DIFICULTADES DE COMPRENSIÓN

The use of the term ‘remote’ is important in indicating distinct physical distance which, by extension, means the non-contact element in the production of IIOC. In

total, five participants produced IIOC in this way, with two of them claiming that this was their exclusive methodology. The National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), in the USA, undertook a study between October 2013 and June 2015, and looked at cases where children had been prevailed upon to send sexual images of themselves (n=801) (NCMEC, 2015). They found that in 41% of cases, multiple online platforms were used to communicate with the children. The 2011 UK Kids Online survey of 9-16-year-olds in 25 countries found that 30% of them had communicated online with someone they had not previously met face-to- face (Livingstone, et al., 2011). Such interaction opens the possibility of children being sexually exploited remotely. However, the internet is not the exclusive means of remote production. Current technology also allows for cameras and recording devices to be hidden and activated by movement and/or remotely. This cohort had three participants who detailed producing IIOC remotely using hidden cameras which were variously activated when they were not present. While low in number, they are nonetheless worth acknowledging, as the existence of such a category of sex offenders and production methodologies may be on the increase.

It has been proposed that, as internet technology has advanced and become more available, risk and harm are also increasing (Sabella, Patchin and Hinduja, 2013). Others claim that this is not the case (Madge and Barker, 2007; Maughan et al., 2008), with the view that media and popular unfounded anxieties have over-reported the possibility of online risks (Vandebosch et al., 2013). Indeed, online sexual solicitation was seen to have decreased over the three waves of the Youth Internet Safety Survey (Mitchell, Wolak and Finkelhor, 2010), with figures declining from 19% to 13% to 9% over the lifetime of the study. However, it has also been

highlighted that such behaviour may be underreported and thus difficult to quantify (Livingstone and Smith, 2014). As detailed in Chapter Three, fewer than half the participants in this study, (N=13), were never convicted for the production of IIOC. As with adjacent producers, the concept of covert and overt production methodologies also emerged in the analysis of remote producers.

4.2.2.1 Remote Covert Producers (RCP)

Three participants used covert means to remotely produce IIOC. The FBI website (2013) detailed how Eric Justin Toth, who was taken into custody on the 20th April 2013, spent almost five years as a fugitive, and had been on their ‘Ten Most Wanted Fugitives’ list. He is a producer of IIOC, and one method he utilised was the placing of a camera in the boys’ toilets of the school where he worked as a teacher. A member of the public, Arnie Oerslien, commented on an online blog about Toth (Oerslien, 2014):

“Is secretly taking indecent photos of children a crime… [Eric Justin] Toth committed a victimless crime; it seems the victims did not even know they were photographed”.

While some may consider taking indecent photographs/videos of children as a victimless crime, this is a minority perspective. Nonetheless, it has been suggested that the surreptitious photographing and filming of children should be removed from the USA constitutional definition of pornography, even if the children are engaging in sexual acts, arguing that an invasion of privacy is different from sexual abuse or exploitation (Hessick, 2014).

The use of hidden cameras has become increasingly common in the surveillance of staff in both public and private settings (Hayes, 2015). Online reporting forums regularly update the occurrence of sex offenders using hidden cameras as part of their modus operandi (Aussie Sex Offenders, 2014). In addition, it is technically possible, indeed easy, to remotely activate web cameras, and capture images and videos of unsuspecting victims.

Leo moved his laptop to a neighbour’s house and set it up in the hope of capturing video of two boys who visited the house:

“I used to leave the webcam on when I wasn’t there to see could I capture some good footage, I did get some nude stuff once or twice.”

(Leo)

Case file material detailed how a camcorder tape, seized as evidence, showed Hugh setting up a hidden camera in his living room and a boy subsequently being filmed masturbating. Hugh detailed how he activated the recording from another part of the house when he knew the boy was in the room. As modern recording equipment is increasingly blurring the boundary between public and private (Chalfen, 2009), it undoubtedly raises the question as to whether it is leaving children more vulnerable to sexual exploitation and, in particular, victims of IIOC producers.

David, who produced with other offenders, described expertise and copious creation of IIOC covertly:

“The cameras we used to use, you used to have to hide them, em in corners, behind, just behind the shower sheets and stuff like that you know. Two-way mirror another way of doing it, it used to always steam up and you know but today cameras are so small, the size of pens or whatever it is, pin cameras you know I’m sure there’s hundreds of people out there doing it constantly.”

While David may not be correct in his estimation, it nonetheless raises the issue of security and procedure in regard to possible hidden recording devices in sensitive areas.

4.2.2.2 Remote Overt Producers (ROP)

Two participants reported that they used the internet as their means of inciting children to engage in sexual activity which they recorded via webcam, and that they did not hide the filming aspect of their behaviour but used various grooming techniques to sexualise the agenda. While one was convicted of possession of IIOC apart from that which he produced himself, the other had one single conviction for production and no other known offences.

While being overt about a sexual agenda, Frank, who assumed the person of a teenage boy, nonetheless described his checking process before he asked the child to engage in sexual activity for the camera:

“Are you alone in the house…Are your parents there, what time are your parents back? ... if I saw something move I would say ‘Oh what was that’ you know, ‘cause obviously I’m thinking that somebody is looking.”

(Frank)

While Frank is being alert, evidential chat logs of conversations Blair had with one of his victims show that, while he was cautious about not being detected, he was also not deterred by others being in the house at the same time as he was creating IIOC:

Meg “I’m not at my mum’s house .. I just have my lap top I’m at my dad’s.”

Blair “Ok..Oh God…don’t let him find out what we are talking about! Lol.”

Meg “na he at work.” Blair “so u alone?” Meg “no my step mum.”

Blair “Ok…this is what I want…u manage that for me?”

(Blair)

While exploring more general online sexual exploitation, similar themes of checking on parents have been found in other studies (Williams, Elliott and Beech, 2013; Whittle et al., 2013; Whittle, Hamilton-Giachritsis and Beech, 2014). However, perhaps Blair could be described as a hyper-confident groomer (Webster, Davidson and Bifulco, 2014), as he is undeterred and sufficiently confident, despite the close proximity of another adult.

Production methodology for ROPs needs specific equipment, and Blair explained that he noted when a child had the necessary equipment, and then suggested that they turn on the video:

“I'd said, ‘Shall we, you know, video on the thing?’ And, and, um, if I remember correctly her, you can tell I think, whether somebody’s video is on, yeah. If I remember correctly there's a, there's an icon or something that tells you whether it's on. So you get to view on that and then, ‘Look, if you're viewing then we'll switch the video on.’ I, the first time I think I just viewed her, not the other way round, yeah. And that may have even been for the first two times. And then after that we, we, we videoed sort of together.”

(Blair)

As detailed, he did not initially show himself, thus letting the child take the initial step to facilitate the production of IIOC. He also explained practical matters, and that his production methodology worked around the timeframe of children:

conversation would end at maybe six, they'd go for their tea or, the priorities of life sort of overtook.”

(Blair)

Both Blair and Frank utilised social networking sites to facilitate contact with their victims. Despite Blair suggesting it many times, neither of them met their victims offline, however, they were nonetheless able to achieve their goal and create everlasting evidence of sexual exploitation. The parents involved had no idea what was going on and believed that their children were safe in their own homes, highlighting how the production of IIOC transcends distance (Eneman, Gillespie and Bernd, 2010).