Today's meeting has been convened to continue the committee's consideration of the regulation of online platforms and supports to improve online safety and participation. I welcome Ms Gráinne Seoige, who is joining us via Microsoft Teams. The format of today's meeting is that I will invite the witness to deliver an opening statement, which will be limited to five minutes. This will be followed by questions from members of the committee. As Ms Seoige is aware, the committee will publish her opening statement on its website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before I invite our witness to make her opening statement, I would like to explain some limitations in relation to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references that may be made to other persons in the evidence of witnesses. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction. Witnesses participating in this committee session from a jurisdiction outside the State are also advised that they should be mindful of their domestic law and how it may apply to the evidence they give.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I invite Ms Seoige to make her opening statement.

A bhaill onórach an choiste, agus a Chathaoirligh. Go mbeannaigh Dia dhaoibh ar fad inniu. I thank the committee for the invitation to speak to it regarding what is probably one of the most important issues facing society today, in particular for young girls and women, not just in Ireland but also across Europe.

The dangers of big tech and AI have long been flagged across the world. In recent weeks, we have seen the very worst manifestation of this technology with the roll-out of the Grok app on the X platform, which has allowed near-naked images of young girls and women to be produced without their consent. This is not the first app to do this, nor will it be the last to allow these abhorrent and essentially pornographic images to be produced. However, it is the scale of the X platform that gives the Grok app a significant multiplier effect, compounded by the lack of regard by the platform for regulators across the world. This may be tolerated in other countries, but we cannot allow it in either Ireland or Europe. This is illegal, and the dissemination of the material involved is certainly illegal. I speak to the committee not to look for a future election platform or to rewrite any previous election result, but as a victim. I am a victim who is angry about what was done to me and about the impact it had on those closest to me. I am a victim who wants action, not soundbites.

Since last week, when I publicly spoke about my experience on “Prime Time” on RTÉ with Sarah McInerney, who I wish to thank for providing a platform to give victims a voice, I have received hundreds of messages. These include direct messages, DMs, from parents of teenagers and women who have had the same experience that I did. Like me, they followed all the processes Ministers have spoken about over the past week, namely reporting serious complaints to An Garda Síochána and to Facebook, X and other social media platforms in an effort to seek justice for themselves or their daughters and, at a minimum, to get the distribution of the images stopped. Repeatedly, however, they hit dead ends. They were told by An Garda Síochána that it simply does not have sufficient powers to identify perpetrators or to compel others to identify perpetrators, which was exactly the situation in my case.

This cannot be allowed to continue. The matter is simply too serious. We have to make what is happening stop. While I began this journey last week to tell my story from my own experience, I now feel obliged to ensure that those parents, young girls and women who have reached out to me also have their voices heard. Each of the members here today is a legislator. They have the ability to bring forward the laws that are urgently needed. I sincerely ask them to listen to the voices of victims when drafting legislation. These are the voices that are often lost when these horrific images are circulated on WhatsApp groups, primarily by men, and dismissed as being a bit of craic. We need to communicate clearly and unequivocally that this behaviour is not just unacceptable in our culture and society, but also criminal.

In my case, I formally wrote to both Meta and An Garda Síochána, with the assistance of Fianna Fáil headquarters and its legal advisers. I followed every step required and made formal statements to gardaí. At this point, I would like to thank the party’s management team - the general secretary, Seán Dorgan, and Darragh McShea and David Burke - for the time they took out of what was a hugely demanding election campaign across the country and every constituency to support me at what was a very traumatic time. I also wish to acknowledge the members of An Garda Síochána who carried out their work diligently and treated me with professionalism and empathy throughout. As the daughter of a retired member of An Garda Síochána, that meant an awful lot to me at the time.

Despite having followed all relevant procedures, as have many girls, women and parents across the country, my complaint ultimately hit a dead end. Even though the AI-generated pornographic image of me was shared hundreds, if not thousands, of times across WhatsApp, the law as it stands and, certainly, Meta place the burden on the victim to identify every individual in the chain of dissemination. One person must identify another, who must identify another, and so on, completely ignoring the obvious limitations of this approach, particularly where personal relationships are involved. In my case, the chain ended when one individual who had the image on his phone refused repeatedly to identify the group or person from whom he had received the image. An Garda Síochána has very limited powers due to the law’s emphasis on privacy rather than on protecting victims from the widespread dissemination of pornographic material without a person’s consent; in this case, me.

