accept tips from the public and act to remove images of child abuse if located within
their territorial jurisdiction. They may also act within the INHOPE organization to
have the content removed at the source by their international counterpart within
INHOPE. One of INHOPE’s major objectives is ‘‘to ensure rapid and effective response
to illegal content reports around the world by developing consistent, effective and secure mechanisms for exchanging reports between hotlines internationally and ensuring a coordinated approach is taken.’’ 46 It has been argued that ‘‘cooperation between
members of INHOPE has facilitated the removal of illegal content from the Internet
and avoided the ‘difficulties in the complex diplomatic procedures necessary for cross
border cooperation of law enforcement authorities.’’’ 47
Save the Children is an NGO and a key member of INHOPE. In a 2003 position paper,
Save the Children outlined a vision of dynamic cooperation that centered on INHOPE.
INHOPE is the nexus that links intergovernmental organizations, such as the European
Union, primarily through national law enforcement organizations, the Internet industry, and child advocacy NGOs. The report provides examples of interaction across these
actors but particularly emphasizes the relationship between INHOPE and law enforcement leading to ‘‘high profile police-operations [that] have led to the infiltration [of]
and legal action against international child pornography/abuse networks.’’ 48 The vision of INHOPE before the proliferation of filtering technologies in 2004 was clearly
on the dynamic cooperation necessary to remove Internet child pornography at its
source and arrest and convict those found responsible for trafficking in such content.
Many countries with representation in INHOPE have subsequently implemented national filtering technology to block access to foreign-host Internet child pornography.
Some, but not all, members of INHOPE are now filtering such content, including content hosted within the territorial boundaries of other INHOPE members. 49 INHOPE
reports that between September 2004 and December 2006 reports sent through the
network between ‘‘hotlines’’ has decreased by 11 percent per year. 50 This decrease correlates with the increase in the number of INHOPE countries that implemented filtering, although for a variety of reasons it does not indicate causation. 51 Further research
is required to determine precisely why this decrease in cooperation is occurring within
the organization.
However, even when there is cooperation to have content removed at its source
(rather than filtered), there are still significant delays and limited effectiveness. In
2006, the IWF, an INHOPE member, conducted a six-week test in which they found
that 20 percent of the sites in their database remained active after having been
reported to the relevant authorities in other countries. 52 Moore and Clayton obtained
2,585 suspect domains from the IWF and noted that nearly all of them had been previously reported and had removed images of child sexual abuse. They found that
‘‘child sexual abuse image websites fare worse than other types of offending content,’’
such as phishing and copyright violations, when it comes to removal, with most last64
Nart Villeneuve
their territorial jurisdiction. They may also act within the INHOPE organization to
have the content removed at the source by their international counterpart within
INHOPE. One of INHOPE’s major objectives is ‘‘to ensure rapid and effective response
to illegal content reports around the world by developing consistent, effective and secure mechanisms for exchanging reports between hotlines internationally and ensuring a coordinated approach is taken.’’ 46 It has been argued that ‘‘cooperation between
members of INHOPE has facilitated the removal of illegal content from the Internet
and avoided the ‘difficulties in the complex diplomatic procedures necessary for cross
border cooperation of law enforcement authorities.’’’ 47
Save the Children is an NGO and a key member of INHOPE. In a 2003 position paper,
Save the Children outlined a vision of dynamic cooperation that centered on INHOPE.
INHOPE is the nexus that links intergovernmental organizations, such as the European
Union, primarily through national law enforcement organizations, the Internet industry, and child advocacy NGOs. The report provides examples of interaction across these
actors but particularly emphasizes the relationship between INHOPE and law enforcement leading to ‘‘high profile police-operations [that] have led to the infiltration [of]
and legal action against international child pornography/abuse networks.’’ 48 The vision of INHOPE before the proliferation of filtering technologies in 2004 was clearly
on the dynamic cooperation necessary to remove Internet child pornography at its
source and arrest and convict those found responsible for trafficking in such content.
Many countries with representation in INHOPE have subsequently implemented national filtering technology to block access to foreign-host Internet child pornography.
Some, but not all, members of INHOPE are now filtering such content, including content hosted within the territorial boundaries of other INHOPE members. 49 INHOPE
reports that between September 2004 and December 2006 reports sent through the
network between ‘‘hotlines’’ has decreased by 11 percent per year. 50 This decrease correlates with the increase in the number of INHOPE countries that implemented filtering, although for a variety of reasons it does not indicate causation. 51 Further research
is required to determine precisely why this decrease in cooperation is occurring within
the organization.
However, even when there is cooperation to have content removed at its source
(rather than filtered), there are still significant delays and limited effectiveness. In
2006, the IWF, an INHOPE member, conducted a six-week test in which they found
that 20 percent of the sites in their database remained active after having been
reported to the relevant authorities in other countries. 52 Moore and Clayton obtained
2,585 suspect domains from the IWF and noted that nearly all of them had been previously reported and had removed images of child sexual abuse. They found that
‘‘child sexual abuse image websites fare worse than other types of offending content,’’
such as phishing and copyright violations, when it comes to removal, with most last64
Nart Villeneuve