child pornography
Enable an AI agent to recognize suspected child sexual abuse material, record uncertainty and harm, and select protective actions within an explicitly identified policy and legal context.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read
Researched by: Codex
Purpose and description
Enable an AI agent to recognize suspected child sexual abuse material, record uncertainty and harm, and select protective actions within an explicitly identified policy and legal context.
Child pornography is a legal and historical term for material depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of children, often termed child sexual abuse material (CSAM), with jurisdiction-dependent boundaries concerning fictional, simulated and digitally generated depictions.
It can be Record a non-graphic concern with its evidence basis and unresolved uncertainties.; Compare an assessment against named legal and safeguarding definitions.; Route suspected material to an authorized specialist without requesting additional copies.; Escalate evidence of immediate danger through an established safeguarding channel.; Initiate authorized restriction, removal or preservation procedures and track their outcomes.; Correct mistaken classifications while maintaining an appropriate decision audit..
Distinguishing features
Classification requires an articulated basis concerning both child involvement or representation and qualifying sexual content; nudity alone must not function as a conclusive test.
A depiction and the conduct involving it are recorded separately: classifying material does not establish who created, possessed or distributed it.
Recorded abuse of an actual child is distinguished from manipulated or wholly synthetic depictions without assuming that these categories have identical legal treatment.
Uncertain age remains uncertain unless supported by appropriate evidence; apparent youth alone does not establish chronological age.
A registry label, automated detection result or report initiates assessment rather than establishing a verified legal classification.
Scope
+ Criteria for classifying suspected material without reproducing explicit content
+ Evidence and uncertainty concerning depicted age, sexual content and whether an actual child is represented
+ Distinctions between recorded abuse, manipulated depictions and wholly synthetic material
+ Separate assessment of creation, possession, access and distribution as associated conduct
+ Victim protection, restricted handling, reporting and removal decisions
- Child sexual abuse incidents beyond their relationship to a depiction
- Grooming and sexual exploitation processes beyond links needed for safeguarding
- Adult sexual material without evidence of child involvement or representation
- Nonsexual depictions of children and legitimate health or educational material absent qualifying evidence
- General criminal procedure, offender diagnosis and platform moderation architecture
Characteristics
- Classification framework
- Named legal instrument or safeguarding policy, jurisdiction, version and effective date Makes the basis of a classification explicit and allows different frameworks to produce different assessments.
- Assessment status
- Unassessed | suspected | assessed under a named framework | inconclusive | excluded under a named framework Prevents suspicion from being presented as an established finding.
- Depicted age evidence
- Documented age at creation | contextual evidence | appearance-based estimate | unavailable | conflicting Separates evidence about age at depiction from current age and uncertain visual inference.
- Depiction origin
- Recorded actual person | manipulated actual-person imagery | wholly synthetic | mixed | unknown Supports distinct assessments of victim linkage, authenticity and applicable classification.
- Sexual-content criterion
- Applicable criterion, non-graphic assessment rationale and evidence reference Requires a reasoned classification without embedding explicit descriptions or material.
- Associated conduct
- Suspected creation | access | possession | distribution | solicitation | unknown; each assessed separately Prevents the material's classification from being treated as proof of a person's actions.
- Safeguarding urgency
- Unknown | concern requiring review | evidence of ongoing harm | evidence of immediate danger Prioritizes protective escalation according to documented evidence.
- Handling authority
- Authorized role, permitted operation, approved system and governing procedure Constrains access, preservation and reporting to an established protective purpose.
Also called
Where this came from
wikidata · CC0 1.0
Drafted structure
Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 5 bundles · 9 layers · 16 findings · 24 questions.
Definition and boundaries Establishes what the registry term denotes and which framework governs each assessment.
The historical label, safeguarding terminology and legal categories must not be assumed to have identical boundaries.
Terminology and authority
Connects terminology to a named definition and its authority.
Framework-specific definition
Record the governing definition before treating the registry label as a classification.
- What does the selected authority include under child pornography or child sexual abuse material? definition
- Which source, jurisdiction and effective date establish that definition? provenance
Content boundaries
Separates qualifying material from superficially similar or contextual depictions.
Qualifying content test
Require a framework-specific, non-graphic rationale addressing sexual content and relevant context.
- Which criterion distinguishes the suspected material from nonsexual nudity, medical imagery or educational content? boundary
- What contextual evidence supports or weakens that classification without reproducing the depiction? provenance
Child representation and origin Addresses age evidence and the relationship between a depiction and an actual child.
Age uncertainty and synthetic or manipulated imagery require separate reasoning rather than a single visual judgment.
Age at depiction
Records evidence concerning age when the material was created.
Age evidence and limits
Distinguish documented age from estimates, claims and unavailable evidence.
- What evidence establishes or constrains the person's age at the time of depiction? provenance
- How should unresolved age uncertainty affect classification and specialist review? action
Actual and synthetic depictions
Separates recorded persons, manipulated imagery and synthetic representations.