Girls, women and parents across Ireland have told me they experienced exactly the same thing - the same sense of powerlessness, the feeling of being unable to stop this torrent of images flowing across the country. This cannot be allowed to stand. Privacy and encryption cannot be allowed to trump criminal behaviour.

Companies like Meta, which make billions of euro annually, must be compelled by law to build technology that allows victims to identify criminal material on their platforms, identify the perpetrators and enable privacy to continue to be protected. Otherwise, they are like an airport that allows drugs freely through its security onto planes. There is no difference. It must also be noted – and not in any way to explain my election result, which I fully accept – that the Digital Services Act is explicitly intended to protect candidates during election campaigns and to guard against digital interference in elections. That should be of concern to every one of the members sitting in this room today. In my case, there was no additional protection arising from the complaints I made or from the issues I raised with the relevant authorities, including Meta. It appears that there is also a lack of effective legislation at European level or, at a minimum, a lack of willingness to enforce it. As members can see, my central concern is the absence of appropriate and effective legislation to tackle the dissemination of the images. If Grok and equivalent apps are the nuclear warheads that create the sexually abusive image, then WhatsApp is the Enola Gay, the aircraft that transports and drops the bomb. Both must be tackled head-on by legislators.

I am aware that representatives of An Garda Síochána and Meta are due to appear before this committee. Based on my testimony, neither can credibly claim that the current legislation is fit for purpose. If they do, I ask that members cite my experience, an experience that is being repeated again and again across Ireland today. Ireland has faced many abuse scandals where systemic failures by authorities were later acknowledged. This will be the abuse scandal of the 21st century if we do not act now. The Oireachtas should legislate urgently, be prepared to legislate again as the technology evolves and ensure all relevant regulators are empowered and ready to act.

I have written to and spoken with many of the members over the past week, and I appreciate the support shown. However, if this issue is not adequately addressed through legislation in the coming months, I ask for a commitment that I be allowed to reappear before the committee at a future point. This is not just for me as one victim but for all the parents, girls and women who contacted me over the past week and who are looking to the members, their elected representatives, to take immediate and meaningful action.

Again, I thank the members for their time today. Go raibh maith agaibh.

I thank Ms Seoige very much for her opening statement, which poses so many relevant questions and gives us an important insight into the experience she has had. It certainly raises a range of issues for us, so I thank her for coming forward. It is very much appreciated.

Before we proceed to questions from committee members, I acknowledge the fact that the Minister of State, Deputy Niamh Smyth, has joined us. I thank her and her team for attending to hear about an issue on which she is working very hard. We appreciate her coming here to experience this live. It is very rare that a Minister does that.

Each speaker will have just three minutes because we have a split session today. The first is Deputy Gibney.

I thank Ms Seoige for being with us. I also thank her for sharing her story on "Prime Time" last week. I appreciate that every time she speaks, it opens up an opportunity for retraumatisation. Therefore, I hope I handle my questioning as sensitively as possible throughout today's session. We are all conscious of the issue.

Since Ms Seoige spoke on “Prime Time” last Tuesday, no tangible action has been taken against Grok. I realise that we have had continuous updates from Government spokespersons and that meetings have been held. The latest is that the Government is waiting to see what action is being taken at European level before Ireland, as a state, moves on this issue. I am going to ask just two questions so I can hand back to Ms Seoige. First, could I have a response on the lack of action? Second, I want to pick up on some of Ms Seoige’s comments in her “Prime Time” contribution on free speech. She has said - and I have seen this - that free speech is held up as both a response and a defence. I would like to hear a little more about the sense of entitlement people seem to have about using women’s images in a violent or explicit way. I thank Ms Seoige very much.

I thank the Deputy for her sensitivity. She is quite right in that every time you talk about this trauma is retraumatising. Therefore, I genuinely appreciate the Deputy acknowledging that from the off.

