Citizen Co-Production in International Investigations of Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Discussing Europol’s ‘Save a Child – Trace an Object’ Project

(1)

Citizen Co-Production in International

Investigations of Child Sexual Abuse Cases

Discussing Europol’s ‘Save a Child – Trace an Object’ Project

Hanna H. Mohn, MA 2020

(2)

2/113 This thesis was submitted by Hanna Hedwig Mohn (s2205343) on 12.01.2020 in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (MSc) in Crisis and Security Management at the University of Leiden, The Netherlands.

Supervisor: Ilina Georgieva, University of Leiden & TNO Second Reader: Dr Dennis Broeders, University of Leiden

Word count: 23.9701

1_{Excluding title page, acknowledgements, table of content, abstract, list of abbreviations, list of tables &}

(3)

3/113

Acknowledgements

Along the lines of ‘behind every masters’ thesis stands a great support team’ I want to thank quite a few people whose support and friendship was invaluable to me during the process of doing this study. For one, my family has been fantastic in motivating me with Brexit-esque motivational lines, such as ‘get the thesis done’, ‘you need to come out of student life on January the 31st’, et cetera. All in good humour of course! Luckily, I already have a post-student deal, though separation from the academic part of my life will be a challenge. Although this is written hours before the thesis’ deadline, I can honestly say I have enjoyed university immensely and will always look back with pleasure at the interesting courses I was able to take, which were offered by inspiring and fantastic lecturers. On that note, I will never forget emails containing Dr Who references and great discussions in and outside of class.

I will always be grateful to my wonderful friends, some of whom have in the meantime moved onto new adventures abroad, for the many tea and museum breaks, for biking to university every week so I could discuss thesis ideas and life with them, or for spending weeks at a time in the library together, with infamous 8am pain au chocolate and ‘een zwarte koffie en twee cappuccino’s’ breakfasts on the Spanish steps. Others have spared no energy in long telephone conversations and creative motivational messages, ranging from Kermit the frog gifs at 4am, to a whole series of one motivational message per day in the lead up to the submission date. I will be forever grateful for all your support and I will bake you waffles every day we meet. Additionally, my team at work had to listen to me going on about ‘thesis weekends’ for the past months now, and I’m grateful for their interest, understanding, and particularly for my manager telling me to drop everything and focus on the thesis during the last few days of writing it.

A huge thank you goes to Ilina, who stepped in to supervise this project on top of her regular workload, for being very easy to talk to, and for continuously showing unwavering trust in my abilities, particularly when I needed such a boost!

Last but not least, there are no words to adequately describe how great of a support my wonderful husband continues to be. Besides knowing I need ice cream before I know it myself, Tinus has genuinely been the most supportive, loving, caring, and perfect partner I could ever have dreamed of going through the ups and downs of life with. To say it in the words of Jane Austen: ‘If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more.’ Thank you for everything!

(4)

4/113

Abstract

Child sexual abuse is among the worst crimes imaginable. Victims not only suffer the abuse experienced in the first place, but photos and videos taken of their abuse are distributed online across the world, revictimizing them indefinitely. With the internet accelerating the availability of child sexual abuse material online and facilitating interaction among offenders, law enforcement agencies are faced with an ever-increasing influx of detected child sexual abuse material they need to investigate – often even for the country of origin in the first place. The volume of material that needs to be investigated increasingly goes beyond the resources available to law enforcement. As such, law enforcement agencies need to come up with new ways to bridge this gap, particularly while technological promises of automation have not yet been sufficiently developed. This is symptomatic of a larger development, in that providers of public services more and more often engage in co-production schemes, whereby the regular providers of services, such as law enforcement, increasingly cooperate with citizens in various ways. In this study, the focus is placed on a case of co-production in the area of law enforcement, namely on Europol’s ‘Save a Child – Trace an Object’ project. Here, Europol and volunteers from all over the world work together to trace the origin of objects featured in the background child sexual abuse material, as this ultimately helps Europol to better target their investigative focus and refer child sexual abuse material to law enforcement agencies in the countries of origin. On the basis of an analysis of all posts and comments made by Europol and the volunteers on social media platforms during the first two years of the project, this study provides insight into the composition and characteristics of the volunteers as new actor in the security network. This, and the interaction and nature of the relationship between Europol and the volunteers are further discussed in the theoretical framework of responsibilized governance of security as a framework for the fragmentation of security. Besides theoretical insights, this highlights both best practices as well as risks and unintended consequences of this particular form of cooperation, which may be taken into account for future projects.

(7)

7/113

List of Abbreviations

CCTV Closed Circuit Television

DG HOME Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs

EC3 European Cybercrime Centre

ECTC European Counter Terrorism Centre ESOCC European Serious Organised Crime Centre

EU European Union

EUROPOL European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation EMPACT European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats

HOS Horizontal Services

ICT Information and Communication Technology

UK United Kingdom

US United States (of America)

MTIC Missing Trader Intra Community

NCMEC National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OSINT Open Source Intelligence VIDTF Victim Identification Taskforce

(8)

8/113

List of Tables & Figures

Table 1: Overview of Total Output of Europol and Volunteers

Figure 1: Proliferation of Reports to US Law Enforcement Agencies Figure 2: Number of Contributions per Volunteer

Figure 3: Location of Volunteers’ Contributions Figure 4: Languages of Volunteers’ Contributions Figure 5: Interaction with Output by Europol Figure 6: Publicity Tweet DG HOME

Figure 7: Output on 'Save a Child - Trace an Object' Project in Relation to Output on other Topics & Crime Areas

Figure 8: Total Europol Output on the 'Save a Child - Trace an Object' Project Figure 9: Content of Europol's Total Output on the Project

(9)

9/113

1. Introduction

Child sexual abuse impacts the most vulnerable members of society, with victims being scarred for life.2_{Besides physical and psychological impacts of abuse, victims continue to be}

re-victimised whenever images or videos depicting their abuse are looked at.3 However, immense amounts of child sexual abuse material continue to be (re-)distributed online: In one case, five years after a victim had been rescued, photos and videos depicting her abuse were still found online 347 times in only 3 months.4 At the same time, a US law enforcement agency is so overworked in the crime area child sexual abuse, that cases had to be prioritised according to the age of victims, with focus placed on the youngest victims first.5 These two cases are symptoms of a status quo which is characterised by increasingly overwhelmed law enforcement agencies in light of challenges in targeting the crime area child sexual abuse. For one, these include ever increasing, vast amounts of child sexual abuse material distributed and detected online,6 and second, the increasing professionalisation of offenders committing child sexual abuse and the collectors of material created thereof, in that they utilise encrypted, hidden platforms in their interaction with each other. These developments are largely due to technological developments. The global spread of the internet and related possibilities for anonymity ‘continues to fuel the growing number of child sex offenders and victims.’7_An

additional and related challenge to investigating cases of child sexual abuse is that the abuse is not limited to geographical borders: child sexual abuse material can be detected by any law enforcement agency, tech company, or rights groups in any given country, with little reference to where the abuse itself has taken place. As such, the first steps in investigating child sexual abuse cases may often involve trying to find out as much as on which continent the abuse has taken place, so that the case may be referred to appropriate (local) law enforcement agencies. Besides these challenges, current approaches towards tackling child sexual abuse are also marred by shortages in resources.8 Given the immense workload, automated, technological

