Cyber Crime and Cyber Terrorism

MCA
Database
Child in
“found but
untraced”
database?
Cross-border alerts
Mobilization of local/
national authorities
(FIR, etc.)
FIGURE 11.1
Flowchart showing information flows for reported missing child.

---

141
 
Child-centered information flows
The analysis and verification of information relating to a missing child should 
be done by police in the source country, whereas the recording of a trafficked child, 
the sending of alert messages, and the subsequent analysis of data and generation of 
periodic reports can be handled by a regional cross-border response system. The pro-
cesses of reporting and alerting could be implemented as one technological system 
with distinct functionality and user roles.
The functionality and user interfaces of the systems for reporting, recording and 
alerting must be done through discussion with key stakeholders, particularly the po-
lice who will record and initiate alerts for a missing child. While this will inevitably 
slow down the deployment process, failure to do so may result in a system that is not 
accepted by the authorities upon whom its success depends.
This means that State support for the concept and their involvement from the start 
are essential as well as NGOs along the likely transit routes. It must also schedule 
follow-up alerts if the child has not been found/rescued after a period of time. The 
configuration of the alerting schedule is a vital component of the system which re-
quires expert understanding of.
One point that requires further discussion with stakeholders is the question of 
alerting for children who are reported as missing and may have been trafficked or 
abducted internally within the country. These cases could be handled by internal 
police systems. Alternatively, the cross-border response system could be designed to 
support responses to internal trafficking.
The proposed CBCT (Centralized Cross-Border Child Traffic) response system 
should limit its activities to those that require cross-border communication and col-
laboration. This means it should support information flows relating to trafficked chil-
dren that may have been taken across a border, found children whose identity is not 
known (resulting in a search of existing databases, including the CBCT response 
database), and rescued children whose needs may be best addressed through repatria-
tion and reunification. How the traffickers behave and their routes. Furthermore, it 
will benefit from a proactive approach whereby alert recipients are identified along 
with the most appropriate means of alerting them. A controlled database of alert 
recipients should be managed in support of this work.
It is widely accepted that the first hours after a child has been taken to provide 
the best opportunities for rescue. It is therefore vital that alert notifications are sent 
as quickly as possible to the authorities and NGOs along the likely trafficking route 
taken. However, the advantage of immediate alerting must be balanced with the need 
to ensure the veracity of a missing child report. Even more importantly, a decision 
to send an alert notification needs to take into account the safety, well-being, and 
dignity of the child. A basic principle adopted in missing child alert systems around 
the world is that there must be sufficient information for the recipients to be able 
to respond to an alert. While much of the alerting can be automated, the preceding 
activities can be assisted by technology but are primarily human-based. The deci-
sion-making process leading to the issuing of an alert must be clearly defined and 
understood. Many MCA stakeholders are of the view that a system to coordinate 
all activities relating to the rescue, rehabilitation, repatriation, and reintegration of 

---