Information & Communications Technology Law
Vol. 21, No. 3, October 2012, 257–268
Mobile phone technology and sexual abuse
K.F. McCartana* and R. McAlisterb
a
Department of Heath And Applied Social Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol,
UK; bSchool of Criminology, Politics and Social Policy, University of Ulster, Belfast, Ireland
Whilst it is acknowledged that grooming and sexual abuse takes place both in the
offline and online environment, the continued convergence of technologies means
that the offline and online boundaries are increasingly blurred. This paper will
discuss how mobile phone technology can be counterproductive to preventing
sexual abuse and can help facilitate sexual offending. The paper will start by
giving an overview of what term ‘sexual violence’ means, and the forms of
offending linked to it, as well as its relationship with technology and the media.
This is particularly salient as real world evidence and empirical research indicates
that sex offenders, especially child sexual abusers, have developed and established
a strong link with emerging technologies. Consequentially, this paper will discuss
how a broad range sexual offender can use high end mobile phone technology
(e.g. Blackberry, iPhone, etc.) in their grooming of and offending against victims;
in the development and distribution of sexual abuse imagery, either real or
artificially produced; and in their contact/relationship building with other sexual
offenders. The paper will not just focus on adult sexual abusers, but also
adolescents who engage in sexually harmful behaviour either to themselves,
through self exploitation, or to others, through photo and video capture facilities
(e.g. sexting). This paper will look at these issues, ramifications and outcomes of
these issues locally, regionally, national and internationally; before concluding
with some questions, comments and discussions around how we can, if possible,
control as well as monitor the interface between sexual abuse and mobile phone
technology, as well as how realistic this is.
Keywords: mobile phone; cyber crime; child sexual abuse; sexting; trafficking
Introduction
Sex and sexuality are multifaceted, complex and culturally relative practices (Holmes
& Holmes, 2002), with what is acceptable and/or deviant in one culture not
necessarily being the case in another (Harrison, Manning, & McCartan, 2010;
Heiner, 2008; Holmes & Holmes, 2002). This is particularly salient with regard to
deviant sexuality, with sexual violence and related acts (online grooming, online
offending, stalking) and issues (consent, punishment, treatment) being dealt with
differently within and between different countries globally (McCartan, 2012), which
is relevant with regard to the growing transnational sexual violence industry
(trafficking, sex tourism, cyber offending). Sexual violence is a broad topic with a
number of different offences (rape, incest, paedophilia, stalking) against a range of
*Corresponding author. Email: Kieran.mccartan@uwe.ac.uk
ISSN 1360-0834 print/ISSN 1469-8404 online
Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2012.744223
http://www.tandfonline.com
258
K.F. McCartan and R. McAlister
victims (adults, children, animals), as such it is difficult to define and describe as one
offence or pattern of behaviour. Generally, sex offenders tend to be a very broad
reaching and complex group, with aetiology and/or offending not being simply
defined by a single aetiology, gender, age, IQ, social background, career, social skills
and/or a contact offence (McCartan, 2008; Ward, Polaschek, & Beech, 2006), which
makes treatment and reintegration difficult, as well as ultimately offender centric
(Brown, 2005; Harrison, 2010; Hudson, 2005).
Sexual abusers against children are adaptive in their offending behaviour
(McCartan, 2008), often using multi, contradictory and evolving ‘grooming’ as well
as abuse techniques. In terms of their social interactions, Child Sexual Abusers
(CSA), including paedophiles, are often quite adaptive knowing when to pursue,
stop and alter their sexual offending behaviours; this is why many of them can have
multiple victims, with the abuse often carrying on for years without being discovered
by a third person/party. Although, CSA tend to be viewed heterogeneously rather
than homogenously with explanations seeming to focus on its assumed homogeneous characteristics, instead of or in spite of its recognised heterogeneous nature
(Bickley & Beech, 2001; Harrison et al., 2010). This is problematic as not all forms of
child sexual abuse are similar, with different offender typologies (CSA, paedophile,
incest abuser, etc.) offending in different ways, both within their typologies and with
other typologies. Hence, demonstrating that some CSA can be manipulative, socially
able (to a limited degree) and are aware of society’s perceptions of them (which helps
to expand why they are so secretive and adaptive in their behaviour) (Hudson, 2005).
However, the changing social relationships and interactions are not the only way
that CSA are adaptive in their grooming and possible sexual abuse of children; they
can also embrace technological advancements. Research has shown that as
technology has developed (especially interpersonal, communication and recording
technology) CSA have started to use it, often becoming more adept than the
authorities (O’Donnell & Milner, 2007; Sheldon & Howitt, 2007; Taylor & Quayle,
2003; Yar, 2010). This paper will start by defining what child sexual abuse is and the
main typologies of offenders in this area, then going on to discuss the role of
technological advancements with regard to offenders and offending, before
narrowing down to a discussion of the role of mobile phone technology in CSA,
from the offenders and law enforcements perceptive.
