wait until the problems become so systemic they log about it, talk about it, communicate, and they also make them -- they polarize he each other. So the internet brings us together if a positive way and it also pulls these communities of risk on-line in ways they can educate each other of how to stay below the radar for the adults around them.
So I think the digital environment is a wonderful place for health community and they're exploring how they can be the most relevant. Pediatricians are often concerned about with the amount of screen time and relationships fostered and built on the internet because it as a psychiatric affect and sociological affect on their relationships off-line, also.
>> If I could.
>> AUDIENCE: I think this is excellent point my worry is how much to psychiatrists in Egypt worry about this issue. I think it has not yet appeared on the radar of our Ministry of health. It's definitely a point that should be taken into consideration in our future thoughts, yeah.
>> AUDIENCE: Yes, Janice.
>> Janice: I would like to underlining that last point and also say that far beyond the psychological reasons there are in all, about with five good reasons which we can talk about later, as to why the health Ministry should be involved. Last September the European commission, I think it's DGSANCO that looks after health conducted a big meeting in Sweden to look at the link between internet, internet use, internet safety and health and there are very interesting results that have come out of that which are available to the public.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Thank you, Janice, for that and yes, Carmen.
>> CARMEN MADRINAN: Yes, my question was whether -- how you interface with young people. You had not mentioned that. And I believe probably it's there. And then, also, a comment with regard to different priorities or different concerns that come up in policy Forums on children, for example, looking at birth registration, looking at trafficking, looking at -- all of the issues that we know are very, very important, and they're not competing issues, they're issues that are as important as on-line concerns that we may have to make the on-line environment rich and safe for young people. So, I think that one of the benefits of having an integrated approach is that we're -- we bring all of that together that it's not treated in isolation. For example, I know that many of my colleagues that are working on birth registration in many parts of the world, as you know, women still have children at home.
And a lot of the data and a lot of the research shows that for the most part, they will not register the birth of the child until much, much later, sometimes five or six years. One, because it's very -- the process is very onerous and two because there's economic costs associated with bringing the child it a health center if you're in a rural area and there are cost for the forms themselves, et cetera, there are many obstacles. Now that issue is an issue that is very pertinent to us, because the child does not exist. If that child disappears, it doesn't disappear because there's no record of that child. So it's very easy for children to be traded, to be moved without any accountability. And telecommunications sector has been looking at how do we use telephones which are now in the hands of rural communities in order to register the birth of children so that they're not trafficked and so all of a sudden we're beginning to see that intersection between on-line issues and child protection issues and trafficking issues and this is not possible when we're sitting with -- in an isolated situation where we're not -- we're only looking at on-line issues that we're not sitting around with the health colleagues and with those that are looking at mother and child and looking at issue of birth registration.
So I think your model is a very good model. And I just wonder, you know, how do you get rid of that competition? Because you're saying you actually have these people on board. So why is that not happening?
>> NEVINE TEWFIK: I'll answer very honestly and frankly. For the first question for the young people, yes, they are on board, they are members of the working group. And the parents are members of the working group and represented by their coordinator . the young people are there as well respected by the coordinator and educators. They're there and they're doing activities with the different Ministries. So we have the synergies, luckily in this respect. It was not easy, but we succeeded in doing something together.
Concerning the second point, it is difficult. It is difficult because these issues are considered to be the mandate of another Ministry. So the whole very practically and frankly speaking the whole issue has to be raised actually has to be put on the table by the other Ministry by the Ministry of Family and Population. If this is done and we encourage them to do so it could be discussed in the working group but the initiative has to come from the original owner. And otherwise, we will have another political problem that we'll -- wouldn't help much in the working of the group. Thank you.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Yes Kim.
>> MS. JEOUNGHEE KIM: A few comments about Egypt and Government activities, you can hear me? Can you hear me? Just short comments about Egyptian Government activities ITU government especially first ladies foundation in human trafficking. So we provide a numbers for human trafficking especially for women and children human trafficking. So, I know other Governments also are seriously working on this area. But the Asian Governments already made big progress in human trafficking and child on-line protection. So I think we can make as you said, you know, we can map together and then work together and then make a big progress in synergies like a win, win strategy. Thank you.
>> ANJAN BOSE: If we don't have any more comments or questions, from Nevine, I have a question which we'll come back later. I don't want to interrupt the flow. So next we move on to John. And as you know, I'll give an introduction to John. He does not need any introduction. But I'll do my part. And he's one of the world's leading experts on children and young people's use of the internet. And digital technologies. He's also senior expert adviser to ITU child on-line protection initiative, member of the executive board of the British Government for child internet safety and he's also the -- I don't know exact title you have for he NACSO, you're the coordinator, chairperson.
>> JOHN CARR: Field marshal.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Field marshal. That explains. Okay, and he's been in the forefront of this kind of Forums for many years and in the context of this workshop, I invite you to present mostly from the industry perspective how they can integrate their approaches as Carmen outlined before with.
>> JOHN CARR: Okay. I'll try to do that. I -- over the years I worked for different companies who were active in the global internet space. I worked for several years for MySpace, I was a consultant -- been consultant for Yahoo for a couple of years. And also very briefly for Google. And I was also on the policy board of Microsoft for that was pro Bono but I was on Microsoft policy board for Europe, middle east and Africa. So over the years, although I've always been consulted as a child protection person I've been closely engaged with a number of the world's biggest players in this space.
And I'll talk mainly about with the concrete experience we've had within the United Kingdom in dealing with these issues although I'll from time to time perhaps refer to what is happening other countries because similar kind after arrangements are the ones we now have in. UK are beginning to emerge or indeed have emerged around the world. So although it may sound very British, it's not entirely limited to what's going on in the UK.
