Cornwall Public Inquiry

Phase 2 Community Meeting

Building Hope, Trust and Pride

Technology and Child Exploitation: Risks and Opportunities

April 15, 2008

Presentation Summary

Introduction 

Phil Murray, Advisory Panel member, started off the evening with a general introduction from Phase 2 of the Inquiry, explaining that this event is on in a series of public education events sponsored by Phase 2. This event deals with protecting children from threats posed by the Internet and technology. 

Phil then went on to outline the general ground rules of the evening. He stated that we will try to have time for questions and answers at the end of the event, but that in anycase, the presenters will stay after in order to answer questions. He asked that the audience respect people’s time, differing opinions and encouraged people to use both official languages. Phil then introduced Gail Kaneb, Advisory Panel member from Cornwall. 

Gail informed the audience that at the beginning of its mandate, the Advisory Panel met with 35 different community groups. Every one of those groups emphasized the need to focus on the prevention of future abuse of children. She stated that survivors were adamant that another generation of children should not have to suffer the abuse that they suffered. In order to prevent abuse of this generation of children, we have to target where kids hang out. Today, kids are hanging out on the Internet, which is the danger that wewill focus on today. 

Gail told the audience that several trained mentors are in attendance to offer personal support if necessary, and to explain Cornwall’s mentor program. She also noted that Commissioner Normand Glaude is present, but only to listen; he cannot talk about Phase1 of the Inquiry. Gail noted that there were some additional internet events coming up in Cornwall – one put on by the ASAP program and one for younger children put on by the Cornwall Community police force. She noted these are good opportunities for people to learn moreto help kids. 

Gail then outlined the program for the evening. First, Paul Gillespie will begin by talking about Canada’s initiatives internationally. Next, Rick Greenwood will address what Canada is doing nationally. Third, John Smith will address Ontario efforts. And finally,Sabrina Yoong will present a youth perspective and will offer some practical advice on how to talk to your kids about the Internet. Gail then introduced Paul Gillespie. She noted that Paul is famous for having contactedBill Gates of Microsoft and asking for assisting in helping to protect children from the threats of the Internet. Paul is a former Toronto Police Services Detective Sergeant and Expert Investigator on Internet Child Exploitation will provide an overview of international efforts to curb child exploitation over the Internet.

Paul Gillespie – International Perspective

Paul expressed his pleasure in being invited to Cornwall to talk about this important issue. He stated that his goal for this evening is to discuss the Internet issue and how it is affecting people around the world. 

Paul noted that technology can do a lot of great things, it can allow us to interact with one another, however, on the other hand, it also allows many bad things to happen. Images of abuse are being traded over the Internet. Globally, law enforcement agencies are facing the same challenges all over the world in combating Internet abuse: the lack of resources, lack of training and a lack of an ability to work together. 

Paul then spoke about how the software he developed with Bill Gates is helping police from all around the world to be able to work together to combat cyber crime. The Internet does not respect borders, so the ability for cyber cops around the world to work together makes a big difference.

Paul’s goal as part of the Kids Internet Safety Alliance is to make a dramatic difference in the lives of our children. In doing this, he noted that it is important to get the right messaging out to our kids. For example, he has worked with the creators of Grossology and has built a comic book for kids on the topicof Internet abuse.

The book is written for kids in their own language and is currently being distributed to kids in grades 3-6. 

In working with kids, Paul stated that he is always looking for new ways to get kids engaged. As many of us know, privacy is not really a big issue for kids these days --they are not bothered by sharing personal information with others, even strangers. We have to look for ways to get the privacy message to kids in ways they will understand. Paul then described his second role, as the Director of Cybercrime at the Centre forCybercrime Research at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa.One of the challenges he faces in this role is how to train police officers to enforce lawson the Internet. 

He emphasized a need for academics, researchers and law enforcement officials to work together to stop crime in the Internet. He noted that we are constantly playing catch up tothe criminals. Paul stated that he estimates there to be about 1 million images of children being abused out there on the Internet. His estimate is that these pictures involve at least50,000 different children. And while most people think that the victims of Internet abuse are from the developing world, that 90% of the images he sees are of children from Western countries. So the problem exists in our backyard. 

The question then becomes, how do we protect our kids? When Paul was a child, he said the rule was “don’t talk to strangers”. But how do we tell kids what a stranger is today? How can we fight against the notion that kids have a right to privacy? Many parents wrongly believe that their children have a right to privacy and so do not intervene whenthey should. 

Paul noted that we are world leaders in Canada in dealing with child abuse over the Internet, with the National Child Exploitation Centre co-coordinating efforts across the country. But, he stated that we need to continue to build upon this expertise. We need toknow where the bad guys hide out on the Internet. We need to be able to find and rescue the children who are being exploited. And technology can help with that too.

