with respect to filtering. This innovative system created a flood of interest from ISPs
worldwide and received an endorsement from the leading child advocacy group
ECPAT. 37
The Cleanfeed filtering system was promoted as a method to block inadvertent access to child pornography. The reduction of the scope of the mandate to simply inadvertent access protected Cleanfeed from the charges of ineffectiveness that plagued
earlier filtering technologies. While those determined to access such content could easily circumvent the filtering system, Cleanfeed is in fact effective at blocking inadvertent access. 38 The advocacy group ECPAT, whose background documents submitted to
the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children had been critical of filtering, now added filtering to its model National Action Plan. The National
Action Plan, which has its roots in the first World Congress against Commercial Sexual
Exploitation of Children held in 1996, now recommends ‘‘cooperation arrangements
between ISPs and police in place to block illegal content.’’ 39 Following the UK’s lead,
numerous countries began implementing national filtering systems, including Norway
(September 2004), Germany 40 (February 2005), Sweden (May 2005), Denmark (October 2005), Canada (November 2006), Switzerland ( January 2007), Italy 41 ( January
2007), the Netherlands 42 (September 2007), and Finland ( January 2008). 43
The rapid spread of filtering across numerous democratic countries was enabled by
conceptual and technological changes that legitimized filtering. 44 Countries that had
previously shunned the practice now embraced it. From a traditional perspective the
introduction of filtering technologies can be seen as the successful domestic implementation of agreements such as the UNCRC. However, such a ‘‘thin’’ conception of cooperation obscures the calls for sustained interaction that emerged within the competing
discourses in and around international conferences and agreements. Dominant discourses and key events sidelined conceptions of dynamic cooperation that key nonstate participants advocated as a response to the challenges posed by new ICTs.
Prospects for Dynamic Cooperation
International cooperation often produces unintended consequences. These ‘‘side
effects’’ may be positive or negative. 45 Empirical evidence is beginning to emerge that
suggests that domestic filtering efforts may be acting as a disincentive to cooperate.
Consistent with a conception of cooperation as domestic implementation, filtering is
perceived as cooperation, thus conceptually negating the need to engage in dynamic
cooperation.
INHOPE is an international organization founded in 1999 comprising statedelegated NGOs that operate ‘‘hotlines’’ that deal with the issue of child exploitation.
While distinct from the state, these organizations were empowered with authority
and legitimacy by their strong connections to the state. These domestic organizations
Barriers to Cooperation
63
worldwide and received an endorsement from the leading child advocacy group
ECPAT. 37
The Cleanfeed filtering system was promoted as a method to block inadvertent access to child pornography. The reduction of the scope of the mandate to simply inadvertent access protected Cleanfeed from the charges of ineffectiveness that plagued
earlier filtering technologies. While those determined to access such content could easily circumvent the filtering system, Cleanfeed is in fact effective at blocking inadvertent access. 38 The advocacy group ECPAT, whose background documents submitted to
the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children had been critical of filtering, now added filtering to its model National Action Plan. The National
Action Plan, which has its roots in the first World Congress against Commercial Sexual
Exploitation of Children held in 1996, now recommends ‘‘cooperation arrangements
between ISPs and police in place to block illegal content.’’ 39 Following the UK’s lead,
numerous countries began implementing national filtering systems, including Norway
(September 2004), Germany 40 (February 2005), Sweden (May 2005), Denmark (October 2005), Canada (November 2006), Switzerland ( January 2007), Italy 41 ( January
2007), the Netherlands 42 (September 2007), and Finland ( January 2008). 43
The rapid spread of filtering across numerous democratic countries was enabled by
conceptual and technological changes that legitimized filtering. 44 Countries that had
previously shunned the practice now embraced it. From a traditional perspective the
introduction of filtering technologies can be seen as the successful domestic implementation of agreements such as the UNCRC. However, such a ‘‘thin’’ conception of cooperation obscures the calls for sustained interaction that emerged within the competing
discourses in and around international conferences and agreements. Dominant discourses and key events sidelined conceptions of dynamic cooperation that key nonstate participants advocated as a response to the challenges posed by new ICTs.
Prospects for Dynamic Cooperation
International cooperation often produces unintended consequences. These ‘‘side
effects’’ may be positive or negative. 45 Empirical evidence is beginning to emerge that
suggests that domestic filtering efforts may be acting as a disincentive to cooperate.
Consistent with a conception of cooperation as domestic implementation, filtering is
perceived as cooperation, thus conceptually negating the need to engage in dynamic
cooperation.
INHOPE is an international organization founded in 1999 comprising statedelegated NGOs that operate ‘‘hotlines’’ that deal with the issue of child exploitation.
While distinct from the state, these organizations were empowered with authority
and legitimacy by their strong connections to the state. These domestic organizations
Barriers to Cooperation
63