First of all, a little bit of UK context, of course, is that we've had who we think of as being a holistic approach to dealing with child on-line safety since only, formerly From a Government point of view, that is, since 2001. In reality, it's a little bit older than that. You can trace it back to 1996 if you wish to. But the Government officially acknowledged in 2001 that you needed to bring all of the key players to the table, if you were going to address these issues properly. And that, of course, specifically included the industry. So, all this overall coordinating committee it's now called the UK council for child internet safety. We have an executive board of which I'm a member. And there are four places specifically reserved for the industry. And at the moment we have BT and the games industry because that's a really important part of what's going on in membership.
Virgin we're on there as well but they recently had a change of personnel and there's two vacancies which are currently being filled. But underneath -- and by the way those positions those industry positions on the executive board are filled through a process of nomination. So actually what happens is that the industry reps, industry representatives who are engaged with this interface called the executive board they make meet up and have a discussion about who should take which places and then there's a process of election that take place. But in the end, strictly speaking, it's the Government Ministries who make the appointments. And it would be unusual for the government to override or ignore a nomination that has been made through that process. It has happened. But it is unusual for it to happen.
So, there we have a formal structure. Underneath the board, we have full principle working groups that address the detailed issues that we're concerned about. And they're all of the ones that have been mentioned by Nevine and by Carmen and by the way certainly the Ministry of health is part of this, but the main lead departments by the way, are the education Ministry, the home office, which is our Ministry of justice responsible for the police, law enforcement, that kinds of thing, and the department of culture, media and support. And I'll come back to them in a minute. And in reality it's education and home office who are the main drivers. But certainly the department of culture, immediate why and support are an important player in this space. And here's the first thing from the industry's point of view. Sorry I should say what the four working groups are.
One is called the industry working group. And that's where detailed codes of practice about how the industry should present their services and products in the way that maximizes safety for children, how these things are -- that's where they're actually worked in practice. And we've got one going on at the moment on moderation and social networking services. One of these is in effect -- if fact they're both updating documents that previously existed under the old system before we develop the UK executive board and there's a greet deal of energy and activity going on in trying to get an agreement on what should go into those codes of practice. And next to the industry working group we have a group which is specifically looking at games. Video games. You know, children play games a lot on the internet and on other digital devices.
But most of these connect to the internet now. And so there's a whole range of issues about age appropriate content, about filtering and about parental controls and that's being addressed by that working group. And they with have two further ones, one is specifically look at how the Education Ministry is providing advice and guidance to individual schools in terms -- and how that's integrated into the national curriculum and what is actually taught in schools in relation to internet safety and then last but by no means least is the public education working group. Now, that's the working group that develops public facing campaigns and public facing internet and safety and awareness programs that are broadcast on TV or broadcast on the radio and will appear in advertisements in the newspapers. I say -- I say will be.
What I should have said is that they used to be. Because with our new Government discovering Britain is bankrupt and broke and have new money no new expenditure on communications is taking place at the moment. That could change in the near future. We certainly hope so. But I'm afraid it's very unlikely to because on the 20th of October Government is announcing public spending revenue and we're expecting the cuts and the hold backs to deepen rather than be relaxed. But, it is possible after the 20th of October when the overall assessment of our economic state is being completed by the new Government it is possible that they will at least relax some of the rules about expenditures. Those are the four kind of official bits of the Government machinery that are dealing with these sorts of issues and into which the industry feed in.
But, we are a European nation. So on top of that, just to make our lives more interesting and more complicated we have the European union. And here's one of the first big points about this. I'm sure it's true in other countries which are federal systems, not that Europe is a federal state, yet, but nonetheless it is true that European union has got law-making powers and it's got powers to develop codes of practice in exactly the same way as the British Government has and it has been and we're grateful for this it's been very active in these fields. So for example I mentioned earlier that within the UK we're developing two codes of practices. One on moderation and one on social networking sites. Well in the case of one of those the consult at the same time the process going on at the European level toll develop something which is essentially the same or covers the same territory.
Here's the first big point that industry makes about all of this. There you have the European union. There you have the British Government. And both are trying to tackle the same issues and at more or less the same time and within each company you've got essentially the same people having to deal with both at the same time. Now, okay, maybe we should not weep too many tears for some of these large and rich companies but it's a practical problem that they have to face and deal with. And it's one of the reasons why we've said within the UK, that we ought to get some kind of clarity about exactly where and how the federal, if you like the European union, is going to develop its codes of practice. That doesn't necessarily mean to say that the British have to accept them exactly as they come out of Brussels and European union's own structure and I think the industry has a point when they say it's not it's not fair in a way to be trying to do the two things at the same time.
And our view is -- and the industry's view very much is they would like one single code to cover all 27-member states of the European union. They are -- most of the companies that we're talking about here let's not forget they are global companies and they all operate within Europe and they absolutely do not want to have a European code and then 27 individual national codes and I think that's a reasonable point. But no individual country is ever going to say particularly in an area as sensitive as child he pro direction that whatever brussels comes out with we'll accept without further modification. So I think we should get the European stuff sorted and resolved. And then we, within the UK, and this is a debate going on right now, need to decide whether or to what extent we need to modify in any way to fit in with our funny little British ways or our funny little British laws however you want to put it.
So this is a highly political question. But if you look at it from the point of view of industry, I think they do have a reasonable case to make about that.