Sexual offenders against children and technology
Child sexual abusers can use technology (Cameras, TV, computers, etc.) to aid
them in their sexual abuse of children (O’Donnell & Milner, 2007; Taylor &
Quayle, 2003; Yar, 2010). This use of technology in child sexual abuse can be
multifaceted, including the CSA collecting and viewing sexual abuse imagery,
having inappropriate relationships with children, stalking a child and/or grooming
children for a contact offence. Historical research has shown that CSA introduced
the use of photographic and recording equipment into their sexual abusive
behaviour early on in its development as it allowed them to build on previous
sexual abuse imagery practices (i.e. portraits, art work, stories, etc.) (Taylor &
Quayle, 2003). These technological developments allowed them to create a
permanent image (or images) of their sexual abuse, helping to further perpetuate
a growing market around child sexual abuse material both nationally and
internationally (Taylor & Quayle, 2003).
Information & Communications Technology Law
259
With the development of smart phones (especially, the iPhone and Blackberry),
we now have unlimited use of the Internet on our mobile phones as well as
(depending on the phone) the use of applications, both of these advancements work
to make mobile phones more akin to palm of your hand laptops. Which means that
we have access to Internet social networking sites, Internet maps and travel sites on
the go, which opens up the possibilities for sexual abuse, grooming and social
networking by CSA. The potential for CSA to misuse mobile phone technology is
highlighted by the fact that there are five billon mobile phone connections currently
worldwide, which comprises 77% of the global population (Over 5 billion mobile
phone connections worldwide, BBC, July 2010). Research indicates that mobile
phone ownership is on the increase, with smart phone sales being having the largest
shift (Mobithinking.com, 2011), with the Top 5 mobile phone producers worldwide
being Nokia (29.2%), Samsung (18.8%), LG Electronics (6.6%), ZTE (4.1%) and
Apple (5%) (IDC, 2010); whereas in the UK it was Nokia (30%), Samsung (19%)
and Sony Ericsson (14%) (Mobithinking.com, 2011). Currently, 85% of all mobile
phones having Internet capability, half billon users using their phones to access the
Internet, with many Internet users only having access via their phone (Mobithinking.com, 2011). The impact of smart phones is significant with research indicating
that 27% adults and 47% of teenagers now own a Smartphone, with Smartphone
users using their mobile phone more than those that own traditional mobile phones,
especially teenagers who are replacing traditional activities with mobile phoneorientated ones with the majority claiming to be addicted to their Smartphone
(Ofcom, 2011). This is particularly relevant given that more than half of UK children
aged 5–9 own a mobile phone, most of which are hand me downs from older siblings,
with companies (including Disney) designing mobile phones for children (Weisbaum,
2006). The increasing access that children have to mobile phone technology, the
majority of which have access to the Internet, means that there are potential child
protection issues with regard to sexual violence. These child protection issues are
made more pertinent given that there is no national guidance in the UK regarding
the restriction of computers, the Internet or Internet capable mobile phones from sex
offenders; instead it seems to be done on a case-by-case basis through Sex Offender
Treatment Orders (Hunt, 2011). Mobile phone technology, especially high-end smart
phone technology, has a direct impact upon sexual violence nationally as well as
internationally. This article will now discuss the impact of mobile phone technology
in relation to three clear areas of sexual violence against children addressing the
impact on offending behaviour and the policing/regulation of offenders.
Technology and mobile phones: child sexual abuse imagery
The demand for child sexual abuse imagery has developed steadily over the years, as
has the demand for other legal and/or illegal sexual abuse images, and has become a
staple of many CSA collections (O’Donnell & Milner, 2007; Taylor & Quayle, 2003;
Yar, 2010). A typology is based on the distinction between those who use the
Internet as a way of furthering contact offences against children and those who use
the Internet to access abusive images (Alexy, Burgess, & Baker, 2005; Hartman,
Burgess, & Lanning, 1984). These authors generated three types of offender: trader,
traveller and trader–travellers. Traders are those who both collect and trade abuse
images of children on the Internet and therefore provide a market for the further
abuse of children. Travellers use the Internet to gain access to children whom they
260
K.F. McCartan and R. McAlister
coerce into meeting them for sexual purposes. The third category, trader–travellers,
are those who do both.