2_{BBC, ‘People Fixing the World: The Digital Detectives Tackling Child Sexual Abuse’.}

3_{There are three stages of victimisation of minors who are abused: it begins with their initial victimisation,}

through the act(s) of exploitation, then again when these acts are recorded, and again when this material is distributed and repeatedly re-circulated and ‘consumed’. See: Europol, ‘Efforts Stepped-up to Identify Victims of Child Sexual Abuse’.

4_{The Internet Watch Foundation, ‘The Internet Watch Foundation: Annual Report - Once Upon A Year’, 11.} 5_{Keller and Dance, ‘The Internet Is Overrun With Images of Child Sexual Abuse. What Went Wrong?’} 6_{Keller and Dance.}

7_{Europol, ‘Europol Launches Public Appeal to Help Identify Victims of Child Sexual Exploitation’.} 8_{Keller and Dance, ‘The Internet Is Overrun With Images of Child Sexual Abuse. What Went Wrong?’}

(10)

10/113 solutions are often regarded as the holy grail in aiding investigations into the vast amounts of child sexual abuse material available online.9_{However, technological solutions cannot replace}

investigations entirely, and there is still a long way to go in their development. Meanwhile, cases need to be solved with those resources available to law enforcement, and some creative attempts are made in this regard.

One project aiming at enhancing the investigative success into child sexual abuse cases is the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation’s (Europol) ‘Save a Child – Trace an Object’ project, which commenced on 31 May 2017. Here, Europol focuses on ‘cold cases’ of child sexual abuse.10_{In the project, Europol crowdsources investigative efforts in}

child sexual abuse cases, by sharing redacted child sexual abuse imagery in an attempt to reach people worldwide via a range of social media sites, to make use of their local knowledge to generate leads on child sexual abuse cases. Practically, Europol investigators crop out the victims featured in images or screenshots of their abuse, leaving only items featured in the background. When sharing these images, Europol asks people worldwide whether they recognise an item or a location, as these may point back to the continent, country, or even local area in which a child has been abused. These insights might ultimately help in the first steps towards identifying victims and offenders. Two years after starting the project, Europol reported on the results thus far: Within those two years, the agency received more than 23.000 contributions via the website created for the purpose of this project, on the basis of which 9 victims were identified, 2 offenders prosecuted, and a number of investigations still going on.11

Besides contributions made to Europol directly, it became apparent that the crowdsourcing request began to develop a dynamic of its own, in that some members of the public began to collaborate with each other in more depth: When they did not recognise an item or location on the basis of their own experience, they began to actively search for and to try to detect them, using a variety of online tools to do so. In many cases, these endeavours led to the successful identification of objects and locations, even down to precise geographical coordinates.12 As such, the crowdsourcing request was embraced by some volunteers who took up an active role

9_{Poblet and Kolieb, ‘Responding to Human Rights Abuses in the Digital Era: New Tools, Old Challenges’.} 10_{Here, investigators have no more leads to follow. BBC, ‘People Fixing the World: The Digital Detectives}

Tackling Child Sexual Abuse’. See: FB11.

11_{Europol, ‘International Collaboration via Europol Leads to Tentative Identification of 4 Victims of Child}

Abuse’. Also: FB52.

(11)

11/113 in researching the origin of material featured in the background of child sexual abuse material, and thereby in the investigations itself.

Looking at this instance from a broader level, there is a long history of cooperation between members of the public and law enforcement, the means of which have modernised and developed in accordance with the times and means of interaction.13 Some of these instances have been researched within the framework of citizen co-production of public services.14_Here,

‘public services’, such as the provision of security, are provided, by or on behalf of public actors representing the state, in cooperation with citizens. However, research into cases of co-production of security is usually focused on local case studies,15 generating insight on community level involvement and on the socio-economic circumstances and motivations of individuals to participate in co-production.16 Notwithstanding, empirical research covering the groups of people engaging in co-production is still held to be scarce,17 and given the local setting of the case studies of such research, some previous findings on citizens’ motivation to take part may not apply to and thus do not explain for the vast involvement of international volunteers in Europol’s ‘Save a Child – Trace an Object’ project. Here, people who engage in the project do not directly benefit from its results,18 nor are they part of a local community, but a network of people based all over the world. As such, Europol’s project has been outwith the scope of current research, as there is a gap in knowledge on the composition and motivational factors of volunteers interacting with a public service provider – here, Europol as representative of law enforcement – in an international setting, with interaction primarily via social media platforms. This group of volunteers has been particularly identified as avenues for future research, with a view to understanding the motivation of persons ‘to participate […] and how to ensure their engagement.’19_{This gap in empirical knowledge is especially relevant when}

considering the inherent potential of volunteer involvement, whereby pooling the local knowledge of people worldwide, or their willingness to do open source research, could be

13_{Examples date back to any involvement of people as witnesses, the distribution of ‘most wanted’ posters,}

and more active instances of collaboration, such as police-citizen councils, community policing, or Neighbourhood Watch Schemes.

14_{Examples include: Davis et al., ‘The Public Accountability of Private Police: Lessons from New York,}

Johannesburg and Mexico City’; Diphoorn and Berg, ‘Typologies of Partnership Policing: Case Studies from Urban South Africa’.

15_{van Eijk, Steen, and Verschuere, ‘Co-Producing Safety in the Local Community’, 324, 326.} 16_{van Eijk, Steen, and Verschuere, 325.}

17_{Van Eijk and Steen, ‘Why Engage in Co-Production of Public Services?’, 29.} 18_{This aspect will be briefly discussed in chapter 2.2.}

19_{Muraszkiewicz, ‘Crowd Knowledge Sourcing - A Potential Methodology to Uncover Victims of Human}

(12)

12/113 aggregated in more cases of co-production, also in other crime areas.20_{All of this again serves}

to underline the societal relevance of researching instances of crowdsourcing, including the base of volunteers responding to such requests, their interaction with the crowdsourcing party, and potential practical and theoretical implications deriving from the use of it.