And a second and related point the industry makes about all of these sorts of things, it turns open the following. Fist of all, weapon the UK and I'm sure in each country, I'm sure it will be very similar, we have got one or two big companies that are important in the internet space, in our case BT is probably the best known. Virgin is probably the next best known and all of the big companies for us are American after that. And I can tell you having been through this myself, Many, many times, within American companies the lawyers -- if they don't decide absolutely everything -- I mean it's possible that your decision about what color paper clips you buy is not the subject of any lawyer's opinion, but almost everything else is. And they absolutely -- I mean certainly in the case of Yahoo, Google and new Sculp, all of whom I worked for at different points they want to see all of the documents.
And by that they mean they want to see them, they -- and they want to send them over to their lawyers in America to look at them and read them. And that is not an unreasonable position, again for a company to take. And one of the reasons it's not unreasonable is that because within the US, there is an established legal principle that if you sign up to a code of practice of some sort, you are in effect holding out to your customers that this is what you will actually do. So it becomes kind of incorporated by default into their contracts and into the legal basis on which they work. So it is -- that's why. It's not that they're just being bloody minded or mean. That is why they get very angry and frustrated when politicians have politically driven agendas such as we get within the UK and even at the European level, you get very short time scales and very short turn around times and sometimes quite substantial legal documents that their lawyers genuinely do need to take.
Now, let me be clear. I think it's also true that sometimes the companies will use procedural deficiencies or kind of as a delaying tactic. There's no doubt at all, particularly with the state of the world economy at the moment, lots of companies are trying to avoid having to spend any money at all on anything. And they don't absolutely have to. And so for them, if they can use you know the bureaucratic processes to delay sometimes decisions being taken, they'll do it. Because a dollar today will be worth more than a dollar they spend next year. So, I'm not saying that industry don't play those games. But what I am saying is that because we know that it makes it even more important for us to get the procedures right and to work within reasonable time frames because if you don't, all you're really doing is offering them a plausible excuse or a plausible reason for not responding perhaps in quite the way or quite within the time scale that we would want.
A second -- another point related to how industry sees things which I think again is legitimate, or has some force to it, let me put it that way, and again I'll go back to the UK now. But I'm sure it's true elsewhere, all of these big companies these days employ Government relations people right. All of your communication was a company like Google or Yahoo or facebook and so on will generally be channelled through one or two people. So the issue of kind of overload comes up. But with what you also find almost invariably is that there will be other bits of the company, perhaps technical level that are talking to other bits of the government about other things. So for example we might go through one of these companies and say have you got any resources or anything you can do to help with safer internet day.
We choose an annual event for us and a big deal and at the same time another bit of Government that may be concerned with credit the fraud or health information will be going to the same companies at the same time saying, actually, we want to have a push on health and we would like you, as underlying companies to promote this message or you can give us money or some resources or assistance to deal with this. So you can, again, you can see from the company's point of view, as far as that's concerned it's the Government they're dealing with the Government and it looks like to them, as if the Government doesn't know what it's doing or it's not very well organized in the way it presents itself. So you've got four our five, six, God knows how many different requests coming into the company from the same Government or same governmental institutions and obviously we push the child safety one.
I hope you're saying that's two minutes, Anjan. Is that what you meant by that, two minutes. These are practical problems that we used down the years. Government is a complicated business and commerce is complicated exercise.
>> JOHN CARR: I'm not saying this is necessary new but if you're asking how these internet companies see and approach it, I think it's a legitimate point. And I mean just to sort of broaden the points about the engagement of other Ministries and other bits of Government in this whole space, we've got some big stuff coming through at the moment around fostering adoption. So this is to do with children being adopted, you know, typically these days, it would be because the children are been removed from a bad parent or a bad family situation. And it's always been considered quite important that you control the access that the original that birth parents might have to that child after the child has been adopted and equally that you control the child access to the parent. It could have been a sexually abusive parent.
That's not an uncommon reason why children are removed and then put up for adoption or fostering. The arrival of facebook and arrival of the social networking media has absolutely destroyed that whole very large part of those safeguards and barriers that were erected over the years specifically to protect young children who have been adopted or fostered. So imagine there you are a 13-year-old or 14-year-old boy or girl and naturally you're curious of who your real parents are as opposed to the ones you're living with, and you manage somehow to find them on facebook and within three seconds you could have sent an e-mail or made contact with them and said, oh, mom, oh, dad, I'm so thrilled and pleased at least I've made contact with you, you know, I've always wanted to know -- and they get an e-mail back within three seconds saying please get lost, we got rid of you because -- I mean it's -- there's terrible, terrible shocking things happening.
And we have one -- I'll finish on this story. We have one of these situations arise which involved uTube and Google. This was a case where this woman had had two children forcibly removed and adopted. And she managed a couple years after they were adopted they managed to trick the social worker in the Agency that had done the adoption into revealing the whereabouts of the child, where they actually lived and she went and kidnapped the two children. She kidnapped the children and kept them hidden for two weeks. The police found them after two weeks and they had not been harmed. But nonetheless you never quite know what he could have happened to those children. And it was very, very traumatic. The same woman then had a third child. That child was removed at birth as well and then adopted. The mother tried to find the child and one of the ways she did it was putting up a video on uTube asking for -- saying these social workers have stolen my child I want to reconnect to my child, I love my child, please give you know if anybody knows any information this is where the child was born, blah, blah, blah, please get it to me now.
Somehow or another the adoptive parents of the third child found out about this video. And they also knew about the woman's history. They also knew that she had managed to trick another institution into revealing the whereabouts of the children. So they did not want to speak to uTube and ask uTube to take that video down. They came to a the adoption agency. It's one I do a lot of work with called action for children and asked action for children to speak to uTube and asked them to take this video down. It wasn't illegal -- it should not have been there. She was under court orders not to have any contact with the child and so on and uTube refused to speak to the adoption agency. They said they would only speak to the legal parents who were adopted parents. And when we explained to uTube that what that meant was that you were asking the parents to identify themselves to them, and given this woman's history they could understand why they were worried about it and didn't want to do.