Paul then thanked the audience for the opportunity to speak and stated that he will be around after the presentations to answer questions. 

Phil thanked Paul for his informative presentation. 

Phil then introduced Rick Greenwood from the RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, a seasoned investigator, who will provide a Canadian perspective tothe problem of Internet abuse. 

Rick Greenwood – Canadian Perspective 

Rick introduced Dr. Roberta Sinclair, who is the head of research at the National ChildExploitation Co-ordination Centre. 

He started off by stating that his goal is to tell the audience about the national strategies in place in Canada that will help to address the problem Paul spoke about. Ontario is a leader in fighting Internet child exploitation. We have the Toronto Police Service and the OPP running the provincial programs. The NCECC program is national in scope and part of its mandate is prevention and awareness. They run the website www.cybertip.ca,where cyber crimes, such as luring, distributing and child sex tourism, can be reported. Rick stated that the crimes that take place over the Internet are real crimes with real victims. He noted that the perception is that these are often a victimless crime, but the children in the images are real and need to be protected. One of the goals of the NCECCis to identify these children and rescue them. We can rescue these children through research and through training of law enforcement officials. The NCECC runs training sessions for all police agencies across Canada. 

In terms of the mandate of the NCECC, Rick states that its role is multifaceted. It supports officers in child exploitation units. It also receives intelligence from various worldwide sources, such cybertip.ca, which is Canadian, and the U.S. National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, the FBI, the U.S. Post Office and the Department ofHomeland Security. 

In Rick’s view, the operating environment for cyber crime is ideal. It is easy to distributeand access child abuse images over the Internet. And our generation is falling behind.Canadian youth are increasingly wired and tech-savvy, but their guardians are not. In addition, the offenders are knowledgeable about the technology and are incredibly motivated to be technologically advanced; they know the technology the best of all. This has lead to a steady increase in the number of child sex abuse images on the Internet, both on paid and unpaid sites. In his estimation, thousands of new pictures are posted weekly.

Rick then went on to demystify some of the language commonly used. For example, we often call child sexual abuse images “kiddie porn” or “child porn”. In actuality, it is not pornography, but assaultive images. Another example is “child sex tourism”. What this really means is that the sex offender travels to abuse his/her victims. 

Rick emphasized that child sexual assault images on the Internet are not benign. Over 80% of the images involve penetration. Approximately 20% of the images are violent.And most startlingly, most of the children in the images are under the age of 9. As the demand for these images increases, the abuse escalates. New material means new victims. In addition, there is a new trend developing, real time abuse, where a child is abused in real time and broadcast over the Internet. 

Rick finished his presentation by indicating that collaboration with other international agencies will increase over time. He then stated that John Smith from the OPP will talk more about the implementation of Canada’s national strategy. 

Phil thanked Rick for his presentation. He then introduced Andrew Stewart from theOntario Provincial Police, who will outline the Ontario strategy. 

Andrew Stewart – Provincial Strategy 

Andrew began his presentation by telling the audience that we are trying to move away from the language of pornography for describing child sexual abuse images, as it is inappropriate. 

He stated that we are very fortunate in Ontario to have a provincial strategy on Internet child sexual abuse. There are 18 forces, plus the OPP involved in the provincial strategy. All of these agencies work together, as well as with the NCECC. He stated that there is a real partnership between these agencies, which includes not only the police agencies, but also two full-time Crown Attorneys and Victim Services. 

The provincial focus is on finding the victims and supporting them. 

Andrew then introduced John Smith, who is a senior member of the OPP’s ChildExploitation Section. 

John Smith 

John introduced himself as a Detective Constable from the OPP who has worked in the Child Sexual Exploitation Unit for the past 7 years. 

He stated that over the past 7 years, he has seen the practices of the Child Sexual Exploitation Unit evolve, and these practices have evolved to keep up with the changes and advances in technology. 

To illustrate this, he asked the audience how many times they think they are caught on camera each day. Someone in the audience thought maybe 100 times.

John stated that in North America we are caught on camera between 30-50 times per day. This is contrasted with Europe, where people are caught in camera between 300-400 times per day. Johnstated that this mindset will be in North America soon. He then asked how many people in the audience have a cell phone. Everyone raised hisor her hand. He stated that cell phones are one of the greatest tools of victimization today. And this “digital” victimization, where pictures of abuse end up on the Internet only prolongs the victimization. Seven years ago, if there was a complaint of sexual assault, once the court case was over, the crime was over, but not now. If someone takes a picture and posts it on the Internet, it stays there forever and the victimization continues forever. 

