Why do LEOs in Canada and the US struggle to prosecute CSAM access (non-downloading, just access). This is far more prevalent.
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Law enforcement in the United States and Canada struggle to prosecute "access" (viewing/streaming) CSAM at scale because legal definitions, technological realities, and resource constraints converge to make access cases harder to detect, prove and prioritize than possession or production cases [1] [2]. Rising volumes of digital reports, encrypted and AI-mediated content, and divergent legal standards across jurisdictions leave prosecutors with evidentiary and strategic hurdles that slow or blunt enforcement [2] [3] [4].
1. Legal definitions and burden of proof make "access" slippery
Access-only cases often hinge on proving intent and knowledge rather than mere possession, and legal frameworks treat different forms of CSAM—real, AI-generated, images, or written content—unevenly; in particular AI-generated material and non-photographic depictions raise constitutional and jury-instruction complications that increase prosecutors' workloads and uncertainty [4] [5]. Canadian debates over "access" and mandatory minimums illustrate how statutory wording and constitutional challenges shape prosecutorial options, with organizations like the Canadian Centre for Child Protection actively litigating how access should be punished and contextualized [6] [7].
2. Overwhelming volume and triage pressures force prioritization
The inflow of CSAM reports dwarfs law enforcement capacity—monthly referrals to U.S. clearinghouses like NCMEC exceed law enforcement bandwidth—so agencies triage toward cases with clear victims, identifiable producers, or demonstrable downloads, leaving many access-only leads unpursued or resolved by platform takedowns rather than criminal charges [2] [8]. Prosecutors interviewed in qualitative studies explicitly name resource allocation and awareness as central barriers to bringing more compl ex or marginal access cases to trial [1] [5].
3. Technology both hides evidence and creates new legal headaches
Encryption, ephemeral messaging, streaming, and decentralized services make technical proof of who viewed content and when difficult to obtain, while advances in AI complicate whether material is legally "real" and therefore prosecutable; platforms and investigators struggle to know whether a flagged item is synthetic or depicts an actual child, and courts may require juries to apply complex tests (like the Miller test) that are harder to satisfy for non-photographic or computer-generated material [4] [5].
4. Jurisdictional friction and international gaps blunt enforcement
Offenders and platforms operate across borders, and inconsistent definitions, penalties, and cooperation mechanisms among countries mean that access-only cases—often spread across servers and users in multiple states or nations—face slow extradition, evidence-sharing delays, and gaps in what behaviour is criminally actionable, all of which reduce prosecutorial appetite for difficult access prosecutions [3] [2].
5. Prosecutorial capacity, training, and strategic choices shape outcomes
Specialized training and multidisciplinary approaches improve prosecutions, yet many jurisdictions lack enough trained prosecutors, forensic tools, or coordination with victim services to confidently litigate access cases; national programs and training resources exist (NDAA, ICAC) but are unevenly distributed, and qualitative research highlights prosecutors’ frustrations with legal nuance and courtroom burdens that make plea bargains or charges on clearer possession counts more common [9] [10] [11] [1].
6. Competing agendas, public pressure, and emerging policy debates
Child-protection NGOs and tech-safety advocates press for broader enforcement and updated laws to cover AI-generated material, while civil-liberties concerns and constitutional challenges temper prosecutorial reach; these competing pressures—along with media and advocacy narratives—shape legislative reform efforts in Canada and policy debates in the U.S., producing patchwork reforms that do not instantly resolve investigative or evidentiary obstacles [12] [6] [5].
Conclusion: predictable gaps, fixable but costly
The difficulty prosecuting access-only CSAM is neither moral ambiguity nor simple negligence but a predictable outcome of swollen digital case loads, mismatched laws, evolving technology (encryption and AI), and limited prosecutorial bandwidth; remedies cited in the literature—clarer statutes, more forensic capacity, standardized cross-border frameworks, and sustained training—exist but require investment and political will to implement [2] [9] [3] [12].