It but uTube simply refused. They would not deal with us. So what we're trying to move -- and Ministry of health is very supportive of what we're doing in this connection, we are trying to speak to all of the social networking sites to get them to acknowledge and accept that where cases like this happen again that they will at least deal with respected intermediaries such as adoption agencies. The adoption agencies may have to agree to indemnify the companies and they could make a mistake and there's liability problems and adoption agencies are not worried to do that. They know their work is profession at. It's an example and I think because the health Ministries got involved in this and it's a any issue for everybody can I see that but it's one coming up now. And I mentioned it to everybody else because you'll get it son as well.
There you go. A bit with rambling but there you are. Thanks.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Thank you so much, John. I think the last part was really interesting to see the connections between the different ministries and agencies we have been trying to say I heard a quick comment about you mentioned about gaming and involvement of the health department you know whether they're welcoming at the content of the game that's been developed or is that what you meant?
>> JOHN CARR: They're not editorializing or looking at gaming -- we have a system for rating games. The issue has been that that system, until very recently had no legal thoughts behind it except for the extreme wins, we now have a legal system D. 18 and above -- and it's about rolling out codes of practice and making sure the shops and Web sites selling the games know about it and are doing it.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Thanks, John. Any questions on his presentation? No? Yes, please.
>> AUDIENCE: John, I wanted to know you didn't mention and I don't know what it's like in the UK, but you didn't mention telecommunications authority. And I -- I know it vary from country to country what authority they actually have and how they play. But, notable absence in almost all of the national plans we've been looking at the telecommunication authority in relation to child protection and I see that also in the UK. So I wonder if you can speak to that?
>> JOHN CARR: We have a statutory regulator called off come and it's advanced by way of levy and not financed by the Government it has considerable legal powers and they're very much involved with all of the child protection stuff. They did a lot of extremely good high quality research. They published in may this year for example that 25% of all children between the ages of 8 and 12 have got facebook account.
25% of all British children between ages of 8 and 1 are on facebook even though the age limit is 13. And that was ofCOMs numbers you can't argue with them they're the statutory body ofCOM.
>> We'll move on to our next presenter.
>> ANJAN BOSE: I'm glad to introduce the work that ITU has been doing that fits and probably try to see how that work can be drawn into this kind of context, national strategies of different countries are being drawn or planned. What would be the role of ITU in that regard?
>> Ms. JeoungHee Kim: I'm JeoungHee Kim from ITU. I think most of you already are familiar with I T U work activities on child on-line protection as a leading organisation in ICT, ITU has provided global level expertise promoting cyber securities to the range of activities related, telecommunication, radio communication and technical assistance to our member state especially developing countries as they are needed. And ITU when you said international organisation, you will think like international organisation has members on the Government. But ITU has 191 member state plus more than 900 sector members which is private sector members. So in collaboration with this our sector members, ITU is their right position to collaborate a right and public coalition in this area. At the 2005 World Summit Information Society the world leaders of the Government and international communities asked ITU to be sole facilitator and action allies five which is build withing confidence and security in the years of ICTs.
To response -- is a responsibility on this and ITU secretary launched global security agenda in 2005. This global cyber security agenda let's GCA have five working work areas. One is legal measure you're. And two is technical and procedure measure you're and third one is organizational structure and fourth one is capacity building and the last one is international corporations. And under this work five areas this year it's implemented in the different activities. As a cocompetent of this JCA, ITU child open line protection launched it in 2008 because as a part of GC 8 ITU, COP also followed the -- has a work area in the five field pillars. And as a part of GCA as I already introduced many of you, ITU provides STOP guideline of four holders, policy makers and industries and parents and educators and children themselves.
And particular -- in particular to integrated with our member state is officially Government or policy makers, ITU has started to national survey in 20 09. This survey provides a questionnaire asking what kind of national policies and framework in the country and what is focal point on this area and what they need and what they can say to other members and things like that. So more than 50 countries applied for the survey and we already found out in individual countries a strength or weakness for part of their policy. So because we already have a good progress so we keep opening the survey to other members and other countries and we're to have in the joined the survey. I already introduced ITUs, that national status current main work to provide the right indicators for other developing countries to check their policies or provide a -- or prepare their policies on child on-line production.
So rather than repeating national survey and framework which I already introduced several times at other workshops and things, I wanted to explain about with ITU working group and child on-line protection. As we introduce with the Government yesterday ITU council provide specific resolutions to ask our member states to work with this area specifically child on-line protections. We have had two meetings. The fist one was in March this year and the second one is June this year. Especially during the second meetings -- second meeting of working group in June, we provide -- we had so many contribution withes from country, individual countries up including Egypt and other countries. And based on their contributions from the Secretariat support on social networking services and policies with regard to user created contents and draft of report on source ever on-line threat of youth and children and then plus there's statistical framework and child on-line protection.
Apart from this working we're also working on raising awareness through several workshops and WSIS workshops and things like that. Plus thank you for this workshop and thank you for IGF because I also got an idea about how we ITU, COP can collaborate at this point. Because ITU has a youth porgramme. So I think we can develop ITU porgramme to collaborate and invite young people to listen to their voice and to invite them to prepare ITU international strategy in child on-line protections. ITU Secretary-General but put cyber security as one of his top priorities. He is really focusing and very concerned in this area. So 2009 he already called action for our member and expertise and in this area. So far more than 40 countries and agencies replied to their actions on child on-line protection and plus the child on-line COP members already has supplied it.
