Mr. Andrew O'Sullivan:

The first issue was around accuracy. To be clear, every single image received from the NCMEC is reviewed. There is quite a small number of images because what is sent are sample images from various Internet addresses, so it is between two and 50 in each case. Each of those is reviewed by a trained examiner to see whether it is child sexual abuse material, CSAM, or what is termed non-CSAM. That was one example that was given where, potentially, it could be innocent cases. However, the vast majority of cases relate to where it is abuse but it is not possible to determine the age of victim, or it is other forms of abuse-type material. It is a complete edge case to say this relates to images of family and so on. That was given as one example. Those images need to be retained because in some cases there may be other evidence in the future, such as being able to identify the age of the victim, or other cases may come to light. There is a legitimate reason for retaining those images.

On the accuracy point, as I said earlier, the methodologies NIST uses are fully published on its website. I encourage members to read those in detail because we do not really have time to go through them here. As I said, we have already taken hundreds of cases, on our existing basis of biometric identification, through the courts. Where this has been challenged we have had defence solicitors come in to the Garda National Cyber Crime Bureau to examine our methodologies and there has never been a single case where the accuracy of this technology has been disputed. That is just another comment on the accuracy figure.