However, the discussion of co-production cases can be further broadened by placing it in the framework of theoretical considerations of the fragmentation of security provision, and thereby applying it to the realm of security governance. Identified drivers and relationships among regular and new providers in security range from top-down privatisation models, to bottom-up commodification, to more nuanced variations of cooperation.21 These models are discussed theoretically with a view to establishing generalisations on the nature of the relationship between actors, including the respective position they hold, and their cooperation with each other. Additionally, theoretical considerations on governance of security models highlight open questions that derive from such interactions between regular and new providers of security, and to some respect have overlaps with gaps in co-production literature, including on the composition of the new actors, their purpose, and importantly also on the implications of their relationship with regular providers. The relevance and theoretical value of these models can be supported or disconfirmed by applying case studies to them, to see if the theories’ defining aspects are applicable in practice. Respectively, knowledge on case studies themselves benefit from being applied to theory, in that the theoretical framework draws attention to the aforementioned open questions, particularly regarding considerations of both practical and broader implications which might be derived from the cases.

Research Question

Against that background, this study follows the objective to contribute to theoretical knowledge generation and to provide explanatory value to the case study of Europol’s ‘Save a Child – Trace an Object’ project by way of applying it to the governance model of responsibilization.22

20_{An example mentioned by Muraszkiewicz in this regard is human trafficking, or trafficking in human beings,}

given that this crime area also spans across geographies. Muraszkiewicz, 24.

21_{Matthys, ‘Three Different Governance Models in Public-Private Security Cooperation: From Accountability to}

Protection of Civil Liberties’.

22_{The governance model of responsibilization of security was selected due to disqualifying criteria of other}

governance models, which rendered their application incompatible with the case study. This particularly relates to a predominance of for-profit or commercial relationships in the governance models outwith

(13)

13/113 To this end, this study follows the overarching research question: Which findings can be

derived from the theoretical application of the case study of the interaction between Europol and volunteers in the ‘Save a Child – Trace an Object’ project to the governance model of responsibilization, both in terms of theoretical and practical insights?

Here, the project’s characteristics will be applied to those entailed in the responsibilization model, and insights on the open questions therein will be addressed. To this end, two substantial elements of the case study first need to be addressed, without which the overarching research question cannot be answered. For one, the principle of responsibilization models entails another actor23 being involved in the cooperation with the public provider of security, i.e. in the present case study: with Europol. Very little is known about the group of volunteers Europol is cooperating with, and as such, insights on the group of volunteers representing the new actor cooperating with Europol in the case study, must first be generated.

Sub-Question 1

Consequently, the first sub-question of this study asks: What is the composition and the

characteristics of the volunteers taking part in Europol’s ‘Save a Child – Trace an Object’ project? Aspects covered in this regard range from the composition of the group, to profiles of

volunteers, to how they interact with each other, to indicators pointing to the volunteers feeling as a community, the group’s independence, and motivation of volunteers. The research matrix outlining all aspects which will be covered in this regard can be found in annex A.1.

However, co-production cases are not just about the unique or new actor being involved in addition to the regular provider of public services, nor would security governance consideration contain much breadth if only one actor was discussed. The ‘co’ aspect, representing the interaction between the regular service provider and the volunteers, is just as important, considering that co-production cases and governance research live from the joint involvement and interaction of both actors.

responsibilization, while the latter also encompasses non-commercial cases of cooperation. This will be discussed further in chapter 2.1.

23_{As will be discussed at a later stage, new actors involved in the provision of security can be individuals,}

(14)

14/113

Sub-Question 2

Consequently, the second sub-question of this study asks: How do Europol and the volunteers

taking part in the ‘Save a Child – Trace an Object’ project interact with each other, and which findings can be derived from this? Aspects covered here include an analysis of how the

cooperation works in practice, their relationship towards each other, and what can be improved. The research matrix outlining all aspects which will be covered in this regard can be found in annex A.2.

To answer the research questions, this study analyses the output of both Europol and volunteers participating in the ‘Safe a Child – Trace an Object’ project made on social media platforms24 during the project’s first two years, i.e. from 31 May 2017 to 1 June 2019. Applying the case study to a governance model serves to place Europol’s project into a framework, on the basis of which it may be explained as a phenomenon representative of broader developments. This is of relevance to academic knowledge generation, in that any insight on actors joining in the provision of security in its broadest sense, may have both philosophical and practical implications.25_{As a first step, this study introduces the theoretical background on}

the theories on governance of security, followed by the body of knowledge, which comprises of the state of research on citizen co-production, and its application by law enforcement. This is followed by an introduction into the crime area child sexual abuse and the challenges faced by law enforcement in this regard, and a more detailed presentation of Europol’s ‘Save a Child – Trace an Object’ project. Next, the methodology will be covered, followed by a discussion of the findings.

24_{In the case of output made by Europol, a small number of press releases made on the agency’s website will}

also be taken into consideration.

25_{These could, for example, refer to discussions of the so/called social contract, according to which citizens}

give up some of their freedoms to the State, in exchange for the State’s provision of their security. However, if citizens join in the provision of security, not in the capacity of security personnel or public sector employees, but in their capacity as citizens, this results in an open question of what this means for the social contract.

(15)

15/113 2

Theoretical Framework & Body of Knowledge

This chapter provides the background to the present case study. First, the theoretical framework of the research, to which the empirical findings of sub-questions 1 and 2 will be applied in answering the overarching research question, is discussed. Next, the focus will be placed on the context of the study in more practical terms, by introducing citizen co-production as the administrative framework of the case study. This is followed by a brief discussion on the forms of crowdsourcing used by law enforcement, before the crime area and Europol’s project itself will be discussed in the next chapter.

2.1 Theoretical Framework: Models of Governance of Security

In an extensive review of current cross-disciplinary scholarship, Burris makes observations on a shift in the actors involved in provision of public services, going from single (public) providers of services to a multitude of actors involved in this provision.26 According to him:

‘The main theme to which all the transformations in governance27_{that we}

describe are ultimately reducible is the fragmentation of state sovereignty and the consequent multiplication of agencies and forms of power that are active in the management of social systems. Once it was dogma that our collective world was divided into two fundamentally different spheres: the public sphere – the realm of governors, and the private sphere – the realm of the governed. This crucial distinction is no longer accepted as an accurate representation of the way things are.’28

This fragmentation in the provision of public services in general can also be observed in the provision of (internal) security. This is not only limited to scholarly analysis and theorising, but also extends to governments themselves, who are vocal about the non-exclusivity of the provision of security.29 There are three main governance models, which attempt to provide explanations for the fragmentation of public security provision. The first

26_{Much can be said on the philosophical and theoretical implications of having more actors involved in the}

provision of security, and some of this will be addressed in the framework of research question 3.

