CAVEAT: To be honest, writing this article was challenging for us. Darren’s experience as a police officer for more than three decades has given him a deep understanding of the dedication and hard work of most officers in serving and assisting others in times of crisis. We here at the White Hatter have worked with and have trained dedicated police officers from across North America on the topics of digital literacy, internet safety, online investigations, and online exploitation. However, as with any profession, while the majority of officers will go above and beyond, there are always some who opt for doing the bare minimum rather than going the extra mile. It is in these cases that parents and caregivers need to be our child’s best parent and advocate, and professionally push back when it comes to protecting and helping our kids, thus why this article was spawned.
We, at the White Hatter, take pride in providing free assistance and guidance to youth, parents, caregivers, educators, law enforcement, and adults who seek our help. We believe that sharing some of these cases can help educate and inform our followers. With the parent’s consent, whom we recently assisted, we would like to share one such incident with all of our followers. We have also decided not to identify the law enforcement agency involved, as this could identify the mother and their child in this posting.
Recently, a Canadian parent reached out after being referred to us by another organization that is familiar with our work here at White Hatter. From the emotion and tone of this parent’s voice during the call, it was very evident that they were in dire need of assistance and guidance specific to an online critical incident involving their young child.
We quickly learned that the parent’s child, who was under the age of 10 had potentially been groomed and tricked online, and had sent a nude photo of themselves to an unknown person using a well-known chat application. As we spoke with the parent, it became evident that this was not a typical sextortion case where the threat actor is solely motivated by financial gain. Instead, this incident had all the hallmarks and indicators of a genuine pedophile using the internet to lure and groom a child for the purpose of acquiring Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). We also learned that luckily the parent was able to screen capture some of the discussion, including the intimate image that was sent by their child, before it was completely deleted by the suspect.
After learning about this online crime, we informed the parent that the incident was a criminal offence and strongly recommended that they contact their local law enforcement agency to report it and request to speak with an officer in person. Additionally, we offered our services pro bono as an advocate to assist in case they faced any resistance from law enforcement in taking appropriate action – however, we did not anticipate this would happen given that the case involved a young child – boy were we wrong!
A few hours later, we received an email from the parent informing us that they had received a phone call from an officer instead of an in-person visit, not necessarily an uncommon practice in some cases, and in some jurisdictions. The officer reportedly stated that there wasn’t much they could do because the incident occurred on the internet. However, the officer did offer to visit the following day to talk to the child about the dangers of sending nude photos online instead. We were astonished and taken aback by this response.
We promptly contacted the parent and spoke with them over the phone. Once again, we could sense the frustration and confusion in their voice regarding their conversation with the officer. Prior to the parent contacting law enforcement to start an investigative file, we had given them a script to follow when making their initial complaint which included letting the officer know:
- Their child is under the age of 10
- It appeared that they were groomed and lured online
- Their child provided an intimate image of themselves
- They screen captured evidence for police
- They secured the device as evidence for the police
We further informed the parent that it was likely the police would seize the device as evidence and perform what is commonly known as a “forensic data dump” to extract any information required for the investigation. We also emphasized that the investigative process could be lengthy and intricate, and could take weeks or even months to complete, given the nature of such investigations.
When the parent shared this information with the officer over the phone, the officer stated once again that there was nothing they could do. They didn’t even want to attend to see the evidence or to speak to the child about the incident. In fact, when this parent pushed back about the officer not coming to have a look at the evidence and to seize the phone, the officer stated that their child should not have sent the picture in the first place, and that was why they were willing to come and speak to their child the next day – not to investigate the incident, but rather to talk to the child about the dangers of sharing intimate images online.
After learning more about the initial contact with police, we recommended that the parent next get in touch with the “Watch Commander” of the police agency, who is responsible for managing the uniformed resources on the street. We advised the parent to inform the Watch Commander about what had happened, express their dissatisfaction with the inaction of the officer who had contacted them, and to emphasized that more needed to be done given the age of their child, and that a crime had clearly been committed, and that the parent had evidence to support a police investigation.
However, according to the parent, the Watch Commander was also somewhat standoffish, stating that the officer involved was an experienced member and that if they had said nothing could be done, then nothing could be done. Nevertheless, the Watch Commander promised to follow up with the officer and get back to the parent.
Despite several hours passing, the parent did not receive any further communication from the Watch Commander. Consequently, the parent reached out to the original officer, who provided their work cellphone number, to inquire about any further steps that would be taken in her case. Unfortunately, the parent’s call went unanswered and they were forced to leave a message on the officer’s voicemail. It should also be noted that this parent never heard from this officer ever again.