John stated that kids these days do not think about these long-term consequences of technology and that we need to find a way to get this message across to kids in order tochange their attitudes. For instance, young people will often post sexually explicit (but legal) photographs of themselves on the Internet without thinking of the long-term consequences, such as someone in the future performing a background check for a job. Once those pictures are posted on the Internet, there is no way of getting them back. That information is now out there for anyone to see, a potential employer, a new boyfriend/girlfriend.

John then drew the parallel between drinking and driving and putting information about yourself on the Internet. Twenty years ago drinking and driving was socially acceptable, but now is not. We need a similar social phenomenon to happen with the Internet. We need to understand how technology will follow us throughout out lives. In order to do this, we need to educate our kids about the technology. We have to tell them that their online activities are potentially illegal and that the consequences of those activities areforever. 

John then described the current state of Canadian law with respect to child sexual abuse images. The definition is contained in s. 163 of the Criminal Code. It includes not only images, but also written stories depicting the sexual abuse of children.s. 163.1

(1) In this section, “child pornography” means 

(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means, 

(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age ofeighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or 

(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age ofeighteen years; 

(b) any written material, visual representation or audio recording that advocates orcounsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; 

(c) any written material whose dominant characteristic is the description, for asexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act; or 

(d) any audio recording that has as its dominant characteristic the description, presentation or representation, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act. 

John then asked the audience what the age of consent to sexual activity is in Canada.Contrary to popular belief that the age is 16, in Canada, the age of consent is actually 14. So, a 14 year old can have sex with anyone legally, as long as the other person is not in a position of power or trust. John stated that Canada’s age of consent laws is one of the worst in the Western world. Young people in Canada cannot drive until they are 16, cannot smoke or drink until they are 19, but can have sex legally at 14. In addition, this low age of consent creates a huge problem for law enforcement. For example, in the US, the age of consent is 16, so there is a problem of people in the US luring Canadian kids. The age of consent means that sex acts between two people over the age of consent can be legally recorded as long as they remain between the people recording them, if they are between the age of 14-18. So, many kids will record their sex acts, but do not keep thoserecording private. Once the recordings become public, however, the offences of possession and distribution of child sex abuse images come into play. In addition, ifthose images are posted online, they can never be fully retrieved. The same thing applies to cyber-sex. Even though all of the activities were legal and consensual, if the activities are recorded and then distributed, they become illegal. 

A member of the audience asked how many kids out there are aware of the penalties involved in child sexual abuse images. John replied that kids are not really aware of any of the penalties, but that they are working to educate them. 

John then dealt with the offences under the child sexual abuse images legislation.

s. 163.1 (3) Every person who transmits, makes available, distributes, sells,advertises, imports, exports or possesses for the purpose of transmission, making available, distribution, sale, advertising or exportation any child pornography isguilty of 

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding tenyears and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or 

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of ninety days. 

(4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of 

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fiveyears and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-fivedays; or 

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for aterm not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days. 

(4.1) Every person who accesses any child pornography is guilty of 

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or 

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days. 

John then described the defenses under s. 163.1(6).s.

163.1(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence 

(a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science,medicine, education or art; and 

(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years. 

Educational reasons could be attributed to research. In addition, we cannot punish peoplefor making images/stories for their own purposes, as long as those images are not distributed to others. John stated that this defense might not in fact be valid. In the Holly Jones case, the offender stated that repeatedly viewing child sexual abuse images drove him to commit his crimes against Holly. This may refute the claim that creatingdrawings/stories for one’s own consumption does not pose any risk to young people.

John then spoke about the new sentencing regime of those convicted of child pornography crimes. There are new minimum custodial sentences. Before this legislation came into place, conditional sentences were often the norm. The irony is that even though custodial sentences are “tougher” but in essence we end up having less control over the offenders, as once they serve their time, they will be free from legal intervention. 

John then moved to the topic of Internet luring, which is dealt with under s. 172.1 of the Criminal Code.

s. 172.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who, by means of a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2), communicates with 

(a) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age ofeighteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of anoffence under subsection 153(1), section 155 or 163.1, subsection 212(1)or (4) or section 271, 272 or 273 with respect to that person; 

(b) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of sixteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 280 with respect to that person; or (c) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of fourteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2) or section 281 withrespect to that person. 

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of 

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than ten years; or 

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months. 

(3) Evidence that the person referred to in paragraph (1) (a), (b) or (c) was represented to the accused as being under the age of eighteen years, sixteen years or fourteen years, as the case may be, is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the accused believed that the person was under that age. 

(4) It is not a defence to a charge under paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) that the accused believed that the person referred to in that paragraph was at least eighteen years of age, sixteen years or fourteen years of age, as the case may be, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person.