27_{Governance is defined by Burris as ‘organised efforts to manage the course of events in a social system.’}

Burris, ‘Changes in Governance: A Cross-Disciplinary Review of Current Scholarship’, 3.

28_{Burris, 12.}

(16)

16/113 two models focus primarily on top down and bottom up privatisation aspects of services to private providers. The third one, called responsibilization, provides a more varied approach, in that not just public providers and private firms or private contractors contribute to security functions in a variety of areas, but also private citizens. In light of the case study’s focus the cooperation between law enforcement and citizens, rather than for-profit actors, the following section will only briefly introduce the two first governance models, to provide insight into the shifts that can occur in the provision of security. This will be followed by a more detailed section on the third governance model, responsibilization of security, and its two main strands, nodal governance and anchored pluralism, whereby the latter is of particular relevance for this study.

Privatisation of security: Junior Partner Model

The classic model explicating the relationship with new actors in security governance refers to a straightforward, top down instance of outsourcing or privatising tasks. Here, the public provider of security changes their perception on what they consider to be core elements of their responsibilities on the basis of either, or both, economic and political considerations of efficiency and natural evolutions of responsibilities, arguably with a view to being able to better concentrate on their ‘core’ tasks.30_{From there, they identify minor tasks that may be outsourced}

to private, for-profit commercial providers, on the basis of a contractual relationship.31 Here, the private provider effectively serves as an extension of the initial, public actor, which is represented by the name by which this governance model is also known as, i.e. the junior-partner-model.32 Against this background, this governance model may explain for certain (early) developments in public private partnerships, but it does not explain for the case of Europol’s ‘Save a child, trace an object’, seeing that there is no contractual, scrutinised relationship between the involved actors.

30_{Diphoorn and Berg, ‘Typologies of Partnership Policing: Case Studies from Urban South Africa’, 426–27.} 31_{For example, such minor tasks may refer to the ticketing of cars.}

(17)

17/113 Commodification of security

An alternative explanatory framework is called commodification of security, or economic market model. Contrary to the previous model, this represents a bottom up approach, whereby a referent society – including both the general public, and arguably also state actors33 – changes its perception on security towards seeing it as a commodity, rather than as a public good.34 Society becomes consumers, and ‘greater’ security becomes a tradeable good; perhaps even a luxury. Respectively, the market of private providers of security increasingly grows and diversifies, with private actors increasingly becoming competitors of public services in an increasing range of sectors. This goes beyond the outsourcing of minor tasks in the framework of responsibility considerations, but places almost exclusive emphasis on return of investment and efficiency; leading to market-driven choices for public private partnerships.35 Considering that the volunteers participating in Europol’s project are not remunerated, nor does the project represent a bottom up approach, the present governance model, which places such emphasis on commercial and monetary involvement, may also be held to not apply to the case studied in this study.

Responsibilization of security

The third and broadest governance model, that of responsibilization of security, is of particular relevance, since it is the most applicable one to the present case study. For one, it entails a lesser emphasis on commercial and for-profit relations, though these may be possible, too. Instead, it refers to a more or less horizontal, trust-based relationships between independent, potentially even equal actors of all backgrounds, who increasingly cooperate and work together in joint approaches to achieve a common goal.36 The general idea behind this responsibilization model is that an increasing, general demand for the provision of security can no longer be met to a satisfactory extent by the public sector, and here particularly by the police, courts and prisons, and that there is a shared responsibility by all actors who consequently should contribute according to their abilities to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of security

33_{Krahmann, ‘Security: Collective Good or Commodity?’, 396.}

34_{Abrahamsen and Williams, Security Beyond the State: Private Security in International Politics, 76–78.} 35_{Matthys, ‘Three Different Governance Models in Public-Private Security Cooperation: From Accountability to}

Protection of Civil Liberties’, 4.

(18)

18/113 provision.37_{In practice, this means that public providers of security seek ‘strategic}

relationships’ with other (non-state) actors, whereby the latter are encouraged to take an increasingly active role, particularly in preventative activities. To this end, public service providers create incentives and publicity campaigns, wherein they press on citizens’ sense of duty, to ‘connect the population to crime control agencies’ and thereby to persuade new actors into ‘new forms of cooperative action.’38 In the Anglo-Saxon context these are coordinated by quasi-governmental organisations.39 Traditional public and new private actors thus effectively form part of an integrated security dispositive. Actors involved can represent for-profit interests or altruistic involvement and anything in between in a networked environment. Considerations on this governance model refer to implications of potentially unclear roles and accountability, i.e. whether this is due towards the partners in the provision of security, or towards the public, particularly when contrasted with the previously introduced governance models of public-private partnerships, which are relatively in this regard. Considering all introduced governance models, Boutellier and van Steden note a temporal development along them. They claim: ‘we currently move from a vertically (‘top-down’) organised world to a more horizontally oriented one wherein the state, the market and civil society interpenetrate – a tendency which has fuelled a blurring of norms, values, interests and working methods.’40_{This increasing involvement of}

new actors has led to a ‘modern mix of public and private options and roles’, which can be visibly observed across the European Union (EU).41_{Within the conceptualisations of}

responsibilization, two theoretical models exist, in an effort to explain potentially diffuse relationships in security sectors. These differentiations are known as the anchored pluralism model, as well as the nodal governance model.

Nodal Governance

The nodal governance model explicitly takes a non-state-centred approach, in that a neutral mapping research agenda into security governance is proposed, whereby the state should not be considered as a leading actor per se to allow for a critical reflection on the reality of

37_{Kempster, ‘Responsibilization’, 355.} 38_{Kempster, 355–56.}

39_{Kempster, 356.}

40_{Boutellier and Van Steden, ‘Governing Nodal Governance: The 'anchoring’ of Local Security Networks’, 462.} 41_{van Steden and Sarre, ‘The Growth of Private Security’, 222.}

(19)