The continued sexualisation of children in modern society in tandem with these
developments in technology (especially with regard to TV, Movies and advertising)
lead to CSA collecting and misusing non-sexualised childhood (images of children in
general) or inappropriate sexualised images (images developed for and around preteen/teenage market) for sexual relief. In terms of what constitutes an indecent
image, the material found in the collections of offenders can range from pictures of
clothed children, nakedness, erotic posing right through to the gross sexual assault of
a child. Taylor, Holland, and Quayle (2001) generated a typology, the COPINE scale
(Combating Paedophile Information Networks in Europe), which is based on the
analysis of images available through news groups and websites and was originally a
scale of 1 (the least serious) to 10 (involving sadism or bestiality). However, in 2002,
in England and Wales, the Sentencing Advisory Panel (SAP) believed that the nature
of the material should be the key factor in deciding the level of the sentence and
adapted the COPINE scale to five levels. The adapted SAP scale dropped levels 1–3
completely arguing that nakedness alone was not indicative of indecency. The
proposed structure was therefore that COPINE levels 5–6 constitute sentencing level
1 and COPINE levels 7 onwards each constitute an individual sentencing stage
(Gillespie, 2008).
Nowhere, is the impact of technology on sexual violence, especially child sexual
abuse, been more pronounced than through the development of computer
technology, specifically the Internet and e-mail. The creating, collecting and
distributing indecent images of children is not a new phenomenon, neither the
Internet nor mobile phone technology can be held responsible for the invention of
abusive images. That said, it is the case that with advancements in technologies there
has been an increase in the availability of such materials and this has been most
notable since the advent of the Internet (O’Donnell & Miller, 2007; Taylor & Quayle,
2003). Some suggest that the Internet is now the primary medium for sharing
indecent images of children (Palmer & Stacey, 2004); this is partly because the
development of the home computer has allowed CSA to, among other things, store,
manage and protect their child abuse imagery collections with relative ease. It means
that if they are careful with how they acquire said materials they can store in easier
and with less risk of being caught (with the use of hi-tech security system, Internet
security programmes and computer programmes in general) (O’Donnell & Milner,
2007; Taylor & Quayle, 2003). The reduced risk of capture and prosecution comes
from an easier ability to acquire the material (through coded/protected Internet
sites), through e-mail and through CSA networks/groups, unlike in the past were if
CSA wanted child abuse imagery or to network with other CSA they would have to
physically meet up (maybe travelling quiet far nationally and/or internationally) or
use the postal/telecommunications system (which was quiet risky as the material
could be lost, opened in transit and/or listened into) (Holt, Blevins, & Burkert, 2010).
Also, the Internet identifies a number of policing issues with regard to monitoring
and responding to child sexual abuse including what constitutes sexual imagery; the
age of consent, particularly transnationally; location of the material on the Internet
as well as the geographic location of the downloader, viewer and poster; differences
in legislation; and who has jurisdiction (particularly the role of national governments
internationally and the international organisations nationally) (O’Connell & Miller,
2007).
Information & Communications Technology Law
261
This suggests that these developments in technology have lead to a direct (a CSA
recording the sexual abuse of a child) and indirect (an increased demand for child
sexual abuse imagery, sexualised stories/conversations about children or the use on
non-sexualised material for sexual purposes) expansion of child sexual abuse.
However, developments in this area also allow the police and the authorities to catch
and prosecute CSA, because the images and the documented stories show concrete
proof of a child being sexually abused as well as an interest and possible an intention
to sexually abuse children (Jewkes, 2010; Quayle, 2010). Within England and Wales
it had, since 1978 been usual to refer to ‘child pornography’ as indecent images of
children, but lately there is some doubt as to whether that remains the case (Taylor &
Quayle, 2003). Sections 48 to 50 of the Sexual Offences Act (2003) refer to a child
involved in pornography, and although the precise term ‘child pornography’ is not
used it would appear that the nexus is present and the statute is clearly considering
indecent images of children to be considered pornography. Taylor and Quayle (2003,
p. 7), however, note that the term ‘child pornography’ can be particularly unhelpful
because it tends to invite comparisons to be made to adult pornography, arguably
minimising the nature of the material because child pornography is not about
titillation, rather it is about children being abused and the evidence distributed.
Consequentially, the term ‘abusive images’ is now widely used by those who
advocate for children’s rights in relation to sexual abuse through photography (Jones
& Skogrand, 2005); but this has not been transposed, for multiple reasons, to the
majority of laws and policy documents internationally (Akdeniz, 2008). In the UK,
the principle piece of legislation concerning the production of sexual abuse images of
children is s.1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (as amended) which inter alia,
makes it an offence to make, take distribute, show an indecent image of a child, or be
in possession of an indecent image with the intention to show the image (Protection
of Children Act, 1978). This legislation was revised by the Criminal Justice and
Public Order Act (1994) which, amongst other amendments, inserted the verb ‘to
make’ into the legislation in order to take into account advances in modern
technology. The Sexual Offences Act (2003) further amends sections of the
Protection of Children Act (1978), particularly concerning the age of a child (s.45)
which was increased from 16–18 years of age in this latest legislation (Sexual
Offences Act, 2003).
