• Hacking: In these cases, the subject assumes control of a victim’s computer, smartphone, tablet, or other device to damage or access their webcam, personal files, social media accounts, data, documents, and any images within, thereby compromising digital devices and networks.
• Upskirting: Typically, upskirting occurs in public and involves taking photographs or videos from below a person’s skirt or dress without their knowledge or consent. The images are created by the subject in real time and may be discovered when the perpetrator is caught in the act or during an investigation. This is a unique violation because it undercuts the expectation of privacy over one’s own body in public places, like shopping centers, trains, buses, streets, and parks.⁴
• Installing hidden cameras: Hidden or covert camera recordings may include public and private locations, like a dressing room or bathroom inside someone’s home, where privacy would reasonably be expected. Images captured via hidden or covert recordings may consist of an individual’s private parts or consensual sexual activity.⁵
• Recording without consent: Nonconsensually recorded sexual acts may be captured either in person or online and may include children compliant in the activity but unaware it is being recorded or digitally captured. Often, these acts are described as the offender taking a screenshot of an image meant to disappear or of a live video conversation.
• Recording incapacitated victims: Such victims include those filmed or photographed while sleeping or under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. They may be conscious during their victimization but unaware that sexual activity is being recorded.

Understanding the method of capturing surreptitious recordings is an important part of investigative efforts in collaborating with multidisciplinary teams (MDTs).⁶ During an investigation, this information is critical in preparing for forensic interviews of potential victims and witnesses.

Interviews

Forensic interviews are an important component of IBSA investigations, especially when surreptitious recordings are suspected. “The goal of a forensic interview is to obtain a statement from a [minor victim or witness], in a developmentally sensitive, unbiased and [legally defensible] manner, that will support accurate and fair decision-making in the criminal justice and child welfare systems. Although information obtained from an investigative interview might be useful for making treatment decisions, the interview is not part of a treatment process.”⁷

Preparation

To prepare for the forensic interview, interviewers should ascertain how law enforcement learned of the evidence. Was it from a search warrant following images traded online, hidden camera discovered in public and traced back to the subject, or report from a victim who is being blackmailed with surreptitiously captured images to self-produce additional ones for a subject? This information may help formulate forensically sound questions and provide the interviewer with the level of understanding the victim may have about the CSAM’s production.

In cases involving surreptitious recordings, it is highly recommended to use interviewers skilled in presenting evidence during forensic interviews. These cases require advanced interviewing skills as the interviewer will need to review, prepare, and determine the appropriateness of presenting the image(s) at that time.

Forensic interviewers are neutral fact finders trained to avoid assumptions when interviewing children. Their neutrality also plays a role in determining the value of presenting surreptitious recording evidence in the interview. This integral part of the practice does not change simply because the evidence appears to speak for itself.

For example, how often has a child disclosed a sexual assault that occurred in their bedroom at night and indicated they feigned sleep while the perpetrator assaulted them? Considering this and educating the MDT can help facilitate conversations about why the images in surreptitious recordings may hold value for presentation in an interview. Just because the child appears unconscious in an image does not mean they were. Interviewers should remain neutral and understand the victim may or may not know about the images. The forensic interview itself may be used to determine the victim’s degree of knowledge of the images and how or if the CSAM evidence may be used during the interview.

In CSAM cases involving victims who self-produced images or were knowingly filmed or photographed by a perpetrator, presenting evidence is much more straightforward and typically recommended as an important investigative step in the interview process. With surreptitious recordings, this practice is much more nuanced. Done improperly and without adequate training, presenting evidence in the forensic interview can harm the victim and investigation.

Successful Approach

Bearing these risks in mind, FBI child/adolescent forensic interviewers (CAFIs) have extensive experience presenting evidence in the forensic interview and peer reviewing this practice. This has resulted in adjustments to how evidence is presented, particularly when the case involves surreptitiously captured images.

The FBI has followed its practice of presenting evidence since 2002. Its approach involves acknowledging up front to the interviewee⁸ that the forensic interviewer has evidence they may present during the interview. By establishing this transparency early, a more trusting relationship can be built. This part of the practice typically takes place following the introduction of interview guidelines and may include a statement such as: “I want to tell you that I have some screenshots from a video⁹ with me today that I may want to speak with you about. When we get to that, I will let you know.”