There is shared information what they're working own and what they're planning to work on this area. I think I have replied to your request. But I'm really, really happy he to share to all IT resources and information with you and COP with members. If you have any questions I'll be happy to share that. Thank you.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Thank you JeoungHee . Any questions from her from the floor. Well, quick question, let Carmen ask the question first.
>> CARMEN MADRINAN: Just a quick question regarding council working group and makeup of that working group? The makeup, who makes up that group? Who is represented in that group.
>> It's open to all ITU member state and stakeholders and this one is based on constant resolutions provided by ITU council.
>> CARMEN MADRINAN: So Government and private sector right?
>> Private sector which is who the members -- sector members.
>> ANJAN BOSE: And my quick question you mentioned 40 countries re1307BDed to the request you know ITU made -- request -- is it in compliance with -- what are they presenting in are they presenting guidelines they created or initiatives they may have come up with in a national plan or how are they complying with the overall cop process.
>> They provided their activities with a specific call to action which IT secretary asked. So you can get all information on our Web site and I can share with you right after this.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Yes, Nevine sure.
>> NEVINE TEWFIK: We have also in the first meeting we have actually agreed -- I'm sorry. We have agreed actually to suggest the inclusion of expert request of the member state or members in the council and it has been approved now. So NGOs can participate. In the beginning we had an issue about that procedurally I think.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Okay. So, we move on to our last presenter of the day. I welcome Dr. Zoe Hilton. She's the head of safeguarding and child protection for COP child exploitation and on-line protection center and she heads up child protection advisors within the CEO preponderance and she has a background with working with children and child protection and developing operational research and strategy and worked previously with NSCP. Floor is all yours, Zoe.
>> ZOE HILTON: Thanks very much for the opportunity to come and speak today. I want to give you an overview of CEOP and its leadership role around operational work with on-line sexual exploitation in the UK and talk about public visibility and why it's important to us in terms of reaching children and I then went to look at -- at our relationship and partnership with NSPPC which is key part of our multi-agency approach in this area. If flows from that child protection strategies within the investigations and sort of child focused law enforcement approach that we're delivering or aspiring to. And then timely I'll look at features of the UK which kind of allow this approach give permission for this approach I'm conscious it's one example and hope it's not too parochial and today we had interesting stuff about the wider structures and I think Jonas set the context for multi-agency environment of the UK.
It was this environment that in a sense gave birth to CEOP. And so CEOP stands for child exploitational on-line protection center launched over four years ago in April of 2006 and it's law enforcement child protection agency. It's more than just law enforcement unit. We undertake serious and organized crime in the on-line environment which we understand and configure as complex child abuse investigations. So although it's serious, and it's organized and certainly involves a level of technical expertise the driving factor is it's child abuse investigation. So it is not pleased in the same way as drugs, crime or terrorism or gun crime or other features. It's a different -- it's -- it needs a different investigative approach. It's -- we're multi-agency professional. We have police officers working alongside qualified, trained social workers, social care, professionals, we work on-line and off-line.
Because the on-line and off-line are merged. We identify, locate, protect children and bring offenders to account and seek to feed that into a model where we can promote education and information work. So just a few things then. Sorry my slides are turning into something of an eye test. I'm really sorry. It's not meant as an eye exam. I'll just give you an overview from those headings of our model. To start with we are harm reduction which I said is the education awareness out reach, empowerment work where we try to reach out to children and the public through our education programs. We have sin intelligence faculty which is where all our information comes in and information from the police, information from local forces and local children's services and NGOs overseas and UK from industry. Huge numbers of reports from industry and the public from parents, from children, they give us a great deal of information which we then work and put together into our intelligence picture which we then can deliver law enforcement response and last but not least is operations faculty which is where our police officers undertake often quite long term investigations into sex offender networks and on-line environment or victim identification from images.
And we also have our financial desk and other aspects that -- yes, just -- and just to emphasize that, we produce a learning product. So we produce intelligence products from intelligence assessments and from operations we undertake. And that feeds into our harm reduction and our education. It gives education work a bit of an edgy think because it ensures that it is contemporary in terms of what children are doing in the ways they're putting themselves at risk and that's fed both internally and to the wider child protection community our intelligence assessments go to local forces who don't have the capacity or expertise in house to rally get their heads around this problem in the same way we're able to in the UK as a specialist center. I suppose COP is absolutely critically dependent on its partnerships and not just for funding or expertise or knowledge or information but also much of it is inspiration I think comes from partnerships.
Local police forces are obviously key for us. We're a specialist center based in London and we need the local forces in order to successfully deliver our complex investigations. So we have single points of contact in every force. We also increasingly are seeking to link as effectively to local children's services and link in the child protection and we will on any case. International law enforcement, national charities. I'll talk in a minute particularly of the role of NSCP and national charities in the UK as well as NGOs overseas and they give us understanding of needs of vulnerable children in particular industry obviously very critical again, expertise, technological products and also supporting our mechanisms and reporting structures on some of the services, and funding the range of support is massive.
Professionals front line professionals we now have 40,000 professionals actually more than that I think who deliver and train the education porgramme phone the first line of cascade models. They go into schools and deliver education products and we call them ambassadors and researchers that help us understand and interpret the intelligence we're getting at a slightly more sophisticated level. So we can horizon scan as well and see what's coming and also have a proper understanding of the issues. Before I move on I also just wanted to talk about with CEOPs visibilities with the pub with lick and relationship with the public. That's a key aspect of our model. We have a specific relationship with children with reporting mechanism and also their parents. You see there in the left-hand corner the CEOP advice report button.