Mobile phones, especially smart phones, can now be used to create and
distribute sexually abusive material; meaning that a sexual assault can be recorded,
stored, altered (either on the phone through an editing system or related apps) and
uploaded on to the Internet or e-mailed/MMS to related network. This means that
sexual abusers have a powerful tool at their disposal for the creation of sexual
abuse imagery, particularly child sexual abuse imagery, which does not necessarily
need a home computer and can be carried quite easily on the person. The ease of
which sexual abuse can be captured and stored on high-end mobile phones has
consequences for the creation, holding as well as distribution of sexual abuse
imagery, for instance, the amount of planning required can be reduced leading to a
higher likelihood of spontaneous offending behaviour that seemingly innocent
images/footage can be recorded while in public (children in the playground, in
public swimming areas, etc.) and used for alternative practices at a later time
(masturbation). Most smart phones have camera/camcorder capabilities equalling
those of many cameras on the market meaning that the person recording the
material does not have to be obvious with the phone being secluded and/or at a
262
K.F. McCartan and R. McAlister
distance. In conjunction with their camera capabilities, high-end phones also have
apps that can be downloaded which allow the imagery captured on the phone to be
doctored on the phone and then distributed. As sexual abuse imagery can be stored
on mobile phones, therefore using the phone memory as a memory stick, this
means that the offender may have easy access to and storage of child sexual abuse
imagery even though their computer maybe clean. These concerns are heightened
by the use of pay as you go mobile phones and the ability to swap sim cards
between mobile phones, therefore making it harder to trace, monitor and regulate.
Technology and mobile phones: child sexual offender networks
The development of the Internet has also allowed for the development of CSAorientated user groups and networks, which means that CSA can better
communicate (share stories, fantasies and offer advice/tips), trade (information,
material, images) and possibly offend (share victims, offer each other a place to stay,
etc.) (Holt et al., 2010; O’Donnell & Miller, 2007; Quayle, 2010; Taylor & Quayle,
2003). The development of these groups/networks can aid in the development of
widespread CSA networks that are hard to police and control, especially given that
CSA keep abreast of the latest developments in Internet security, computer
protection, programme protection, image altering programmes, that the network
may span different countries/policing jurisdictions, as well as that the abusers and
victims may be in different countries/policing jurisdictions (O’Donnell & Miller,
2007; Taylor & Quayle, 2003). The police have had some success with regard to
Internet sexual violence networks through Operation Ore, Operation Avalanche and
operation Hamlet (O’Donnell & Miller, 2007), as well as through established links
with national (COEP) and international (ECPAT, Virtual global taskforce) bodies.
With regard to cyber sex crime legislation, the UK (England and Wales, The Police
and Justice Act 26, Chapter 48), other international governments (Ireland, Criminal
Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001; USA, United States Code, Title 18,
Part I, Chapter 47) and transnational bodies (UN, EU, INTERPOL) have separate
but interrelated legislation (European convention on cybercrime, 2001), including a
proposal for a international criminal court (Schjolberg, 2011).
Identifying and policing sex offender networks developed through new
technological advancements is made more difficult because of two factors. The
first being the increase in, often anonymous, social networking sites (gaming
[World of Warcraft, 2nd life], communication [Facebook, Bebo, MySpace] and real
time [Twitter] sites) on the Internet this means that children, even if policed
properly (i.e. through the use of ‘panic buttons’ and using the site with a
responsible adult), run the risk of meeting an online CSA (Buckler, 2012; Kiss,
2010). Sexual offenders against children potentially using these sites as a means to
network with each other, to describe their sexual fantasies to each other or
unwitting children, to facilitate online and/or offline sexual encounters. Secondly,
the use of mobile phones as a communication medium, as they can allow networks
to be updated more regularly; allow members of said networks to contribute
quicker and easier to debates, websites and the facilitation of abuse; allow network
members to identify each other, important locations and move easier between
locations. This makes it more difficult to police the development and maintenance
of these sexual violence networks, than it would be if they were only accessible by
a desktop computer.
Information & Communications Technology Law
263
Technology and mobile phones: ‘sexting’
Sending text messages via a mobile phone is central to the lives of many people and it
has especially become a centrepiece of teen social life (Smith-Darden, Kernsmith, &
Kernsmith, 2011). However, not so many people are aware of the term ‘sexting’ or as
to what this practice refers to. Whilst there is no legal definition of sexting, a policy
statement on sexting from the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children
(2009) has defined the practice as the sending of sexually explicit texts, or nude, or
partially nude images by young people (generally those under 18 years of age). In
some instances, these images have been classified as child sexual abuse imagery.