19/113 governance structures.42_{Consequently, complex ‘conditions of ‘multilateral’ or ‘polycentric’} organisational networks’ are observed in the provision of security,43_{and it is not deemed}

significant who performs a task, so long as it is being performed. This may be either due to considerations of efficiency, shifts in property relations of publicly used spaces, or as the result of previous instances of outsourcing of tasks by the state.44 The model evolves around observations of a proliferation of organisational ‘nodes’, which represent ‘organisational sides of security’.45_{As such, the state is effectively ‘but one among many’ nodes,}46_{alongside local,}

international, and transnational groups of actors, including groups of volunteers, going beyond public-private divides, nation states and other localities, such as physical or cyber spaces.47 The provision of security by these nodes points to collaboration and relationships formed via networks on which nodes are situated,48 thereby arranging new models of security provision through a multitude of actors.49 Interaction among nodes need not be harmonious. Burris and Drahos note an explanatory value of the nodal governance model, in that ‘it makes possible precise description of how what might appear as 'spontaneous' ordering emerges from an [organisation] and operates at the boundaries of contingency, structure and agency.’50

However, critique of the nodal governance model is severe in addressing the ‘one among many’ position of the state in nodal governance models, saying that ‘governance structures need to be more ‘anchored’ and ‘directed’ than nodal theories presuppose. […] Only when local safety policies are set up systematically, and backed by solid state presence in the background, are nodal arrangements able to function to their full capacity.’51_{However, it must be noted that}

within nodal governance, the approach towards the state’s position is not entirely consistent, in that a strict non-state focus is more emphasised by critiques of the model, than by its proponents, which allow for the state to still hold a particular role.52

42_{White, ‘The New Political Economy of Private Security’, 91.}

43_{Boutellier and Van Steden, ‘Governing Nodal Governance: The 'anchoring’ of Local Security Networks’, 463–}

64.

44_{Boutellier and Van Steden, 464.} 45_{Boutellier and Van Steden, 464.} 46_{Boutellier and Van Steden, 463.}

47_{Shearing and Wood, ‘Nodal Governance, Democracy, and the New “Denizens”’, 400; Boutellier and Van}

Steden, ‘Governing Nodal Governance: The 'anchoring’ of Local Security Networks’, 465.

48_{Burris and Drahos, ‘Nodal Governance’, 33.}

49_{Boutellier and Van Steden, ‘Governing Nodal Governance: The 'anchoring’ of Local Security Networks’, 465.} 50_{Burris and Drahos, ‘Nodal Governance’, 53.}

51_{Boutellier and Van Steden, ‘Governing Nodal Governance: The 'anchoring’ of Local Security Networks’, 463.} 52_{White, ‘The New Political Economy of Private Security’, 93.}

(20)

20/113

Anchored Pluralism

As such, the anchored pluralism model was initially formulated as a critique to nodal governance, in that anchored pluralism entails the premise that security governance is still state-centric. Accordingly, the state is held to necessarily play a distinctive role in the provision of security and coordination of partnerships, instead of it being just one of many nodes.53 This was especially held to be so, considering the state’s symbolic authority in security, and particularly in the field of policing.54 As mentioned above, ‘state interference is [seen as] necessary and desirable in the provision of security,’55 not least due to the state’s representation of ‘the most effective, morally just and socially responsible means of delivering security today.’56_{As such, the context of anchored pluralism is politically situated and highly}

normative.57 Anchored Pluralism places shifts in governance into historical perspective, and thereby does not identify radical changes in roles, given that public-private role divisions and models of cooperation have fluctuated across the last centuries.58 Historical references also explain the emphasis on the state’s symbolic power, in that enlightenment literature on the social contract is drawn upon to explain the symbolic power of the police.59 Practically, while more actors are involved in the provision of security, the state fosters cooperation with other, private actors, though having rolled back itself somewhat.60_{Nonetheless, public service}

providers such as law enforcement agencies, and by extension the state, are not considered to be withdrawing towards vertical relationships. On the contrary, according to Crawford:

‘contemporary political and social engineering in favour of ‘smarter’ governing capacities have not resulted in deregulation, but rather an expansion in regulatory systems, which straddle the classic public–private dichotomy. As such, public authorities, at least in the field of policing and security, are redrawing and extending rather than withdrawing powers.’61

53_{Boutellier and Van Steden, ‘Governing Nodal Governance: The 'anchoring’ of Local Security Networks’, 463.} 54_{Boutellier and Van Steden, 463.}

55_{Schuilenburg, The Securitization of Society: Crime, Risk, and Social Order, 47.} 56_{White, ‘The New Political Economy of Private Security’, 93.}

57_{White, 93.}

58_{Boutellier and Van Steden, ‘Governing Nodal Governance: The 'anchoring’ of Local Security Networks’, 466.} 59_{White, ‘The New Political Economy of Private Security’, 94.}

Protection of Civil Liberties’, 5.

61_{Crawford (2006) in: Boutellier and Van Steden, ‘Governing Nodal Governance: The 'anchoring’ of Local}

(21)

21/113 Ultimately, the condensed presentation of the two strands of responsibilization can be broken down to the main difference being the level of intensity assigned to the role of the state, and by extension of public service providers. Beyond this, the main indicators of the application of responsibilization of security entail the following:

• Increasing demand for security provision can no longer be met to a satisfactory extent by respective public service providers;

• the state, or public service provider representing states, works towards motivating and persuading individuals and organisations to commit towards joint responsibility and a joint working relationship;

• cooperation between the public actor and new actors is horizontal and trust-based; • partners of the public actors are independent from one another;

• the role of the state, or public service provider representing it, is smaller than previously, but it remains in a more powerful position (the extent of which may be debatable) to override any cooperative activities.62

Last but not least, gaps outlined by researchers into responsibilization entail questions such as ‘who are the actors that participate in divergent networks? […] Who is communicating with whom, how frequent are contacts and what is the nature of relationships? […] What are the purposes of actors? […] How is a security network really being shaped, sustained and governed? [Are] partners […] central to co-ordinating and directing organisational networks?’63_{Further research is also called for with regard to explorations into ethical and}

accountability concerns, and particularly on unintended outcomes resulting from the increasing involvement of new actors in security networks.64_{Against that background, and further}

considering collaboration schemes of co-production and research gaps therein, which will be outlined in the following sections, this study generates findings on the volunteers and their cooperation with Europol in investigative activities. These findings will be taken to assess the application of responsibilization to the case study, and in that process contribute to closing some of the gaps outlined before. This will be discussed in more depth in chapter 5.3.

62_{Boutellier and Van Steden, 468.}

63_{Questions compiled in: Boutellier and Van Steden, 475–76.} 64_{Boutellier and Van Steden, 476–77.}

(22)

22/113 2.2 Citizen Co-Production of Public Services

Following theoretical considerations on security governance, the next sections introduce the partnership framework in which cases of public-private cooperation play out in practice: citizen production schemes. The following sections first address the characteristics of citizen co-production in general, and then narrow it down to citizen co-co-production in security, and with law enforcement investigations in particular. On this basis, crowdsourcing as a method of cooperation will be addressed, followed by a discussion of citizens’ motivation to participate in co-production in security.