I want to deal with the Deputy's second question first, if I may. We are living in a culture in which, very unfortunately, all children, but particularly boys, are being exposed to explicit sexual material at a really young age. It is unsolicited and is being driven towards them. Porn becomes a primary teacher in this regard and shapes expectations about power, consent and women’s bodies long before a boy matures to the point where he enters a relationship with an actual human girl. It teaches not intimacy or respect but entitlement, performance and disposability. Women are presented as objects for consumption, humiliation and control. When receiving images like that so often, the leap from viewing to sharing and from private consumption to public harm becomes really small. Now, with the new technology, you can make the images yourself. You do not even have to be good at the computer, as people had to be just a couple of years ago. You can create an image of the kind in question in seconds and send it to others at scale, causing incredible damage to the girl who is being victimised and her family.

I am out of time, so could I have a response on the lack of action in the past week? Is Ms Seoige disappointed?

Of course I am disappointed, because, as I have said, this is one of the major challenges of our age. The legal situation we are in now is such that the crime is in a Formula 1 car and we are chasing after it on a tricycle. I understand that responsibility crosses different Departments and regulations and that there are so many things at play, but we have got to get it together and do so very soon. There is a model in Australia that tackles exactly this problem and does not allow platforms away with this sort of action and the damage it is causing.

We have three minutes per member, and that includes responses. I ask the members to bear that in mind when asking questions. I apologise if I have to interject but it is just to be fair to everybody. I call Deputy Peter "Chap" Cleere.

Ms Seoige is very welcome. I acknowledge her courage and bravery in going public on this issue. By speaking up and sharing her story, she has been making a difference.

What Ms Seoige outlined in her opening statement is a father’s worst nightmare, namely a daughter being belittled and torn down, all while chasing her dreams and ambitions. As a father of young daughters, it fills me with rage that the only thing X can give in response to online exploitation is a yawn and shrug. That is not good enough. My daughters, just like Ms Seoige, have dreams and ambitions. It is heartbreaking to see what has happened to Ms Seoige. Women have it hard enough already, particularly women who stand for public office. For X to facilitate the tearing down of young, ambitious women is wholly wrong. For it to knowingly supply the tools and platforms to creeps so they can tear down and destroy the dreams of young women is disgraceful and morally reprehensible.

I have two questions. Ms Seoige has spoken to many parents and women since going public. Without getting into individual cases, could she state what patterns she is seeing that legislators need to understand about how the harm is occurring in daily life? She spoke brilliantly on "Prime Time" last week on the sharing of images and stated that people, mostly men, would not disclose those images to the Garda. Should people be compelled by law to expose the sources of the images and those spreading them?

I agree with the Deputy completely. I have spoken to many women and to the professionals who deal with them. The stories I have heard in the past week would make you cry.

I heard about a girl yesterday who is 14 years old. She shared a picture with her then boyfriend, who went on to share it with his group of friends, who kept sharing it. That girl has attempted suicide not once but twice. Her poor family are trying to put the pieces back together again.

This shrugging the Deputy is talking about is a culture that has confronted women for a very long time. It is reflected in the media and, to this day, in the reporting of what is going on, which is crime and sexual image abuse. We talk about nudification like something cheeky and playful. There is a minimisation of the effect on young girls and women, who are entitled to grow up and go out into the world without the fear, every time they step out their front door, that they are being laughed at or people are whispering about them. There is a cultural problem here. People running these major platforms are giving voice to that cultural problem. It is, as the Deputy said, these people who shrug and do not care about women, while there is real damage being done. There is self-harm, attempted suicide and the trauma to an entire family unit, not just an individual, which is terrible.

We need to take it seriously. Members are the perfect people to do it, as fathers and mothers of children. Everybody knows a 14-year-old or has a teenager in their life. Can you imagine a teenager feeling that, on foot of an image going around that they cannot stop, life is not worth living any more?

I commend Ms Seoige on her courage and bravery in joining us today. Testimonies and re-lived experiences like hers, hard as they may be for her, are crucial to laying the foundations for this committee to build on in our work.

We had a heavy session on this last week with witnesses, including An Garda Síochána, reaffirming to the committee that the generation of images that undress people, whether AI or not, are illegal. Ms Seoige alluded to that in her opening statement. Given that fact and the experience Ms Seoige and many other women and girls around the country have had to endure, what gaps does she see? We are told that this is illegal and that there are regulations. Is it enforcement? Ms Seoige strongly emphasised the need for sufficient powers to identify perpetrators and ensure other people identify perpetrators. What is the biggest gap?