There has been much media coverage over the last 12 months across the world from
America, Australia, Spain, Mexico and the United Kingdom on how teens are
misusing mobile phones as part of their sexual interactions and sexual explorations
(Laucius, 2009). Furthermore, the growing phenomenon of sexting has been
described as a social and technological phenomenon (Richards & Calvert, 2009) and
not surprisingly the motivations for sexting are rooted in romance and socialisation
(Jolicoeur & Zedlewski, 2010). The sharing of sexually explicit text messages is,
however, not confined to young people; it is a growing phenomenon with adults also,
however, this is not deemed to be illegal amongst consenting adults and may be
referred to as pornography.
In today’s society, social networking sites, such as Bebo, Facebook and Myspace
from an integral part of the lives of young people, they help them to form social
relationships and help shape their identities by sharing information and communicating with friends. These social networking sites are a simple ‘click’ away that can
be easily and readily accessed by using ‘smart phone’ technology. Whilst Bryce
(2010) notes that social networking has positive impacts such as education and
developing media literacy skills, it also may potentially be detrimental to their
physical and psychological well being because of the potential to access sexual and
violent content. A particular area of concern associated with young people’s online
behaviours is the potential for sexual exploitation. This not only includes having
sexual communication and contact with adults or other young people online but also
their involvement in the production and distribution of illegal sexually explicit
content (Bryce, 2010). It has been identified that sexters have little regard to what
other young people may do with the pictures or how adults react to the practice
(Chalfen, 2009; Smith-Darden et al., 2011). Importantly too, many young people are
unaware that publishing a photo of someone under 18 years of age, that is of a sexual
nature, is illegal. Therefore, when young people upload sexually provocative images
of them online or share such images via their mobile phones, they are, technically
breaking the law (Turlington, 2011). Nevertheless, the creation and distribution of
such images is becoming increasingly popular and more and more of these images
and video clips are being posted online, or sent to peers and romantic partners.
Research from the Sex and Tech Survey (2009) identifies that one in five teens have
sent or posted semi nude or nude images of them in cyberspace.
In addition to the illegal nature of such material, young people tend to lack
understanding not only of how their actions may impact on them in later life, but
also that in the short term, this could lead to bullying and humiliation (Boyd, 2007).
Uploading these images to social networking sites allows them to be distributed in
unpredictable ways – possibly to commercial pornographers and they may also fall
into the hands of paedophiles or others who may wish to hurt the young people in
them (Moody, 2009, cited in Chalfen, 2009, p. 264). This has recently led the Child
264
K.F. McCartan and R. McAlister
Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) to launch a ‘think before you
send campaign’ (CEOP, 2011) where young people are warned of the dangers they
face when sending indecent images of themselves to each other. Furthermore, CEOP
have identified children’s behaviour that puts themselves at risk as one of their six
high priority threat areas in their annual report (CEOP, 2011). As today’s young
people are the first generation to become sexually active with the Internet, and the
Internet is playing its part in the process of sexual deviance and exploitation and
with it now easily accessed through ‘smart phone’ technology, young people are
essentially a couple of clicks away from photo distribution and video capture
technology which not only makes the possibility of sexting much easier and more
accessible but it may also helps to neutralise its consequences in the minds of those
embarking on it.
Technology and mobile phones: grooming, prostitution, trafficking and sexual assault
As previously stated, Internet has made it easier for CSA, with relative anonymity, to
contact one another, identify potential victims, have inappropriate online sexual
relationships online with (with sometimes unwitting) children and to groom their
victims for a contact offence (O’Donnell & Milner, 2007; Sheldon & Howitt, 2007;
Taylor & Quayle, 2003; Yar, 2010). The grooming process is one which the offender
moves though, rather than a random set of behaviours (Wyre, 1987); with the main
focus being to separate and isolate the child from their surroundings, including
friends and family, therefore emphasising the importance of the relationship with the
offender (Leberg, 1997; Wyre, 1987). The grooming process comprises of physical as
well as psychological techniques; with the physical grooming techniques consist of a
‘reach and retreat’ method, whereby the offender will progress the sexual/physical
activities, if the child becomes uncomfortable or distressed, the offender will stop and
then retreat to a safe point. The grooming process is similar for online offending as it
is for contact offending with offenders using a reach and retreat method, however,
what is different online is that sex offenders can pretend to be the child’s peers
therefore creating the illusion of childhood experimentation and/or age appropriate
consensual sex (Sheldon & Howitt, 2007). Therefore, online sexual contact with
children adds a degree of anonymity to the offender which they would not normally
have in the real world as they can use a fake photograph, a false identity and agespecific language, all of which would make it difficult for children or their wider circle
of friends, as well as family, to recognise that the offender is an adult not a child.
Therefore, revealing that CSA can be quite skilled at manipulation, gaining trust and
deception (Howitt, 1995; Leberg, 1997; Taylor, 1981); however, it is important to
note that the offline grooming process is not just related to the child (McAlinden,
2006), whereas the online one may just involve the child (dependent upon Internet
security, parental involvement and safeguarding, etc.).