The following day, a youth officer contacted the parent and indicated that they had been forwarded their complaint and would like to schedule a meeting to discuss the case. Later that day, the youth officer visited the parent’s home and spent a significant amount of time discussing the incident with the parent. During this time, the officer checked the device that was provided by the parent, and discovered the intimate images of the child that had been sent, as well as other evidence and the app used by the predator. Unfortunately, this officer, although empathetic to the concerns given that they too were a parent, also stated that not much could be done in this case given the anonymity of internet-related crimes; therefore proving who the suspect was would likely not be possible. Nevertheless, the officer expressed interest in interviewing the child later that day.
As the officer was about to leave, the parent asked if they were going to take the phone as evidence to conduct a forensic data dump of the phone, the officer stated that there was no need to do so – interesting statement given that the evidence of the crime was on the phone.
At that juncture, the officer was offered a prepared document by the parent. The document had been provided to the parent by us, in anticipation of a potential reluctance to seize the phone for investigative purposes, which contained clear evidence that a crime had been committed.
The document outlined our expertise and experience in assisting families and law enforcement in similar cases, identified the Criminal Code offences that had likely occurred, and suggested investigative next steps, such as obtaining a “Production Order” that could be served on the platform that was used to groom and lure the child, in the hopes of obtaining “metadata” like an IP address, that could help identify a suspect and their location in the world. After reviewing the document, the officer became somewhat defensive and asked for permission to take a copy of our document with him, which the parent granted without hesitation.
Later that day, the officer did interview the child about what had happened, where the officer confirmed with the mother that her child was asked to send the intimate image of himself – something known as “Luring” under the Criminal Code of Canada, and that the other person who received the picture was now in possession of Child Sexual Abuse Material (also known as “Child Pornography” under the Criminal Code of Canada).
The parent inquired about the next steps, and the officer responded that due to the online nature of the incident, it was beyond his investigative skills and expertise. However, he assured the parent that he would forward the file along with the document we provided to detectives who specialize in handling such cases. They will review and consider the information and decide on the appropriate course of action. We are currently awaiting a response from the police agency.
Unfortunately, it has been our experience that this is not an isolated case, we have helped several other families across Canada in the past who faced very similar circumstances.
We understand that investigating these cases requires time, effort, and specialized training, which may not be readily available to front-line officers in every police organization. However, telling a parent that nothing can be done is factually inaccurate, and can leave a parent feeling helpless.
Yes, there are times where even after a thorough investigation police can’t act, but at least in those cases, a thorough investigation had taken place, and the parent or caregiver feels heard and understood.
It’s important to acknowledge that investigating these types of cases is not an easy task, and front-line officers may not have the necessary training or expertise. Could the suspect in this case be using stealthing technology, like a virtual privacy network, to hide their identity and location? – sure, but what if they weren’t, only an investigation would uncover this fact. Maybe properly investigating a case like this could lead law enforcement to an online predator who has targeted, and continues to target, hundreds of youth nationally, and maybe even internationally.
When parents are told that nothing can be done, when in fact there is, not only does it leave them with a feeling of helplessness, but it also creates a sense of mistrust in the police. This mistrust can further discourage parents from reporting future incidents and hinder the fight against online child exploitation. It’s crucial for police agencies to provide proper training to their front-line officers and ensure that they have the necessary knowledge and resources to investigate these cases and if they don’t, how to forward the file to someone who can.
As a society, we have a collective responsibility to protect children from online exploitation, and this includes working together with law enforcement agencies to ensure that those who prey on our kids for sexual exploitation online are held accountable. It’s only through a collaborative effort between parents, caregivers, police, and social media vendors that we can make a significant impact in reducing online child exploitation.
Unfortunately, we do believe that if we had not been contacted by this parent, no further investigational steps would have taken place after the call from the first officer. Given our intervention and guidance, the parent was able to politely and professionally push back with knowledge and facts to the point where it appears that a proper investigation is now taking place with the agency’s detective division – we shall see what happens next.
As the intimate image sent by the child had not been deleted and still resided on the device, we also advised the parent to reach out to the Project Arachnid team at the Canadian Center for Child Protection. They will digitally hash (create a unique fingerprint) the picture and monitor its online presence. Should the image be found online, Project Arachnid would take formal action to remove it, a measure that the original investigation officer, or the second youth officer who admitted they knew about Project Arachnid, could have suggested to the parent but did not.
The White Hatter