There are two gaps, in my view. The first gap is speed and containment. Ireland's criminal law, as it stands, is not designed as a rapid containment tool. Criminalisation does not automatically create a regulator-led, 24-hour takedown pathway like they have in Australia, that neutralises the specific image as an object circulating across a service. This happens in Australia. People can ring a hotline, say "There's an image going round of me; take it down", and that has to happen within 24 hours.

The second gap is the scope of online safety codes versus where the harm is spreading. Ireland's online safety code is binding but is framed around video-sharing platforms and categories of harmful video content, not dedicated image-based abuse or an enforcement scheme that cleanly bites on encrypted private-messaging distribution. When the harm is in WhatsApp-style sharing platforms, victims can still hit the "We can't see content" wall. The legal trigger that forces system-level suppression in one private messaging is not as direct or operational as Australia's model. Like what happened to me - I had to go away and try to find somebody with the image, ask them to identify the person who gave it to them, then ask that person who had given it to them. The onus is put on the victim to do that. Then the guards go to the person, plead with them and go back and go back.

There is a problem in that this is allowed to go on so long it becomes a media story and I am in the middle of a media storm while I am trying to campaign for election. Then it becomes the front page of a newspaper, "Gráinne's AI Porn Hell", which is also retraumatising. Because the regulation and legislation do not react rapidly enough, the thing goes on and on. You are retraumatised every day. Every man you meet, you are wondering if he has seen that image. You are afraid to go into a shop and do your shopping. I shopped for months after the election with a surgical mask. I know there are other women out there who have experienced this. You are so afraid to be seen in public that you disguise yourself. You make yourself small because of what is happening. The legislation needs to move fast. Regulators need to move fast. This needs to be stopped and people need to be prosecuted.

Gabhaim buíochas le Gráinne Seoige as ucht teacht inár láthair inniu. Caithfidh mé a admháil nach duine mé a bhreathnaíonn ar na meáin shóisialta mórán. Den chuid is mó, déanaim iarracht é a sheachaint. Ní bheadh an t-eolas céanna agam is a bhí ag daoine eile anseo faoi céard a tharla di. Molaim an misneach agus an dúil atá aici chun cur leis an iarracht chun déileáil leis an bhfadhb seo ar mhaithe leis an bpobal ar fad.

One of my persistent themes in talking about pornography, including at this committee, is the worry that, because we are deferential to the use of online pornography generally and because the technology and the potential for abuse is constantly changing, we are doomed, unless we take much more radical action, to playing a cat-and-mouse game of regulation. To take an instance, a person could do this evil stuff and generate pornographic images and share them privately with somebody else. I regard that as just as unacceptable as if they put it up publicly. To deal with something like that, we would need legislation preventing the use of such technology for nudification, pornographic or sexual gratification purposes. While I am ready to endorse everything Ms Seoige says about what is needed in regulation, I am just asking whether it is time we started talking about the need to get pornography offline full stop. Should we talk about a blanket ban on the use of AI technology for the generation of sexual imagery or imagery around the human person that is designed to humiliate or whatever? In other words, do we have to zoom out and go for more radical steps? Is there a danger that, despite our constant attempts to keep up through regulation with the next possible abuse of human persons, we will not get to grips with this at all?

Ar an gcéad dul síos, an rud a dhéarfainn leis an Seanadóir ná, mura bhfuil sé ar na meáin shóisialta, is eisceacht é sa saol atá inniu ann agus is eisceacht é freisin ar an mbealach nach bhfuil sé ag déileáil leis na híomhánna seo agus an chaoi a bhfuil an teicneolaíocht ag dul chun cinn ar fud an domhain, na dúshláin nua atá ag teacht chugainn gach uile lá agus a gcaithfimid déileáil leo ó thaobh an dlí de.

I agree with so much of what Senator Mullen said, and he said quite a bit. Legislation will always be chasing technology because technology is growing and changing weekly. We all know this. ChatGPT can do stuff this week it could not do three weeks ago. Things are moving quickly but all we can do is stay alive to the situation, be as limber as possible and deal with the damage as we are presented with it.

Apps that divest a human who is entitled to dignity of their clothes - I think everybody can agree that is all kinds of wrong and should be stopped. It should not be allowed in this country, particularly when it comes to children. There is a huge consent issue here. I will put it this way: if it is illegal to do it with your hands, it should be illegal to do it with technology.