In terms of legislation, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 legislates against the
grooming of a child for the purposes of engaging in a sexual act, this act does not
differentiate between online and offline grooming that results in a physical sexual act
taking place. As the grooming includes online behaviour, this means that it can be
international as well as national in nature, and therefore may result in an offender or
victim crossing an international border. The online grooming and getting children to
engage in online sexual activity (i.e. masturbatory activity via a webcam or getting a
child to watch the offender, or others, engaging in sexual activity) is also covered by
Information & Communications Technology Law
265
the legislation. This means that any sexual activity, either nationally or
internationally, facilitated through grooming activities is prosecutable through the
Sexual Offences Act (2003).
These issues around grooming and the resulting sexual offences are exacerbated,
as well as compounded, by the use of Internet ready mobile phone technology,
especially with access on the go to social networking sites (Facebook, Myspace,
Bebo) and the built in features of smart phone technology (Map/GPS function).
Apps, and other mobile phone software, are available to be purchased by anyone
who has access to the mobile phone, or hardware in question, including sex offenders
and/or children. It must be stated that some apps are age restricted but if the child
uses a second-hand phone or another family member’s phone these conditions
maybe disabled. Sex offenders could purchase apps, especially social networking
ones, and use them as a means to network with other offenders and/or identify
victims; grooming victims; and/or arrange a meeting so to have a contact offence
(McCartan, 2009). In terms of grooming and contact offences, social networking
apps would be of interest to offenders (MySpace, Bebo, Facebook), whereas for
networking with other offenders (especially internationally) they could use sex
offender identification apps (McCartan, 2009).
This leads to the realisation that mobile phones can be used by third parties to
facilitate sexual contact with a child, either through trafficking or prostitution
(Topping, 2011), as well. Smart phones come equipped with high-end cameras/
camcorders which are normally tactfully built into the phone, meaning that they can
be use subversively, especially in crowded, busy public areas; hence, potential victims
of sex tourism and/or sex trafficking can be easily identified and screened prior to
abduction/approach. Therefore, sex offenders can use mobile phones to pass
information on potential targets for sexual trafficking, therefore being told what
potential purchasers are looking for, passing on images of potential victims and/or
carrying a database of potential/acquire victims with offenders, victims, handlers and
‘agents’ being in different locations, or even different countries. This means that
victims can be easily identified giving a range of choice to purchasers and meaning
that victims, and their families, can be groomed in advance of a purchaser either
coming to the country or asking the trafficked person to be delivered. The Sexual
offences Act 2003, as well as facilitating the prosecution of individuals who grooming
for sexual offence which they themselves commit, also legislates against the
arranging and/or facilitating of a child to partake in a sexual offence for a third
party, which includes providing a child for the proposes of prostitution, child sexual
abuse imagery and the trafficking of children (into, within and out of the UK) for the
purposes of sexual abuse. The legislation also provides provision for prosecuting the
offender as a result of them paying for sexual contact with children.
Conclusions
As we can see although new developments in technology, and the development of new
media, have allowed us to control and prevent CSA better, it also means that these
offenders can use technology to adapt their offending behaviour. Consequentially, the
constant and continual evolution in technology has ramifications with regard to the
facilitation and of child sexual abuse and the impact that they have on the prevention
of child sexual abuse. As we have seen throughout this article, developments in
technology can help facilitate the sexual abuse of children. Often benign
266
K.F. McCartan and R. McAlister
technological, software and hardware, developments can be used by sexual abusers in
a predatory or deviant way completely divorced from their original intent, drawing
parallels between the unpredictable and unknowable nature risk from sexual abuse
resulting from technological developments and that from other forms of social,
chemical and biological developments (Beck, 1992; Fuerdi, 2002; Giddens, 1991;
Scourfield & Walsh, 2003; Taylor-goby & Zinn, 2006). This means that we may not
always be aware of how sexual abusers will use new technology in their abusive
practices as such it makes it difficult for law enforcement to stay one step ahead of
them. Although, in saying this, mobile phone technology can also be used to prevent
and respond to child sexual abuse. This can be through the use of mobile phone
networks providing additional information regarding their client’s mobile phone use,
collating recording of numbers, texts and Internet usage. Also, with material being
saved to mobile phones, the same as computers, it means that deleted information (i.e.