Citizen co-production: What is it about?

Building on the theoretical section above, it must be noted again that fragmentation in the provision of public services already exists. There are few entities, at least in Western societies, that can provide their services without building on anyone else’s involvement. Besides contractually outsourcing parts of services to private for-profit service providers, there are also increasing examples of co-production of public services. Here, the delivery of public services has shifted away from one-way, top-down processes towards a ‘revolutionary concept’, which allows and ‘demands’ for new ways of interaction between public service providers and citizens.65 Here, the role of citizens as co-producers, rather than only as consumers of public services can be as a ‘radical reinterpretation of the role of policy making and service delivery in the public domain.’66_{However, first and foremost, the term co-production is said to lack}

‘conceptual and definitional clarity, given that it is used to refer to a variety of collaborative governance arrangements that can involve a wide range of actors in a wide range of activities of the public sector cycle.’67 As such, citizen co-production of public services is an administrative concept, which seeks to conceptualise any instance in which ‘citizens [are] involved in the production of public services,’ by way of cooperating with the regular producers of these services.68 Some definitions add that the joint provision of services is of a regular nature, with a long-term relationship being formed between the participants, i.e. the regular

65_{Bovaird, 846.}

66_{Bovaird, ‘Beyond Engagement and Participation’, 846.}

67_{Sorrentino, Sicilia, and Howlett, ‘Understanding Co-Production as a New Public Governance Tool’, 277–78.} 68_{van Eijk, Steen, and Verschuere, ‘Co-Producing Safety in the Local Community’, 323.}

(23)

23/113 service provider and the participating citizens.69_{Another definition adds the condition of the}

relationship being ‘equal and reciprocal’.70_{Examples of instances of citizen co-production in}

the provision of service functions are multifold and span across a variety of sectors, activities,71 and countries across the EU and worldwide.72 As such, they are often referred to by a multitude of sub-terms, with co-production functioning as umbrella term.73 Co-production take place in at least three distinct phases: in the planning phase, the delivery (production) phase, and the assessment phase of services.74 The delivery phase is of particular relevance for the case discussed in this study.

While the underlying reasons for each instance of citizen co-production may vary, the overarching goal of such cooperation is to ‘[enhance] the quality of the services produced’.75 Besides this, a variety of other benefits can be identified, though also some shortcomings, both on a practical, as well as on an abstract level, for citizens and regular service providers alike. Ultimately, citizen co-production is a particular type of citizen engagement, though ‘not all forms of citizen engagement are about co-production.’76 Practically, the role division and the details of interaction and cooperation depend on the case at hand. They range from substitute inputs, whereby citizens’ activities replace tasks previously held by public providers of services, to additive inputs, whereby citizens’ activities complement those of public providers.77

Participants in co-production

As discussed previously, the main parties involved in co-production cases are by definition the regular service providers and citizens. In Western countries, public services are typically

69_{Bovaird, ‘Beyond Engagement and Participation’, 847.}

70_{NESTA 2011 in Bovaird and Loeffler, ‘From Engagement to Co-Production’, 1121.}

71_{Implications of what it means to have a multitude of actors involved in the provision of public services, in}

particular relating to security, were addressed in the framework of governance theories in chapter 2.1 and will be touched upon again in chapter 5, in the framework of the overarching research question.

72_{Stott et al., Co-Production.}

73_{These include: planning, design, prioritisation, financing, managing, delivery, and}

co-assessment of services. See: Bovaird and Loeffler, ‘From Engagement to Co-Production’, 1124.

74_{Sorrentino, Sicilia, and Howlett, ‘Understanding Co-Production as a New Public Governance Tool’, 281.} 75_{van Eijk, Steen, and Verschuere, ‘Co-Producing Safety in the Local Community’, 323.}

76_{Löffler, ‘CitizenPoweredCities: Co-Producing Better Public Services with Citizens - Observatory of Public}

Sector Innovation’.

(24)

24/113 provided by the public sector, or agents hired on behalf of it.78_{Meanwhile, citizens can either}

be involved as individuals, or as part of communities of people,79_{though they are mostly}

considered as laypersons within co-production frameworks.80 Citizens, or citizen groups can take various roles in co-production initiatives, which naturally depend on their background and expertise and subsequent role in the co-production case in question.81 Citizens ‘may take part at the invitation of government, or take the initiative themselves.’82 Further, regular service providers can approach citizens to take part either following pre-defined categories, i.e. citizens’ capabilities, position within the community, or place of residence, or they can be undefined, i.e. when open calls by public service providers seek to attract anyone to join. The general idea in discussions of citizen co-production is that citizens taking part in the delivery of public services mainly do so on a not for profit basis.83 Hence, the citizens involved are often referred to as volunteers. Last but not least, Sorrentino et al differentiate between individual and collective co-production. The former refers to situations where only the end-user of a service takes part in the production of it, considering that they are the beneficiaries of this service. The latter refers to cases where the citizens participating are not limited to those using or receiving the service, with a base of volunteers or participants being much broader.84 The latter concept is particularly relevant for the case discussed in this study.

Benefits of co-production include that these schemes may serve as an end in itself, rather than as means to an end due to improved quality of the service, and improved understanding between the citizens and service providers.85_{Cooperation and understanding}

78_{Depending on the case, the public sector may be represented by any local or national government, any}

ministry, agency or other (public) institution, or by private actors, when services are contracted out to individuals or companies. See: Sorrentino, Sicilia, and Howlett, ‘Understanding Co-Production as a New Public Governance Tool’, 280.

79_{This includes being part of civil society organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), associations,}

or special interest groups, which do not necessarily have to be independent from the public sector. See: Sorrentino, Sicilia, and Howlett, ‘Understanding Co-Production as a New Public Governance Tool’, 278.

80_{Sorrentino, Sicilia, and Howlett, 280.}

81_{In this regard, citiyens maz represent interests, e.g. through unions in deliberations of policy-making, they}

may provide technical expertise (lobbying), be involved in capacity building (foundations), in the organisation of social activities (sports), and in instances of service delivery, e.g. in the implementation of projects through the provision of technical expertise or maintenance.

82_{Van Eijk and Steen, ‘Why Engage in Co-Production of Public Services?’, 29.}

83_{Given the vast range of co-production examples, especially considering broad definitions of co-production, it}

is possible that examples can be found where volunteers are paid allowances for expenses. However, as soon as a payment takes the character of salary, the case no longer represents a classic case of citizen

co-production, but rather a for-profit relationship.