I welcome Ms Seoige and thank her for what she has done in recent weeks and months to highlight the issue and be a voice for people who do not have a voice on it. She said she goes to schools to speak to children and outlined a very difficult situation where a girl sent a private image by WhatsApp to her boyfriend, who subsequently sent it to friends, who sent it to more people.

I come at this from an opposite perspective to Deputy Cleere, because I have two young boys. Is there a need for a change in attitude or culture among young boys? Is there something that needs to be done in terms of education? It would seem obvious that a private image is sent to a boyfriend would not be sent on to other people. Is there a culture change that needs to happen among young men such that they understand what is right and wrong in terms of sharing images?

On the work Ms Seoige is doing in terms of social media and trying to make platforms accountable for what is happening, WhatsApp appears to play a huge role. WhatsApp is the platform that most people use to send on inappropriate images, images other than those of naked people, including of car crashes and people in distressed situations, and videos. It seems to be where most people get these images from quickly. What kind of conversations have happened with Meta regarding WhatsApp?

This kind of stuff can also happen to little boys. It is not all girls, but it is mostly girls and women. Down through the years, women's bodies have been consumed, treated and humiliated in ways that those of men and boys generally are not. That is not to say that it cannot happen. There is a huge piece of work to be done with boys in school and men in general to teach them about respect. There is a lot of talk about consent in schools now. That is very positive. However, the challenges young children in this country are facing and the challenges parents have in talking to them about those challenges are huge. Parents have a massive responsibility to teach their children, whether they are boys or girls, that every human being is worthy of dignity and to be treated with respect. We are in a situation where this must happen in schools as well.

One of the counsellors I spoke to about this situation in the past couple of weeks referred to going into schools where incidents like this have happened. She was quite taken by how the boys initially do not seem to be able to draw a line between what they have done and the harm it is has caused. There is a deal of work to be done there. They believe it is just a bit of fun and a bit of craic. I see this all the time in reaction to myself online. I refer here to the vile stuff men say about me online because I have chosen to speak up about this. There is a big psychological bridge to build between girls and boys and technology, including the use of it and harm it can cause. The harm is-----

Is the technology all right?

There is an awful lot of education required. WhatsApp is the vehicle of choice. When one writes to Meta, it refers to encryption. That does not fly in other countries, but it flies in Ireland. We must do what other countries do to stop it.

I thank Ms Seoige so much for speaking out. I know how hard it is for her. She will have touched the hearts and minds of many who are going through the same thing. She will change legislation. The one thing that will be even more difficult to change is the societal attitude. Ms Seoige and I campaigned at the same time. We have similar backgrounds.

Yes.

The one thing I noticed was that we were thrown under an umbrella of being celebrity candidates. I do not know how Ms Seoige feels about that. In many changes, however, it demeaned or diminished our ability to do what we were seeking to do. It also dehumanised us as well. Maybe that is where the attitude to the effect that "You have put yourself out there in the public eye for many years, you deserve this" comes from. When we are trying to change that societal view, we will be talking about legislation. Previous speakers referred to that. We know that the person who created that material must know that is happening. Every single person who shared it is probably aware of this. When Ms Seoige she speaks to that person, how does it affect her? What can she say to the person who created that image during a very difficult time in her life?

Absolutely. I agree. I was called a celebrity candidate. Straight away, that is a label that minimises you. It is designed to make you seem inept, inexperienced, unintelligent and not of substance. The Taoiseach had to deal with that label. It was put to him that is what I was. I do not know if it happened to Senator Comyn, but it happened to me. The very fact that in 2024 people still thought that was okay, particularly somebody with the education and experience that I had, there is a tolerance for that in our media culture in Ireland that is just unacceptable.

I would like to bring Senator Comyn's attention to something else. Four times a local newspaper in Galway has used the following description of the image. Tell me how damaging you think this is. The following quote is from the Connacht Tribune in Galway, "The image, generated by ... AI, included a headshot of the broadcaster superimposed on the torso of a naked woman with large breasts exposed." What kind of culture considers that okay? What is that? It is making the image for anybody who has not seen it real. It is describing it for them. It is drawing it out for them in gratuitous, salacious detail in order make sure if people have not seen it, they can imagine it. That is also damage.