That's our eye cop and front door and how you come through to us. And through working with industry we managed to ensure that that is now imbedded in a range of environments. And it's in instant messenger and BBO and it's now awe downloadable tab with facebook in facebook and in Google chrome. So that's our education front page of our education. There's obviously tabs in there in a huge range of smaller Web sites, youth groups, school Web sites and also in some of the big ones or downloadable in some of the big ones that's the tab in Internet Explorer right for example that's a web slice that brings you through to all our reporting mechanisms and there's a tab in Google chrome. So we worked with a range of partners to make our reporting mechanism visible and accessible to children in the spaces where they are.
And that's the current page you'll take through to that is our advice and help center. So it's not a panic button. It's a safety center. It currently constitutes the UKs one-stop shop for internet safety. We also do that one-stop shop -- sorry, -- you come through to us when you want to make a report to the police. But this page will post you to other part In other words and NGOs so beat bullying and we work with children being bullied through cyber mentor porgramme it will take you through to Childline and to the internet watch foundation to report content. So the work of our partners as well.
Now I want to talk specifically about the multi-agency model in practice and get slightly more into the kind of nitty gritty of our partnership with the NSPCC within CEOP. We have a team of NSPC social workers who work with us as syndicated staff and they've been given us to by NSPCC and they retain NSPCC identity. It adds enormous value to our work. They are charged with keeping our work, primarily law enforcement focus and child focus to linking to child services and giving consultation on some of the high risk cases that we do. They work across the business. They work in our operations faculty and intelligence and in harm reduction and enable that multi-agency child focused response to cases. My boss Jim gamble says we're law enforcement agency with house of NGO. It's something I quote back to him when useful to do so.
Think it's where we derive inspiration and spirit and what we aspire to anyway. I'm going to briefly introduce our partners even though they're not here to give you a sense of the NSPCC. It stands for national society November prevention of cruelty to children. It's a very important UK-based charity and massive household name. But they do -- they have a huge range of projects working directly with children and families and to help line and they have enormous amount of expertise and professional staff working with the children therapeutically who have been sexually abused, and children who are exhibiting sexually harmful behavior, commercially sexually exploited children. So they have enormous amount of professional knowledge in terms of working with victims and from our point of view, they also experienced investigators.
So it's not only that they have often those sort of therapeutic counseling skills around victims but they also experience -- those within the NSPCC have investigation into child abuse. So some of the experiences that you know knowledge and understanding that they bring and I just flagged this the importance and involvement of health I think we're learning about the impact of abuse and child abuse images and obviously some of the things research is continuing to show, you know, not only the initial abusive episode but also where images are concerned that kind of lack of control about who sees it and how long it remains available and what it's being used for. And we're learn learning from research about the therapeutic barriers and particular hurdles around how children feel and complicit or responsible particularly where they've been made to smile or laugh in images and how that can stay with them and affect their future.
I think what's interesting is research is looking at the impact of self-taken as well so. Children who have done something quite light hearted where they think it's funny at the time and that also has a therapeutic impact on them.
And so I'm flagging that in terms of some of the knowledge and expertise that they're bringing as well as the investigative experience and specialist knowledge. And so, again, another slide it's a bit unhelpfully small. But what the social work team do is bring that knowledge but also for our operational work they will develop a child protection strategy which will cover key aspect of safeguarding and welfare issues and they're highlight best practice and legislation and advice both in the UK and if we're deploying overseas on an operation they will highlight -- research and highlight some of the international best practice or local legislation. And they also will give specific detailed advice depending on the nature of the operation we're involved in. So I've just listed some of the issues that they work on around kind of missing or exploitation and how to handle historical abuse and you know issues of live abuse.
If you're interrupting live abuse as we looked at in the impact of abuse and images contact -- when you first come into contact with children at appropriateness or inappropriateness of medical exam and the interviewing strategy, how to interview victims effectively and what the kind of appropriate questions to ask and the frameworks for that, the level of therapeutic need and assessment, advice around later replacement potentially and they'll do specific assessments of known children that are -- that we've become aware of in any given operation and they will link up with local services and show effective local services. And I wanted to emphasize this point because it's not that we're going beyond victim care exactly. We've gone beyond that to fully integrated child protection strategy. It's doing all the victim care stuff but , acknowledging that the multi-agency approach is that it ensures that actually the child protection strategy can actually influence the way the operation runs at a more systemic level.
And that's all much more challenging in a way. But I think it's very valuable. All child abuse investigation in the UK is multi-agency. So it will involve police and social workers. But what very often happens with these kind of investigations because they are complicated and they're technical and involve the internet, they go to a sort of separate area of policing where it is seen very much as more organized crime and they get lost in the child abuse realm And actually the child abuse complex child abuse is what we're dealing with when we deal with these investigations on-line. To keep the focus on the child protection purpose of the investigation and they ensure regular review of strategy. And impact on the operational plan. And again, this is about NCPCC work retaping their identity and challenge. I included these terms about the value of professional curiosity, respectful uncertainty and appropriate challenge in the contempt of multi-agency working.
Tease are terms that have come out of some of the reviews of child abuse investigation in the UK. And they really go to the heart of successful multi-agency working where are you bringing different professional perspectives to the table in order to retain a kind of child focused approach.
We can as a team and myself we call for a time out at any point in an operational activity. And that's about when sometimes when you have a law enforcement strategy that is a bit gung-ho aunt time scales have not -- do not fall in line with what child protection vision is it's ta taking time to plan and come around the table and talk about what the right approach is and what approach will least revictimize or potentially harm a child in the activity. So I just in case you sort of don't really know the kinds of issues that come up, I just wanted to come up with a few of the areas of challenge between working with the excellence and working with those involved more closely in children's social care or -- and the NGO at the NSPCC. So child protection is key operational change and they hope to give it that focus. We work around understanding offender risk in terms of potential future risk.