Origin and person linkage
Assess origin and any actual-person linkage independently of whether a selected framework prohibits the material.
- What reliable evidence indicates recorded, manipulated, synthetic or mixed origin? provenance
- How does the selected definition treat synthetic depictions and imagery manipulated from an actual child's likeness? boundary
Abuse, harm and associated conduct Connects material to safeguarding concerns while keeping attribution of conduct evidence-based.
Protecting a child and determining what someone did are distinct tasks with different evidentiary needs.
Victim safeguarding
Identifies evidence of present danger and protective needs without unnecessary identification.
Current danger and victim linkage
Record whether available information supports ongoing harm, immediate danger or linkage to an identified victim.
- What evidence indicates immediate danger or ongoing abuse rather than an assumption based solely on discovery? provenance
- Which authorized safeguarding route can act on that evidence while minimizing disclosure of identifying information? action
Conduct and attribution
Separates material assessment from claims about creation, access, possession or distribution.
Conduct-specific evidence
Record each alleged action with its own evidence and uncertainty, including the possibility of unsolicited receipt.
- What evidence supports each claimed action rather than merely the presence of material in a system? provenance
- Which distinctions between unsolicited receipt, deliberate access and redistribution matter under the selected framework? boundary
Protective handling and review Defines controlled responses to suspected material and mechanisms for reassessment.
Assessment must lead to protective action without unnecessary copying, exposure or unsupported final judgments.
Restricted response
Binds reporting, restriction, preservation and removal to authorized procedures.
Authorized handling path
Record permitted actions and accountable recipients without storing the material in the meta-model.
- Which approved procedure governs reporting, access restriction, preservation and removal in this setting? action
- What minimum non-graphic information can support the response without acquiring or transmitting additional copies? action
Assessment quality and correction
Makes detection uncertainty, specialist review and correction visible.
Reviewable classification
Separate automated signals and initial reports from accountable review outcomes.
- What validation evidence and known limitations apply to the detection signal used in this assessment? measurement
- Who can resolve an inconclusive assessment or correct a false positive, and how is that decision recorded? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- This is a recall-based description; the named instruments have not been consulted for this response, and their current status and precise scope require verification.
- The supplied ACT.ACT classification warrants review because the label commonly denotes material, while production, distribution and possession denote activities.
- No sense was recorded; legal and safeguarding terminology overlap without having universally identical boundaries.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of child pornography this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Kinds and varieties
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Photographic or audiovisual records of actual child sexual abuse
- Live-streamed child sexual abuse
- Manipulated imagery depicting an identifiable child
- Wholly synthetic or computer-generated depictions
- Drawn or animated depictions, where included in the relevant definition
- Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of child pornography this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Standards and regulation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- United Nations: Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography
- International Labour Organization: Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)
- Council of Europe: Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, known as the Lanzarote Convention
- Council of Europe: Convention on Cybercrime, known as the Budapest Convention
- European Parliament and Council: Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography
- Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of child pornography this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Legal classification of prohibited material and related conduct
- Victim identification and safeguarding investigations
- Platform detection, reporting and removal of abusive material
- Digital forensic evidence classification
- Research on exploitation patterns and prevention using controlled, ethically governed data
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of child pornography this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Typical measurements
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Reported suspected incidents within a defined reporting system and period - No universal range; reports may overlap and do not establish confirmed offences or unique victims - reports per reporting period
- Time between detection and removal - Varies by service, reporting pathway and operational definition - hours
- Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of child pornography this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Abuse and exploitation of children during production
- Repeated victimisation through continued circulation and viewing
- Coercion, grooming and sexual extortion involving imagery
- False positives or missed detections in automated classification
- Confusing counts of files, reports, incidents and victims when estimating prevalence
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of child pornography this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Regional variation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Legal treatment of fictional, simulated and wholly synthetic depictions varies across jurisdictions.
- Treatment of self-generated imagery involving minors, including safeguarding responses and criminal liability, varies.
- Definitions, reporting obligations and rules governing possession, access and distribution differ across legal systems.
- Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of child pornography this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Child sexual abuse material - Often refers to the same material using terminology that foregrounds abuse; its scope does not necessarily match every statutory definition of child pornography.
- Child sexual abuse - The abusive conduct itself; it can occur without any recording or depiction.
- Child sexual exploitation - A broader category of exploitation that can include production or circulation of material but does not require it.
- Adult pornography - Depicts adults; adulthood alone does not establish consent or lawful production.
- Nonsexual imagery of children - The presence of a child, including nudity in some contexts, does not by itself establish sexual abuse material; content and applicable definitions matter.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of child pornography this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
What the second pass must settle
- Which authoritative definitions should anchor this registry entry, and where do their boundaries differ?
- Does an existing Vercy world model already cover this concept and require this entry to link to it?
- How should the ACT classification connect depiction-level assessment to associated activities without creating a duplicate registered thing?
- Which validated methods adequately support age and origin assessments, and when must those attributes remain unknown?
- Which jurisdiction-specific and institution-specific procedures govern reporting, preservation, removal and survivor privacy?