How do we get the message across that if somebody is sharing this that he or she is absolutely complicit and may as well have created it? Should there be a report button on WhatsApp to send such images directly to WhatsApp in order that it can start the chain rather than the people to whom those images relate?

In Australia, there is the 24-hour take-down thing. The platform is held responsible. There are also efforts made to trace who is the creator and make sure that they pay, and they do. In Ireland, things like this are just dismissed as a bit of craic. Until we get to the point where a man can imagine this being done to his sister, his mother, his niece or the little girl across the road, it will not stop. It will still be continued to be treated as a bit of craic, and we will get gratuitous page three type descriptions in the media.

Dia duit a Ghráinne. Molaim thú agus tá ardmheas agam ar do chrógacht. I have a lot of respect for Ms Seoige speaking out, but also for the fact that it seems like she has done a lot of research in the past week since she was on "Prime Time", which is a testament to how strongly she feels about trying to get a fix for this. Going back to the fix, there obviously is a gap and Ms Seoige has identified it. Legislation will always be chasing technology. Can she expand on the model that obtains Australia? It sounds like what she is describing it is almost like a blackout on an image or on sharing an image.

I do not have all the information, but there is a 24-hour hotline that people can ring. There is a period of 24 hours within which something must be taken down. If the platform does not take responsibility - in my case, Meta - and take it down, there are consequences. There are fines. It is becoming culturally unacceptable now. My problem in this country is that I have to chase who has been creating and disseminating the image. In Australia, it is the platform's problem. It is not a privacy or encryption issue anymore. It is identifying a harmful image. Harmful images can be identified. There is a lot of hiding behind the word "encryption" in this country and in other countries in Europe. They have figured it out in Australia. The company or platform involved is made responsible for taking it down. If it does not do so, there are penalties to pay. The platform, in the context of the vehicle it is, must take responsibility for sending harmful, criminal and sexually abusive images around as opposed to the victim who is already traumatised and trying to understand how this could happen to her, who is imagining how many hundreds of people have seen this image and who is in a supermarket wondering whether everyone is staring and laughing at her.

To confirm, the hotline to which Ms Seoige referred is a government hotline and it is not the case that platforms are taking the lead.

Yes. It is a safety image-based abuse scheme explicitly using 24-hour all reasonable steps removal notices. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. There is a model that already exists, functions and deals with this.

That is very helpful. I thank Ms Seoige. To go back to her own reporting, she went to Meta and An Garda Síocháná. Did she also go to Coimisiún na Meán?

Yes.

What was the response there? Was it back to the Digital Services Act?

Yes, there is a lot of bobbing around between pillar and post, which again is completely unhelpful for somebody who is dealing with trauma. It should not be on the victim to do all this, to be hopping around reaching out to various institutions and trying to get an answer. It is completely unsatisfactory and that is the experience of all the people who have contacted me. It is the same thing: they are left scratching their head and wondering what to do, feeling powerless and then trying to sort out counselling for themselves as well.

Go raibh maith agat. I thank Ms Seoige not just for her testimony here but also for putting her name forward for election. It takes a lot of courage to do that. I agree with the comments colleagues have made around the threat to Ms Seoige as an individual. We need to look at the protection of an individual's name, likeness, image and voice. I think there is a requirement for specific legislation in that area. I would also suggest we engage again with the Australian eSafety Commissioner on foot of the testimony we received. I want to focus on where I see this as a threat to democracy because it takes courage for anyone to put their name forward on a ballot paper, and particularly on Ms Seoige or somebody in the public eye when they put their name forward. I worry about this. Often when I am talking to really capable young people who are considering putting their name forward for election, they say the biggest fear they now have is around online abuse. They are committed to their communities and they want to change their country. I want to hear Ms Seoige's views in that regard. She took a big risk in putting her name forward and I am very glad that she did. It is important that people like her contribute to our political life. I want to talk more generally around the threat this issue is to democracy because we are not going to get the people. We are willing to sacrifice a hell of a lot of other things but when we put our names out and then experience this, it is obviously not just an impact on the person but on their family and friends. Perhaps Ms Seoige will talk to us about that.