files, pictures, Internet sites visited) can be easily retrieved, especially for mobile
phones that have been sold or passed on to second parties. This means that law
enforcement can use this information to either build or dismiss a case against an
alleged offender. Also, discussions between mobile phone companies (i.e. Apple,
Nokia, HTC), mobile operators (i.e. 02, T-mobile), Internet providers (i.e. safari,
Google) and relevant agencies (i.e. the police, Internet watch foundation, COEP)
means that mobile phone technology can be developed with better safeguards built in
so to flag and prevent child sexual abuse. This is especially relevant in respect to social
networking sites, because are the safeguarding available online via desk based or
laptop computer the same as those available via a mobile phone? These developments
in mobile phone security, policing, policy and practice need to be done internationally
as well as nationally given the global and multifaceted nature of mobile phone
capability. This means that we have to start collectively, locally and globally, thinking
about broad stroke as well as detailed approaches that we need to take to effectively
limit the negative adaption of new technology and new media in relation to the
preparation of CSA offences while expanding the positive adaption’s of new
technology and new media terms of CSA prevention. We also need to better consider
how we can more effective police and safeguard new technology and new media.
References
Akdeniz, Y. (2008). Internet child pornography and the law. National and international
responses. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Alexy, E.M., Burgess, A.W., & Baker, T. (2005). Internet offenders: Traders, travellers and
combination trader–travellers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 804–812.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bickley, J., & Beech, A.R. (2001). Classifying child abusers: Its relevance to theory and clinical
practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 51.
Boyd, D. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in
teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur foundation series on digital
learning – Youth identity and digital media volume. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved
November 16, 2012, from http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/youth-identity-and-digital-media
Brown, S. (2005). Treating sex offenders: An introduction to sex offender treatment
programmes. Collumpton: Willan.
Bryce, J. (2010). Online sexual exploitation of children and young people. In Y. Jewkes & M.
Yar (Eds.), Handbook of internet crime (pp. 320–342). Collumpton: Willan.
Buckler, C. (2012). Twitter ‘failing’ on child abuse, Ceop watchdog warns. BBC.CO.UK.
Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16508481
Information & Communications Technology Law
267
Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. (2009). Policy statement. Retrieved from http://
www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry¼en_US
&PageId ¼ 4130
CEOP. (2011). UK children asked to think before they send. Retrieved from http://www.ceop.
police.uk/Media-Centre/Press-releases/
Chalfen, R. (2009). It’s only a picture’: Sexting, ‘smutty’ snapshots and felony charges. Visual
Studies, 24, 258–268.
Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994). Chapter 33. Retrieved fromhttp://www.legisla
tion.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/contents
European Convention on Cybercrime. (2001). Retrieved November 16, 2012, from http://
www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/185.htm
Fuerdi, F. (2002). Culture of fear: Risk-taking and the morality of low expectation. New York:
Continuum.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity; Self and society in the late modern age.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gillespie, A.G. (2008). Child exploitation and communication technologies. Dorset: Russell
House.
Harrison, K. (Ed). (2010). Dealing with high-risk sex offenders in the community: Risk
management, treatment and social responsibilities (pp. 3–17). Cullompton: Willan.
Harrison, K., Manning, R., & Mc Cartan, K. F. (2010). Current multidisciplinary definitions
and understandings of ‘paedophilia’. Social and Legal Studies, 19, 481–496.
Hartman, C.R., Burgess, A.W., & Lanning, K.V. (1984). Typology of collectors. In A.W.
Burgess & M.L. Clark (Eds.), Child pornography and sex rings. Toronto: Lexington Books.
Heiner, R. (2008). Deviance across cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press..
Holmes, R.M., & Holmes, S.T. (2002). Current perspectives on sex crimes (Chapter 16).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Holt, T.J., Blevins, K.R., & Burkert, N. (2010). Considering the paedophile subculture online.
Sexual Abuse: A journal of research & Treatment, 22, 3–24.
Howitt, D. (1995). Paedophiles and sexual offences against children. Chichester: Wiley.
Hudson, K. (2005). Offending identities: Sex offenders’ perspectives of their treatment and
management. Devon: Willan.
Hunt, K. (2011). Maidstone judge rules perverts ‘have right to internet phones’. Kentonline.co.
uk. Retrieved form http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2010/august/27/perverts_
have_right_to_phones.aspx.
IDC (2010). Apple joins top five mobile phone vendors as worldwide market grows nearly 15% in
third quarter, according to IDC. Retrieved October 17, 2012 from http://www.idc.com/
about/viewpressrelease.jsp?containerId¼prUS22550010
Jewkes, Y. (2010). Public policing & internet crime. In Y. Jewkes & M. Yar (Eds.), Handbook
of internet crime (pp. 525–545). Collumpton: Willan.
Jolicoeur, M., & Zedlewski, E. (2010). Much ado about sexting (Report no. NCJ 230795).
Retrieved from National Criminal Justice Reference Service, https://ncjrs.gov/
Jones, V., & Skogrand, E. (2005). Position paper regarding online images of sexual abuse and
other Internet related sexual exploitation of children. Copenhagen, Denmark: Save the
Children Europe Group.
