July 2005
UK IT Professionals Research Awareness and Understanding of the Sexual Offences Act (SOA) 2003 - Follow up research
Objective
To measure the effectiveness of the Wipe it out campaign.
Brief
To measure knowledge of the amendments to the SOA 2003 and if it had increased in the past year and to establish if the IWF was a more recognisable organisation, and if so, that businesses understand what its main focus.
Background
The SOA 2003 was devised to provide IT Professionals with a conditional defence for viewing and holding illegal child abuse images found on company networks on the basis that they are to be used as evidence and forwarded to the relevant agency for assessment and investigation in a timely manner. Prior to this legislation, it was an offence to view an illegal image whatever the reason.
For the full IWF press release, click here.
Methodology
The research was based around 10 multi-choice questions
The raw target data came from the VNU publication; IT Week and was made up of their subscribers/readers.
IT Week was the most appropriate trade publication for our target audience and provided valid and up-to-date raw data.
The research was based around 10 multi-choice questions
The raw target data came from the VNU publication; IT Week and was made up of their subscribers/readers.
IT Week was the most appropriate trade publication for our target audience and provided valid and up-to-date raw data.
This list of target participants was developed on the basis of job descriptions:
- Overall Head of IT
- CIO
- CTO
- IT Management
- Systems Development Management
- Network Management
- Technical/User Support Management
- Security Management
- Other: System Administrator
And cross referenced with size of company:
- 5000+
- 2000-4999
- 1000-1999
- 500-999
- 200-499
- 100-199
- 50-99
- 1-49
From this data, we commissioned 1,000 completed surveys. It was decided that this was a suitably sized sample which would give some weight to the figures and provide a reasonable cross-section of IT Professionals in terms of job role and size of company.
Telemarketing was judged to be the most appropriate method to collect this information; based on the nature and topic of the questions and should more information and/or reassurance be required.
The company we used to conduct the research was Blue Donkey
For how we used this information, see campaigns
For how we used this information, see campaigns
Results:
Are you responsible for the integrity and security of your organisations internet use?
Yes: 75%
No: 10%
Some of it: 15%
Does your organisation have an acceptable internet use policy in place?
Yes: 92%
No: 4%
Currently under review: 3%
Unsure: 1%
Yes: 92%
No: 4%
Currently under review: 3%
Unsure: 1%
Do you understand what constitutes a potentially illegal indecent image of child online?
Yes: 83%
No: 15%
Unsure: 1%
Yes: 83%
No: 15%
Unsure: 1%
Do you have specific policies for dealing with potentially illegal indecent images of children found on your servers or on user desktops?
Yes: 56%
No: 30%
No -Not Specific: 11%
Unsure: 1%
Yes: 56%
No: 30%
No -Not Specific: 11%
Unsure: 1%
No General Policy: 1%
Do you or your systems staff view internet sites or content for internal monitoring/regulation purposes?
Yes: 63%
No: 28%
Sporadically: 8%
Yes: 63%
No: 28%
Sporadically: 8%
What action would be taken if you found potentially illegal indecent images of children on an employee’s PC or mobile?
Discipline or dismiss the employee: 61%
Copy/store the images as evidence: 2%
Report it to the IWF: 1%
Discipline or dismiss the employee: 61%
Copy/store the images as evidence: 2%
Report it to the IWF: 1%
Report it to the police: 35%
Don’t know: 3%
Don’t know: 3%
Other: 26%
Are you aware of the recent amendment to the Sexual Offences Act and how this legislation relates to you and your organisation in terms of internet content?
Yes: 28%
No: 72%
Yes: 28%
No: 72%
Are you aware of the personal implications to you, your staff and your organisation for improper handling of potentially illegal indecent images of children?
Yes: 67%
No: 32%
Yes: 67%
No: 32%
Unsure: 1%
Have you heard of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF)
Yes: 56%
No: 44%
Yes: 56%
No: 44%
If yes, do you think IWF is a:
Public Service Hotline: 6%
Industry watchdog: 15%
Internet Safety organisation: 30%
Don’t know: 25%
Public Service Hotline: 6%
Industry watchdog: 15%
Internet Safety organisation: 30%
Don’t know: 25%
Awareness Body: 9%
Advisory Body: 6%
Government/Regulatory Body: 4%
Other: 5%
How important do you think ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ is to your organisation? (That is; How important is it that your organisation is seen to act responsibly and in the interest of it’s employees, stakeholders, customers & clients, the wider environment etc)
Very important: 86%
Quite important: 12%
Not very important: 1%
Don’t understand what it is: 0.5%
Very important: 86%
Quite important: 12%
Not very important: 1%
Don’t understand what it is: 0.5%
Overview
- Increased awareness of the IWF
- The majority of participants who had heard of the IWF believed it to be an internet safety organisation
- Acceptable Internet Use policies continues to be widespread
- There is a substantial level of monitoring internet content by IT staff
- Disciplinary action on finding potentially illegal images of children on company servers/desktops has changed, as the majority of companies would now discipline or dismiss the employee and report it to the police
- Still poor awareness of SOA 2003 yet somewhat confusingly, a fairly strong belief that the implications for improper handling of potentially illegal images are known and understood
- Very large percentage believe Corporate Social Responsibility to be ‘very important’ to their company
Conclusions
- Awareness of the SOA 2003 has improved by over 15% and over 65% of respondents said they had heard about the IWF through the IWF 'Wipe it Out' campaign surveys, direct mail or relevant news items.
-
67% of respondents are now aware of the implications of improper handling of indecent images of children, a 10% increase on last year.
-
There still seems to be some confusion around the age of a ‘child’ in the context of potentially illegal images. Although 83% said they believed they understood what constituted a potentially illegal image of a child, only 21% were able to give the correct age of 18 years and under.
Page Created: Mon, August 8th, 2005
Page Modified: Tue, April 18th, 2006