84_{Sorrentino, Sicilia, and Howlett, ‘Understanding Co-Production as a New Public Governance Tool’, 280.} 85_{A recent Dutch study found that as the understanding between citizens engaged in co-production with the}

police improved, the Dutch police was perceived as more reliable. See: van der Land, van Stokkom, and Boutellier, ‘Citizens in Security: Taking Stock of Citizen Participation in Social Safety (Summary)’, 3.

(25)

25/113 may lead to better quality of the service, and may also improve aspects of perceived legitimacy of the public service provider. Practically, citizens step in as non-salaried extra resources, which may also make the service more cost efficient. Downsides on the other hand may include transaction costs.86 Further resources will have to be spent by regular providers of services to ensure that any possible accountability concerns are addressed, particularly in terms of ensuring adherence to (ethical) standards. On a broader level, there may be the risk of a loss of professional legitimacy of public service providers, if non-professionals are involved. Additionally, if the idea is portrayed that citizens are able to get involved, there is a risk of disenfranchisement if citizens’ contributions end up not being sufficiently taken into account. Here, ‘there appears to be a huge latent willingness of citizens to become more involved, but only if they feel they can play a worthwhile role.’87

Overall, previous research into co-production cases is spread across a multitude of sectors and sub-categories of co-production. Much research is based within public administration and is usually placed in the framework of sectors other than security, in particular in the health sector.88 The combining element is that the underlying case studies of previous research are almost exclusively based on local communities, while very little is known about international cases and groups of volunteers. As will be discussed further below, some research has also been done on people’s motivation to become engaged in co-production.89

However, broader insights on best practices of cooperation elements of co-production, particularly when disengaged from local particularities, is scarce.90

2.3 Citizen Co-Production in Security: Cooperating with Law Enforcement

In light of the focus of the present case study, considerations on citizen co-production will be narrowed down from general aspects towards citizens participating in security,91 and

86_{Bovaird and Loeffler, ‘From Engagement to Co-Production’, 1137.} 87_{Bovaird and Loeffler, 1136.}

88_{Bovaird and Loeffler, 1125.}

89_{See for example: van Eijk, Steen, and Verschuere, ‘Co-Producing Safety in the Local Community’.} 90_{Further below, the term crowdsourcing will be briefly introduced. In the framework of crowdsourcing,}

research has been done into motivations of online crowds to take part, however, these are not set in co-production contexts, but in purely business contexts. Crowdsourcing in business contexts entails the application of competitive crowdsourcing contests and gamification models, and in many cases monetary compensation is involved. As such, findings from business-related crowdsourcing studies are not considered further. See for example: Zhao and Zhu, ‘Exploring the Motivation of Participants in Crowdsourcing Contest’, 2.

91_{Security can be defined as the status in which an entity is protected from ‘events and activities that embody}

(26)

26/113 particularly to cooperation with law enforcement.92_{The primary service provider in the area of}

a state’s internal security93_{are law enforcement agencies. While the maintenance of a state’s}

internal security requires a complex set of actors, activities, and facilitating factors, cooperation between law enforcement and citizens towards this end dates back far throughout history.94 Given transitions in responsibilities from historical night-watchmen groups to contemporary law enforcement and other actors in the provision of security,95 it must also be noted that ‘citizen involvement in the governance of their own conduct’ is increasingly called for and encouraged by governments.96 This may be due to changed perceptions on who should provide security, political and economic considerations, and more.97 According to Garland:

‘Instead of addressing crime in a direct fashion by means of the police, the courts and the prisons, this [new] approach promotes a new kind of indirect action in which state agencies activate action by non-state organizations and actors. The intended result is an enhanced network of more or less directed, more or less informal crime control, complementing and extending the formal controls of the criminal justice state.’98

Examples for co-production with law enforcement exist in all main areas of law enforcements’ activity, i.e. in prevention and deterrence, protection and detection, and investigations.99 Notwithstanding this possible variety, it was found that ‘citizen participation […] in community policing is almost exclusively prevention oriented.’100_{The most basic}

92_{Instead of narrowing down co-production to one of its sub-categories, e.g. co-delivery, this study follows the}

area in which co-production may be situated, given the variety of possible means of interaction possible within this, and potential related findings available from related research into co-production cases in the respective topical area.

93_{The distinction between internal and external security is that external security broadly refers to security}

against any aggression against a referent state from outside, foreign actors, such as other states, whereas internal security refers to the upholding of law and order within a state’s geographic borders. However, the lines between the two have become increasingly blurry, particularly due to globalisation effects and cross-border crimes, such as child sexual abuse and human trafficking, which make it harder for individual states to tackle these issues.

94_{In this regard, it can be pointed out that law enforcement emerged from night watchmen groups, i.e. citizen}

militia, who represented early forms of law enforcement. See: Thompson and Hudson, ‘An Introduction to Police Operations and Methods: The Connection to Law and History’, 11.

95_{Zedner, ‘Too Much Security?’, 155.} 96_{Newburn, Criminology, 349.}

Protection of Civil Liberties’, 3; Diphoorn and Berg, ‘Typologies of Partnership Policing: Case Studies from Urban South Africa’, 426–27; Abrahamsen and Williams, Security Beyond the State: Private Security in

International Politics, 76–78; Krahmann, ‘Security: Collective Good or Commodity?’, 396; Bovaird and Loeffler,

‘From Engagement to Co-Production’, 1121.

98_{Garland in: Newburn, Criminology, 349.} 99_{Manning, ‘Role and Function of the Police’.} 100_{van der Land, van Stokkom, and Boutellier, 3.}

(27)

27/113 examples of co-production in this regard refer to simple preventative measures taken by citizens, such as locking doors, installing alarm systems, and reporting crime to the police.101

In the same line, active cooperation, when called for, such as witness statements and calling the police upon realising a crime was committed, may be counted.102 Such examples may not easily be recognised as examples of co-production compared to others.103 More easily recognisable, active cases of co-production include the provision of technical expertise, e.g. through joint academic research, or by way of volunteer incident response teams compiled of specialists in a certain area, e.g. IT and cyber security, who may be called in by law enforcement to help if needed.104 A practical example is that of Ramsey County, in Minnesota, United States (US), where citizens monitor half of the local surveillance cameras via a website set up for this purpose. Any unusual activity is reported to the local police, who ultimately only monitor the cameras once prompted to do so.105 The latter examples are primarily top down, with law enforcement requesting information and/or assistance from the any or specialised members of the public. However, some bottom up examples exist as well, e.g. in the case of investigative journalists’ work, which may prompt further law enforcement investigations into cases brought up here. On a broader, and more abstract, level, citizens also co-produce by way of more or less directly acting in oversight functions; either by electing officials,106_by

recording law enforcement officers’ actions for accountability reasons,107_{and potentially}

through investigative journalism. However, if locking a door is considered as co-production, as well as joining law enforcement agencies in investigation efforts, then the metaphor of priority baggage applies: if everything is a priority, or co-production, then nothing is.