Kiss, J. (2010). Facebook child protection app prompts 211 reports of suspicious online activity.
Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/aug/12/
ceop-facebook-child-protection
Laucius, J. (2009, May 27). Sexting just teens exploring their sexuality, child-culture expert
says. Retrieved from http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/
Leberg, E. (1997). Understanding child molesters. London: Sage.
McAlinden, A. (2006). ‘Setting ’Em Up’: Personal, familial and institutional grooming in the
sexual abuse of children. Social & Legal Studies, 15, 339–362.
McCartan, K.F. (2008). Current understandings of paedophilia and the resulting crisis in
modern society. In J.M. Caroll & M.K. Alena (Eds.), Psychological sexual dysfunctions
(pp. 51–84). New York: Nova.
McCartan, K.F. (2009). iVigilante? Public disclosure and new technology. ATSA Forum,
XXI, 4.
268
K.F. McCartan and R. McAlister
McCartan, K.F. (2012). Sex offender registration as a ‘worldly approach’ to offender management: A review of ‘The registration and monitoring of sex offenders: A comparative
study’ by Terry Thomas. ATSA Forum, XXIV, 1.
Mobithinking.com. (2011, November 21). Global mobile statistics. Retrieved from http://
mobithinking.com/mobile-marketing-tools/latest-mobile-stats
O’Donnell, I., & Milner, C. (2007). Child pornography, crime computers & society. UK: Willan
Publishing.
Ofcom. (2011). Communications market report. London: Ofcom.
Over 5 billion mobile phone connections worldwide. (2010, July 9). BBCNEWS. CO.UK.
Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10569081
Palmer, T., & Stacey, L. (2004). Just one click: Sexual abuse of children and young people
through the internet and mobile phone technology. Essex: Barnardos.
Protection of Children Act. (1978). Chapter 27. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
ukpga/1978/37
Quayle, E. (2010). Child pornography. In Y. Jewkes & M. Yar (Eds.), handbook of internet
crime (pp. 343–368). Collumpton: Willan.
Richards, R.D., & Calvert, C. (2009). When sex and cell phones collide: Inside the prosecution
of a teen sexting case. Communications & Entertainment Law Journal, 32(1), 1–39.
Schjolberg, S. (2011). An International Criminal Court or Tribunal for Cyberspace (ICTC). A
paper for the EastWest Institute (EWI) Cybercrime Legal Working Group. Retrieved
from http://www.cybercrimelaw.net/documents/International_Criminal_Court_or_Tribunal_
for_Cyberspace_(ICTC).pdf
Scourfield, J., & Walsh, I. (2003). Risk, reflexivity and social control in child protection: New
times or the same old story? Critical Social Policy, 23, 398–420.
Sex and Tech Survey. (2009). Sex and tech: What’s really going on? Retrieved from http://
www.thenationalcampaign.org/sextech/
Sexual Offences Act. (2003). Chapter 42. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
ukpga/2003/42/contents/enacted
Sheldon, K., & Howitt, D. (2007). Sex offenders & the internet. Chichester: John Wiley.
Smith-Darden, J., Kernsmith, P.D., & Kernsmith, R.M. (2011). Navigating teen relationships
in tech savvy times. Paper presented at the Association for the Treatment of Sexual
Abusers conference, Toronto, Canada, 3–5 November.
Taylor, B. (1981). Perspectives on paedophilia. Batsford Academic and Educational Ltd.
Taylor, M., & Quayle, E. (2003). Child pornography: An Internet crime. Brighton: Routledge.
Taylor, M., Holland, G., & Quayle, E. (2001). Typology of paedophile picture collections.
Police Journal, 97, 97–107.
Taylor-goby, P., & Zinn, J. (2006). Risk in social science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Police and Justice Act 26, Chapter 48.
Topping, A. (2011). Child sex trafficking in UK on the rise with even younger victims targeted.
Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/17/childtrafficking-uk-rise
Turlington, A. (2011). Sexting: Keeping yourself safe, preventing harm. Paper presented at the
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers conference, Toronto, Canada, 3–5
November.
United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47.
Ward, T., Polaschek, D., & Beech A.R. (2006). Theories of sexual offending. Chichester: John
Wiley.
Weisbaum, H. (2006). Stay connected: The best mobile phones for children. MSNBC.com.
Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16044093/ns/business-consumer_news/t/
stay-connected-best-cell-phones-children/
Wyre, R. (1987). Working with sex offenders. Oxford: Perry.
Yar, M. (2010). Cybersex offences: Patterns, prevention & protection. In K. Harrison (Ed.),
Dealing with high-risk sex offenders in the community: Risk management, treatment and
social responsibilities (pp. 229–248). Willan: Cullompton.
Copyright of Information & Communications Technology Law is the property of Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.