And access to children. So the family and positions of trust and vulnerability of looking holistically of the vulnerability of children. That may seem very obvious but often when you work with police they're interested absolutely legitimately from their perspective of gathering evidence to get a conviction and getting enough evidence toe be sure of a good conviction. That is their focus. When you work with child protection advice s from NSPCC it is what risk did 12459 person pose in the future and what are the potential contact points and I what do we need to do to ensure those children are protected into the future and bringing together those perspectives. Areas of challenges, any operation cannot compromise the safety of a child or allow abuse to occur. We will not be complicit in allowing child abuse to occur.
This is very different, for example in the UK with how complicated a drugs operation would be police you might run surveillance or watch drugs being exchanged and we won't do that. And we'll stop any kind of surveillance activity. It is interesting sometimes because when you're trying to infiltrate a network, that discreet challenges. Similarly we won't promote the exchange of child abuse material in order to identify or capture suspects. So those are kind of areas of challenging and influence within our activity. And so the safeguarding needs of children will impact on the nature and manner of activities. Tiling of arrests and you don't go and arrest offenders with the children and the children will be distressed. It sounds obvious but actually there's all sorts of features to that. And I've included media work.
That's less about the police I think than other aspect. But again protecting children in the -- their involvement and their -- where they've been a -- victims and not going to feel distressed by that.
Another area of challenge is all the children -- old are children, 16, 17 years reminding colleagues that those children are -- those young people are still children and have vulnerabilities under the UN Convention and rights of a child they are still developing capacity and have rights to protection. And another area of attention has been young people with offending behaviors. NSPCC as NGO brings to us a perspective about those children and their experiences and their own very often their own child protection needs and what those offending behaviors are coming from. With law enforcement that's much more difficult and changing because that professional perspective is about with protecting the public from offending. So again it's an area or interesting area of challenge. I think what makes it work for us is about that kind of -- is the fact we are co-located and there's a huge amount of professional respect on both sides.
We won't always agree on everything but through is that mutual respect to move forward and retain a child focus. Now, again I'm cautious about with drawing out finally I wanted to say something about with the political context for CEOP's work in terms of national strategies. I want ton cautious because the UK is a particular kind of environment. And I think John actually covered political structures and the kind of promotion of the cross sector multistakeholder approach within UK and strong edge engagement of industry, civil society, government, law enforce. And environment of self-regulation and particularly the strength of civil society in the UK the organizations like Venice PCC and CHIZ the coalition John leads which has all the major charities. Their role in advocacy and political pressure through the media and has kept the focus on the child and kind of created the kind of environment for CEOP's work and I think -- but I think from a kind of bottom up speaking sort of operation I think there's influencing that you can do through making -- forming the model and making it work in practice and proving it works.
So I think as well for CEOP with the sort of developing and understanding of professionals both within CEOP in terms of arm level, police officers and social workers working together, but also how we influence local forces and local services to do the same thing in their investigations or as part of our investigations. That was my final comment. Thanks.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Thank you so much Zoe for running us through a very interesting presentation covering -- you know this is a very unique model CEOP developed and bringing in specialized multi-agency approach which is so key for the protection of children and their development as well. I would like to open the floor for questions if somebody has burning -- I have two there. So I'll go with Pricilla first.
>> Pricilla: Hi I'm Pricillia from UNICEF New York thank you for your presentation it was interesting. I am partially and impressed and up intrigued with CEOP as child protectionist and intrigued in ICT expert as well or at least I hope so. And I have two questions. The first one concerns how the CEOP balance, the protection of children on-line, who have basic individual rights not only of children but especially of suspected offenders who are not offenders until they're actually con condemned by a court. But just suspected of you know the whole presumption of innocence which is extremely important and also individual rights, freedom of speech, privacy, I'm not really sure about importance of this right or how much it is protected in the UK but as you probably know in America these are fundamental and extremely sometimes too much, protected rights and I would like to know how these basic individual rights or balance in initiatives are conducted by the UK by CEOP in the UK.
And my second question is more specific concerning facebook panic or at least the name given by media, I -- sorry to be using it -- I know it's quite recent initiative. Maybe June of this year. So I'm not sure there has been any reports or analysis yet by CEOP or other expert but my question is basically how -- I read actually one report not really a report but in the media one article saying that the number of reports have been increased since implementation of the button but I want to know how superficial or actually real efficient has been these reports and also how is the corporation with digital actor like facebook is going in terms of give ago way personal information about facebook users and let's say if I, for instance, make a defamation statement on facebook, let's imagine I'm 17 or even I mean my age right now late 20s I won't be more precise but I make a defamatory fore statement how is facebook collaborating with CE OP in terms of giving up personal information of users in the case of Brazil, for instance, Google has been at first republican sanity and then cooperative and they don't have a choice and sometimes find themself obliged but agreed to pay heavy fines to they can protect privacy of their users.
To know how this has been managed in the UK and thanks again for your presentation it was very informative.
>> Zoe: Thank you very much it's quite a lot there and I'm not sure CEOP can claim either credit or failure for some of all of those things you talk about. In terms of rights we talked about it in the session yesterday it's always frustrating when there's a conversation about human rights and children's rights and I'm sure we're all aware of that frustration. I think you know it is a balance in terms of children's rights to privacy and freedom of expression and also protection. I think children's rights when it comes to sort of you know over use of freedom of expression with adults let's think and look about children's rights in terms of child abuse images and their impact. I think we very much -- we very much use UNC as a balance in our model. That influences our education porgramme really in terms of some of the issues that we try to pick up on and balanced approach we take.