Alerting the interviewee to the evidence helps avoid making them feel betrayed, allows them to anticipate what may happen in the interview, and cues them as to what the interviewer may be referencing. Presenting evidence can lead to more robust disclosures and confirmation that the interviewee is the victim depicted in the images. Research suggests that what enables victims to disclose information about abusive images is the interviewer letting them know about the images, establishing a trusting relationship, and demonstrating patience with the disclosure process.¹⁰

Forensic interviewers use a balance of science and art in their work.

To adhere to the science, they should follow a research-based protocol for their interviews. Some may have concerns about cases of surreptitious recordings and a minor’s ability to provide a free narrative as most protocols require this.

However, interviewees’ efforts to produce a free narrative should be encouraged. Interviewers can look for opportunities to acquire one and should always offer the minor an opportunity to do so. For example, if the interviewee appears to be sleeping in the recording, a narrative about bedtime routine, any causes to wake during the night, the minor’s body feeling different in the morning, or other variables may elicit important details.

The art of the forensic interview is demonstrated when determining the appropriate time to present that evidence. Once the interviewer arrives at this point, they may state:

Remember I told you I have some screenshots from a video? I have them here now, and I would like to talk to you about them. I can describe them to you first and then show them to you. Or I can just show them to you. You might have a question or another idea. What would you like us to do?

In cases where the interviewee declines to view the images, they will not be shown. However, this may prompt additional inquiries by the interviewer, such as “Do you have any questions about the images?” “Do you have any worries about what may be in them?”

In most instances, it would be appropriate to present the evidence to the interviewee should they wish to see it.

With cases of surreptitious recordings, the practice of presenting evidence typically does not change. However, in some cases, the interviewer and MDT may elect not to show the images or give the interviewee an option to view them at all. This necessary adjustment accounts for the additional layer of victimization—that the private sexual images were taken without the victim's knowledge.¹¹ CAFIs must balance this nuance with the victim’s right to know. Therefore, in determining the appropriateness of presenting an image to an interviewee, it is important to consider:

• The interviewee’s age during the allegations’ time frame
• Contact or familiarity the interviewee has with the subject
• Apparent lack of knowledge of surreptitious recordings displayed during the interview

In cases where the victim clearly has no recollection of the surreptitious recording, memory of the perpetrator, or knowledge of the investigation’s necessity in general, it would be appropriate to opt out of presenting images to them. Instead, the interviewer should advise the MDT to work with family members to determine an appropriate developmental stage to inform the victim of the evidence and the crime committed against them.

A child may deny knowledge of CSAM following multiple prompts in the interview. In such cases, the interviewer must inquire about any in-person or online sexual activity with the subject that may have resulted in CSAM without the victim’s awareness. For example, when knowing the evidence depicts the victim with the subject, the interviewer should be intentional in the phrasing of questions to continue building trust in the interview.

Instead of asking, “Was there ever a time you saw/met the subject in-person?” the interviewer should say, “Tell me about a time you saw/met the subject.” In doing so, the interviewer avoids being deceitful and damaging the trusting relationship in the interview by feigning ignorance of what the evidence conclusively supports.

When the time comes to present the evidence, the interviewer can prepare the victim by stating:

I have some screenshots with me that you may or may not be aware were taken. I can describe them to you first and then show them to you, I can just show them to you, or I don’t have to tell you or show you anything about them at all. Which would you prefer?

Often, victims of surreptitious recordings will elect to see the images during the forensic interview. It is important not to make this decision for them without a specific reason because offering victims a choice to be informed avoids perpetuating the secrecy of their victimization. When asked about their desire to view the evidence in forensic interviews conducted by FBI CAFIs, victims have stated “I wanted to know what happened to me,” “I have a right to know what happened to me,” or “I wanted to know what really happened.”