John explained that in Internet luring cases that the victim must usually be under the ageof 14 for the charges to stick, as a child 14 and over can legally consent to sexual activities with someone they meet over the Internet. With respect to Internet luring, one of the biggest myths is that a meeting must take place, but that is not true. It is enough that an image be sent over the Internet for an offence to be committed under the luring provisions. 

John then urged parents to think about who their kids are chatting with online. He stated that 90% of kids will talk online with people they don’t know and 30% of kids will actually meet these people face to face, which is dangerous. 

John then talked about who Internet crimes are happening to? They are high risk youth, youth who are emotionally isolated, unsupported, kids who are looking for acceptance, understanding and love, kids who lack experience in intimate relationships. He stated that people who interact in chat rooms are often compensating for problems they have forming relationships in real life. Offenders in chat rooms are able to identify these high risk kids and provide the support that they are looking for. They often provide comfort, affection and understanding that the kids cannot find elsewhere. He stated that kids and families need support to stop this kind of thing from happening. In closing, John thanked the audience for their attention and stated that he would beavailable for questions after the presentations were finished. 

Phil thanked John for his very informative presentation. He then introduced Cornwall Police Chief Dan Parkinson. 

Chief Parkinson thanked Phil, observing that: “we’ve heard from a large police force that is well funded in dealing with technological crimes, but what happens in Cornwall?” He noted that Cornwall does not have a large or wealthy police organization, but the Cornwall police know who to call when dealing with these kinds of technological crime issues. As a supporter of community policing, Chief Parkinson noted that we have to be more involved in the cyber community that has emerged, the cyber community where our youth are spending so much time. He emphasized a need to reach that community and indicted that he is thankful for the partnerships between the law enforcement agencies present here today. 

Chief Parkinson then introduced Sabrina Yoong, a youth policy analyst with the RCMP,to talk about deal.org, noting her family “Cornwall connection”. 

Sabrina Yoong – Deal.org 

Sabrina thanked Chief Parkinson for the introduction. She stated that child exploitation is very daunting and that most parents do not know how to talk to their kids about the Internet. She explained that deal.org is an RCMP initiative that provides youth support by other youth and encourages youth to make smart choices. 

Deal.org targets youth between 12 and 17 years of age. The team is uniquely qualified to provide information to youth. The theory behind deal.org is crime prevention through social development, through informed choices. 

Deal.org has four distinct programs: 

1. Webzine 

2. The Knowzone – for parents and teachers 

3. Blog It – allows youth to communicate with one another 

4. Toolbox 

Deal.org is an excellent resource for parents to find information, especially about Internet safety.

Sabrina stated that the Internet is a powerful tool, but that kids should be taught to use it responsibly. She urged parents to take note of any changes in their child’s behaviour. Children need to be listened to and believed, and if they come to you with a problem, they are most likely telling you the truth. In order to communicate better with children about the Internet, Sabrina urged parents to: 

1. Set Basic Rules 

Parents should decide how long children should be allowed to stay online, what sites theycan visit, what types of activities they can engage in, what search engines they can use. 

She stated that it is often a good idea to have a reason why kids are not able to do certain things online, as it will make it easier for children to accept. She also encouraged parents to sign an Internet safety agreement with their children. 

2. Emphasize Trust 

Parents should teach their kids about the different levels of trust. There are different levels of trust that one has with friends/family and with strangers. Kids should be taught that not everyone online should be trusted and that they should not give out personal information online. 

3. Show and Tell

Have your kids share what they are doing online with you, engage in open and frank discussions with them about their online activities. 

4. Location, Location, Location

Put the computer in a high traffic area, so you can see them and what they are doing. 

5. Encourage Questioning and Critical Thinking

Motivate your kids to doubt and scrutinize what others tell them, encourage them to thinkabout the relationship between on and offline activities. 

6. Keep Things in Perspective 

Remind kids that despite plenty of danger lurking that there are good things on theInternet too. In closing, Sabrina noted that it is often harder to supervise older kids. In these situations communication is key. Some helpful websites: 

www.deal.org 

www.choix.org 

www.internet101.ca 

www.bewebaware.ca 

Sabrina told the audience that www.internet101.ca has the Internet safety agreement available for downloading. 

In closing, Sabrina invited the audience to ask her questions after the presentation or to email her. 

Closing 

Phil reminded the audience that the challenge of tackling child sexual abuse over the Internet is daunting and there is work to be done, including by adults becoming more aware. He thanked the very committed people working to stop the use of technology to abuse and exploit children that came to speak in Cornwall. He thanked all of the presenters for their excellent presentations.