Last but not least, there are also fringe cases, where citizen engagement in investigations has seen independent bottom up approaches, rather than attempts at co-production: In the case of the Boston Marathon bombings, activists from the collective Anonymous, as well as Reddit users, sought to identify the bombers themselves, independently of the police.108_{Another example is that of an online community attempting to find a man who}

101_{Sabet, ‘Co-Production and Oversight: Citizens and Their Police’, 245; Ostrom, ‘Citizen Participation and}

Policing: What Do We Know?’, 1–2.

102_{Ostrom, ‘Citizen Participation and Policing: What Do We Know?’, 102.}

103_{van Eijk, Steen, and Verschuere, ‘Co-Producing Safety in the Local Community’, 324–25.} 104_{Such teams exist in the Netherlands for example.}

105_{Meijer, ‘Co-Production in an Information Age’, 1157.}

106_{Sabet, ‘Co-Production and Oversight: Citizens and Their Police’, 245.}

107_{This refers to theoretical debates on sousveillance practices, whereby citizens ‘look back at the state’. See:}

Mann and Ferenbok, ‘New Media and the Power Politics of Sousveillance in a Surveillance Dominated World’.

(28)

28/113 had tortured and killed cats and distributed videos of this online.109_{While these examples are}

not under consideration in this study, they nonetheless may represent a demand of individuals wanting to help and contribute, which goes in line with their inherent potential, as identified by Muraszkiewicz.110

Technological Developments in Co-Production

Much can and is being said about the role of technology in the prevention of crime and the provision of security in general. Technology functions as crime enabler and facilitator,111 as enabler of tools for crime prevention and early detection,112 and as facilitator of new means of interaction between participants in the provision of security. As such, while co-production is already no static concept, its multiple variations also adapt as technology and means of cooperation and participation develop.113 Sorrentino et al observe that traditional co-production involved ‘in-person, face-to-face relationships,’ while more recent co-production traits, particularly those involving more than just the users or consumers of services, are characterised by ‘the use of asynchronous information and communication technology (ICT)-based modes of interaction mediated by web-based platforms and mobile devices.’114_{As such, new}

technologies offer opportunities to modernise previous models of co-production and to facilitate new practices of interaction therein.115_{This also holds true in terms of increased}

geographical reach facilitated through technologies. Modernised ways of interaction include the use of apps and online platforms for interactions, such as WhatsApp alerts in Neighbourhood Watch Schemes, the Dutch ‘Burgernet’,116 and the facilitation of exclusively online co-production, such as the previously mentioned example of CCTV117 camera observations in Ramsey County, and online discussion groups, e.g. the US platform

109_{Harrison, ‘Don’t F**k With Cats: Netflix’s Kitten-Killer Series Branded “Most Disturbing Documentary yet”}

by Viewers’.

110_{Muraszkiewicz, ‘Crowd Knowledge Sourcing - A Potential Methodology to Uncover Victims of Human}

Trafficking’, 25.

111_{See the section on the crime area child sexual abuse in chapter 3.1 below.}

112_{Examples include the employment of CCTV cameras (both as preventative element and source of evidence}

material), metal detectors and baggage screening equipment (as deterring and detecting elements), and many more.

113_{Sorrentino, Sicilia, and Howlett, ‘Understanding Co-Production as a New Public Governance Tool’, 281.} 114_{Sorrentino, Sicilia, and Howlett, 278.}

115_{Meijer, ‘Co-Production in an Information Age’, 1157.} 116_{Meijer, 1164.}

(29)

29/113 ‘Nextdoor’.118_{In the cases where online platforms are utilised, it has been found that ‘the lack}

of a centralised service often makes the response somewhat disjointed’, leading to law enforcements’ servers crashing when too many citizens seek to contribute,119_{although social}

media has been considered as solution in this regard.120 More creative applications of traditional co-production aspects have been enabled as well. For one, this includes television shows being used to visualise the knowns of crimes to trigger witnesses’ memories and to appeal to them to come forward.121 Other modernisations have been explored by Europol, in that most wanted criminals lists were adapted into a most wanted advent calendar122 and summer postcards,123 to generate more widespread attention.124

Crowdsourcing

When cooperating with the public in investigations, law enforcement can also utilise another method of cooperation which was facilitated through technology, namely crowdsourcing. The term ‘crowdsourcing’ is used since 2006 and initially ‘simply referred to a type of outsourcing through which some business-related activities of a company are carried out by an anonymous crowd, in response to an open call in online environments.’125_{Moving on from a commercial}

aspect, crowdsourcing activities by online communities expanded in range, with examples including the classification of galaxies, gathering information during social crises, and more. As such, crowdsourcing is defined by Barbham as ‘an online, distributed problem-solving and production model that exploits the collective contributions of online crowds to serve the organizational aims of the requester.’126_{Crowdsourcing is not restricted to any geographical}

sphere, and it allows for both local and international application. It can be used in multiple ways by law enforcement in the framework of investigations, which may be particularly

118_{Brewster, Gibson, and Gunning, ‘Policing the Community Together: The Impact of Technology on Citizen}

Engagement’, 94.

119_{Wilson, ‘Crowdsourcing and Criminal Investigations’.}

120_{Brewster, Gibson, and Gunning, ‘Policing the Community Together: The Impact of Technology on Citizen}

Engagement’, 94.

121_{Wilson, ‘Crowdsourcing and Criminal Investigations’.}

122_{Europol, ‘It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year… to Lock up These Criminals’.}

123_{Europol, ‘Dear Europe’s Most Wanted Fugitives - the Police Want You Back Home This Summer!’} 124_{These campaigns by Europol were nominated for the European Ombudsman’s ‘Award for Good}

Administration’ 2019, considering that they led to the apprehension of 17 criminals. The agency’s ‘Save a Child – Trace an Object’ project received a separate nomination. See: European Ombudsman, ‘Nominations for the European Ombudsman “Award for Good Administration” 2019’.

125_{Howe (2006. 2008) in: Açar, ‘Osint By Crowdsourcing’, 209.} 126_{Brabham (2008) in: Açar, 209.}

Citizen Co-Production in International Investigations of Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Discussing Europol’s ‘Save a Child – Trace an Object’ Project