So, you know understanding where children are, the fact children are on facebook, how can we educate them to set privacy settings. But I think what you were getting at in terms of facebook is actually how we are trying to influence facebook in terms of their practices. So I think you know there was probably quite a lot of disagreement between CEOP and facebook about the use of our reporting mechanisms and CEOP advice report button. We have found that to be incredibly useful as a mechanism to report into us and we've been very clear in terms of with facebook about why we felt they should implement our report and that's because we were getting so many reports about with facebook but got through facebook. So we were getting users coming to us saying why can't we report in facebook. They had to exit the facebook environment and find another route to us to then say I had this really, horrible awful experience.
You couldn't benchmark it against reports to police for example. All we know is we get lots and lots of reports. So there's no really kind of standard to kind of evaluate its effectiveness. We know we get a lot. In the case of facebook we knew people were leaving facebook and reporting to us so we know there's a gap. We can identify gaps where the popular services are and it makes us more effective when we're in instant messenger and we can report to facebook and take forward those reports and it has been -- I would say that the -- that relationship to the public is huge aspect to till L intelligence. Half of hour reports to come from the public and we had very high profile case where's children have reported very often their friends have reported and then we've been able to take that forward into a proper -- no a much wider and bigger investigation than you know therapy think there was one case we got -- we got a guy who also was grooming 70 other kids and that was one report.
So, I -- begun a kind of really coherent evaluation buzz of the nature we're dealing with but we know we're getting lots of reports and it's effective. In terms of wider responsibilities against fake book and users privacy settings we need to influence more than simply in relation to other reporting mechanism and we have tried to do that. But I don't think that I can probably speak to you know or can't speak on behalf of facebook but the relationship between us and facebook is very constructive. But I don't feel that I should be speaking on their behalf about what they're doing. Does that answer your question?
>> Yes. Just the one about individual rights of the suspected offenders.
>> Zoe: Right: Yeah. So I'm not quite sure what -- can you say a bit more about.
>> For example, when you find the suspected behavior or someone flags some sort of behavior that's offending, or illegal, how actually like do you -- I'm just math upping CEOP special lights or law enforcement trying to track down IP address and if it leads to more get a surprise and know location of offender or do they go to facebook if the offense was facebook and try to know more about the profile of the person with. How do you locate the offender and to what extent can -- what extent, what is the limit so that his basic privacy and basic right are respected?
>> Zoe: It's quite clear laws that we comply with around some of those issues. We can't go -- there's clear laws and guidance. We can't go fishing to look for offenders. John do you want to comment? Sorry.
>> JOHN CARR: Everything depends open the facts of the case.
>> Zoe: Yes. John, in the case of --
>> JOHN CARR: If law enforcement needs to obtain contents of an e-mail for example if there's suspected illegal traffic between two people, it requires a very high level of legal certainty that a crime is being committed. If it is simply toy get IP address that can be done under procedure called regulation of investigation (Inaudible) where a senior police officer has to confirm that there is reasonable suspicion. We are compliant with all of that.
>> Zoe: I get what you're getting at now. We have different grades for the information that we need depending on how intrusive it is. So I will sign off -- we will sign offer grade one if there's -- if we need a high level, quite intrusive communications data. And that will depend really on the urgency of the information. So if the information leads to potentially a threat to life, we can sign off grade one. That's a whole section of communication data we can lawfully access. Less intrusive data, so less personal information, we call it a grade two. It's how we basically make sure that it's proportionate in terms of what information we are seeking and how we're using it.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Before we go to the next question we have a question from the remote participant. Maybe we should address that first.
>> We have remote participator question from John Paul from remote. He is asking miss Kim from ITU whether they have planned to involve UNICEF for the child on-line protection of ITU and whether she thinks UNICEF will be an important partner. Thanks.
>> Ms. Kim: Thank you can you hear me? Can you hear me? Okay. I think UNICEF is our -- what? Sorry, I think UNICEF is already our CEOP member but to be sure let me double check. Built I think we're already working owe on UNICEF thank you.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Yes sir, question in the back?
>> (Speaking French).
>> Go ahead.
>> [ speaking French) --
>> Is it being translated to English?
>> I will try to speak in English but excuse me it's -- it will -- it will be very bad. But -- hello I am -- from of cloud and we work essentially about the protection of youth. We have organized last year and put in protection of youth from Cybercrime. And the next year 23 February we will organise another Forum about cyber criminality and safety and protection of child. And we would be happy if all the present -- the experience. My question is that for the north African country there is specificity for this country.
>> He's asking how we can take into account specificities of north African countries.
>> ANJAN BOSE: Which of our panelists want to address this. Maybe Nevine can.
>> NEVINE TEWFIK: Well it's a question that I also share and would like to hear from the other panelists. But one option we have now is to adopt the Arab eSafety project currently presented to the league of Arab states and start working in coordination with Arab countries s because I think we need a lot of research to understand. I do agree there's cultural issues that have to be taken into consideration as well as work methodologies that we have to develop that are respectful of the context. So it would be greet in the Arab eSafety project that is currently presented to the Arab league is adopted and we start work in Unison actually.
>> ANJAN BOSE: We are running a bit behind. Time just flew. And two hours we have spent was a very interesting session. And I would like to pass on the microphone to Carmen to pass on her closing -- to wrap up the session and pass on closing comments. We have a question right but I think --
>> CARMEN MADRINAN: I would like to really thank all of the panelists very much. I think it was very interesting discussion. And very valuable because it gave us the opportunity to look both at national level structures that are looking at integration, the importance with and value of having different actors around the table, both at the macro level and more at the agency level with Zoe looking specifically at a particular example, but parallel messages in terms of the value of having all of the key players join together because you have a better and more integrated response which actually impacts open the child and what we bring for children. So thank you very much. And I look forward to seeing you in Kenya. (Applause).
>> ANJAN BOSE: Thank you, everybody.