Google, Telegram asked how they handle CSAM

NCPCR wanted both companies to describe their systems for finding and reporting child sexual abuse material, or CSAM. Google was asked specifically about YouTube and its other platforms. Telegram was asked about its content moderation policy. The commission’s concern is whether platforms are protecting children and following Indian reporting requirements.

The questions followed NCPCR’s inquiry into Meta. That inquiry began after a BBC Eye investigation found Instagram advertisements directing users to Telegram channels allegedly selling CSAM. NCPCR also questioned why Google and other companies had not, until recently, reported such cases directly to Indian agencies.

The commission will send Google and Telegram a questionnaire on Friday. They will have 10–12 days to provide written answers. NCPCR will study those responses and call another meeting. The platforms were reminded that Indian law must be followed. Telegram said it already reports cases to I4C.

CSAM means child sexual abuse material: visual or other recorded material that depicts or facilitates the sexual abuse or exploitation of a child. The article uses the term but does not provide a formal definition. In general, the term is preferred to language that can make abuse sound consensual or like ordinary pornography.

Creating the material directly records or enables abuse. Possessing it keeps abusive records in circulation, while sharing it exposes children to further exploitation and can create demand for more abuse. Even viewing or storing such material can cause continuing harm to victims whose abuse has already been documented.

These acts are criminal offences in India and many other countries, although exact offences and penalties vary by law. The article says Indian law requires social media intermediaries to report CSAM to law enforcement. It also describes children’s online safety as “non-negotiable.”

Platforms detect suspected CSAM through several layers. Automated tools can compare images or videos with databases of previously identified material. Machine-learning systems may flag new content, while users, moderators, and investigators can submit reports. Human reviewers and specialist teams then assess suspected cases, subject to legal and safety controls.

If a platform believes content may be CSAM, it typically preserves relevant information, removes or restricts the material where required, and sends a report to an appropriate law-enforcement or child-protection channel. Exact procedures differ by platform and country. The article does not state how Google or Telegram’s systems work in detail.

NCPCR asked Google how it handles CSAM on YouTube and other services. It asked Telegram about content moderation. The commission will send a questionnaire and examine written answers. It also wants reporting to Indian agencies, rather than relying only on overseas channels.

Online CSAM is widespread, but the supplied article gives no global total and no India-specific count. It only says Google and Meta reported detected material through NCMEC, which forwards reports to law-enforcement agencies worldwide. Therefore, the article alone cannot answer how many reports all platforms and child-protection organizations receive each year.

For scale, NCMEC’s published 2024 CyberTipline statistics recorded about 20.5 million reports. This is an external figure, not one stated in the article. It counts reports or incidents submitted to that system, not necessarily unique children, files, offenders, or confirmed abuse cases. One report can contain multiple items or referrals.

The large volume helps explain why consistent reporting and triage matter. India is developing its own reporting process through I4C and a proposed CSAM SOP. NCPCR’s meetings seek clearer information about what major platforms detect and how they respond.

NCPCR is India’s child-rights commission in this matter. It is questioning Google and Telegram about detection, moderation, and reporting, while conducting an ongoing inquiry into Meta. I4C, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, maintains the Indian Cyber Crime portal that platforms are now expected to use for relevant reports.

Police and other law-enforcement agencies receive reports, assess them, investigate suspected offences, and seek action under applicable law. The article does not describe specific police procedures. NCMEC is a US-based organization that has received reports from Google and Meta and forwarded them to law-enforcement agencies around the world.

The government now says platforms must report directly to Indian law enforcement agencies. Meta and Google announced in September that they would begin reporting to I4C. Telegram told NCPCR that it already reports there. NCPCR will review the companies’ written answers and hold another meeting.

The older route placed NCMEC between platforms and authorities. Google and Meta reported detected CSAM to the US-based organization, which then forwarded those reports to law-enforcement agencies around the world. This created an international referral pathway rather than a direct submission to Indian agencies.

The direct route sends a report to India’s Cyber Crime portal, maintained by I4C under the Ministry of Home Affairs. It is intended to connect suspected cases directly with Indian law enforcement. Telegram told NCPCR that it already reports to I4C. Google and Meta announced in September that they would begin doing so.

The government prefers this approach because it says Indian law must be followed and platforms must report to Indian authorities. Direct reporting can also place cases within India’s own legal and investigative system. The article does not compare response times or outcomes, so those effects cannot be confirmed here.

A platform report begins an official response. The receiving law-enforcement agency can assess the information, identify possible victims or offenders, preserve evidence, and investigate under applicable law. The article does not describe the precise steps, timelines, or outcomes after a report, so those details should not be assumed.

India’s proposed standard operating procedure, or SOP, is meant to make the reporting route clearer. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology submitted a draft to the Supreme Court after the court asked it to implement a 2024 judgment. That judgment requires social media intermediaries to report CSAM to law enforcement.

The SOP will explain how an intermediary must report CSAM, where to report it, and what process will follow. This could make platform responses more consistent and help agencies receive reports in a common format. NCPCR will continue seeking details from Google and Telegram before holding another meeting.