In some cases, surreptitious recording victims have been concerned or curious over what the images depicted. This may prove particularly important in cases involving heightened media attention as potential victims or witnesses may be consuming information that is inaccurate, exaggerated, or unrelated to their personal experience. If not given the choice to be informed, these victims may never learn the extent to which they may have been victimized. At times, they have expressed relief to have a more complete understanding of what the perpetrator captured.

Next Steps

After the forensic interview, investigators often engage with caregivers to consider any safety concerns, discuss next steps in the investigation, and inform them of victims’ rights. Sometimes during this conversation, caregivers ask investigators to have a conversation with their child about Internet safety and the dangers of their online behaviors. 

This conversation with investigators may lead to victims feeling blamed or responsible for their victimization. Investigators who lack experience in discussing Internet safety from a trauma-informed perspective may inadvertently engage in victim blaming. Negative experiences for victims may involve the investigator telling them not to do things like video chat in the future to avoid this happening again.¹²

Education may be necessary to explain the dynamics of IBSA to help caregivers shift blame from their child to the perpetrators of these crimes. It can be helpful to discuss the grooming process, manipulation, fear, shame, and feelings of being stuck, which victims often report following online victimization. Caregivers need help understanding how surreptitious recordings occur so they can grasp the dynamics, best support their child, and realize how a conversation with investigators about Internet safety may not be appropriate or in the victim’s best interest. 

Victims are often worried about what information will be shared with caregivers following a forensic interview. So caregivers can offer the best care for their children, it is important to provide enough information but without betraying victims’ trust or compromising the investigation. When safety concerns, such as signs of suicidality, arise, these must always be shared with caregivers. Children and adolescents may experience suicidal thoughts due to feelings of hopelessness and helplessness.¹³ Being a victim of an online crime can exacerbate these feelings as they may not know how to navigate or escape what they are experiencing.

Due to the increased risks of suicidality, conducting suicide assessments following forensic interviews is vital. Gathering information from caregivers about mental health history, prior suicide attempts, and access to lethal means is important. Various brief and effective suicidality assessments can help determine the need for additional evaluation.

Submission Of Cases

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) serves as the central repository of CSAM files in the United States. When law enforcement obtains CSAM during an investigation, it should be submitted to the NCMEC’s Child Victim Identification Program for review and matching of identified victims.¹⁴

Within the FBI’s Victim Services Division, the Child Exploitation Notification Program¹⁵ facilitates the notification process for federal victims of distributed CSAM through use of the Victim Notification System.¹⁶ The guardian or victim (if over age 18) can decide if they wish to be notified regarding subsequent investigations and prosecutions involving images of the victim.

In cases involving surreptitious recordings, it is especially important to communicate to families who may refuse to allow their child to have any knowledge of the investigation or the existence of CSAM of the victim that “Once a child victim reaches 18 years of age, the [U.S. Justice] Department is obligated to provide that victim with notification in cases in which the crime occurred when the victim was a minor.”¹⁷ The child has a right to know, and it is up to the MDT to inform them in the most developmentally sensitive and trauma-informed way possible.

Conclusion

A victim should not be forced to disclose abuse, and it is crucial to prioritize their mental health in all cases. It may be in the victim’s best interest to participate in an interview at a later or more developmentally appropriate time. This allows follow-up to gather more information when the victim is more actively disclosing or able to discuss their experience in a way that will not cause significant distress.

The burden of the case should never be placed on a child’s shoulders. Forensic interviewers must balance the victim’s right to know what happened to them, the needs of the investigation, and the overall well-being of the child when working an investigation involving surreptitious recordings. This delicate balance is maintained by adequately preparing for forensic interviews, thoroughly reviewing the evidence, making victim-centered decisions regarding the presentation of evidence, and providing appropriate reassurance to the victim. When done correctly, further potential suffering is limited, victim experiences are validated, and important investigative details are corroborated.¹⁸

FBI child/adolescent forensic interviewers are available for consultation, guidance, and training to any forensic interviewers, law enforcement officers, and other multidisciplinary team members. Navigating the ever-changing landscape of image-based violations is an incredible challenge for these teams. 

However, when law enforcement officials build strong investigative teams, prioritize the victim’s well-being, and consult with colleagues to ensure best practices, they are better equipped to advocate for children and bring justice to offenders.