I agree with the Deputy, and I thank him for bringing that up. When this happens to a candidate mid-campaign, it is not just personal abuse any more; it is an integrity issue. The Deputy is right: can any of us say it will not distort democratic participation and deter women from public life? I can genuinely tell members that if any woman came to me and asked, "Should I go forward?", I would say, "If I were you, no, being honest, do not do it. What you will be put through is not worth it." I see it written online, "Oh, you have put yourself out there for that". No. When you stand forward, when you engage delegates, when you go to a selection convention and are selected by your party and your constituency and are not a parachute candidate, as I was called for the entirety of my campaign even though I was selected at convention, when you enter this, you are not putting yourself up for abuse. You are putting yourself up for public service and to help your community. There is a weird distortion that has happened now where it just seems that becoming a politician or engaging in public office is tantamount to becoming a criminal in the eyes of people. That is allowed to percolate through discussions online and in the media. You are straightaway branded with "You are not a good person any more". When you then add in being a woman, you raise the game again. When you then add in what that woman looks like, you are into a whole new territory.

It is very worrying that a person would not put their name forward.

Of course it is.

I thank Ms Seoige for her courage, for her bravery and for standing up for women and girls more generally. The point she makes about the wider challenge of making this culturally unacceptable has to be our collective goal. I want to focus on a question. Does Ms Seoige feel a level of frustration now given the discourse there has been over the last number of weeks on this? Professor Conor O'Mahony, the dean of the School of Law at UCC, has basically said the legislation is there to take the X platform to court. This is something the Chair has raised on numerous occasions. Does Ms Seoige feel a level of frustration that at the very least we are not testing the case and taking it?

I am not in the weeds of what is happening with X. I believe it has been invited to appear before the committee and has declined so far. That will tell us, in a way, what it thinks of our discussions and makes of our feelings on the subject. People in the legal profession can argue the toss about this an awful lot better than I can. People say the legislation is already sufficient and what that usually means is the behaviour is illegal so the law is there, but there is the difference between dry law and what is happening in practice. I am asking that when new legislation comes to be drafted, victims' experience be taken on board. I will put it like this: if the legislation was sufficient, then the person who did that to me, not only to me personally but to me as somebody who was standing for Parliament in this country, we would know who that was and that image would be stopped. As it is, it is probably flying around now at twice the speed it was for the last year because people are now looking for it again: "Do you have that picture of Gráinne Seoige? Will you flick it on to me?" We all know that is happening right now. Even me speaking out is ensuring that people will go looking for it again. Even though it is criminal and even though it is against the law, it is happening because people know that in practice there is almost no chance they will be caught and the platform can cite encryption. It is incredibly disheartening and frustrating to be the victim of this and to sit before members here today and talk about my experiences and what I feel we should do while knowing that, for the moment anyway, nothing is going to change.

Can I ask a second question?

Very briefly.

It is specifically in relation to Ms Seoige as a candidate. It is really disappointing to hear her say she would recommend that women not run. Does she think there is a role for the Electoral Commission here in putting in safeguards and protections for candidates?

Thirty seconds please.

There are plenty of protections and safeguards in print at the moment. The regulation around what happened to me during an election, which I pointed to in my opening statement, exists. The problem is that when it actually happens in practice, this law is not tangible, not actionable and not muscular, which is what we need and which is what they have in Australia. I keep pointing back to it but that is, I believe, our blueprint for this country.

I will try to get in a second round of questions very briefly as we are so tight on time. I have my own questions and I ask for a very quick response. How did Ms Seoige find out about this image?

Somebody who had received the image in a WhatsApp group alerted somebody close to me and the party was also alerted at the same time.

How soon afterwards did Ms Seoige go to Coimisiún na Meán, An Garda Síochána and anyone else?

I was, would you believe, canvassing at Maam Cross very far out in Connemara that day. I spoke to the Garda that night. We wrote to Meta within a couple of days. I could not honestly tell you when the Coimisiún na Meán communication happened but it was very quickly to the Garda.

That is just for confirmation purposes. How quickly did each one of those come back to Ms Seoige - An Garda Síochána, Coimisiún na Meán and Meta?

I had detectives in my house within 24 hours, who, as I said earlier, treated me really well with professionalism and did their best.

And Coimisiún Na Meán?

I cannot tell the committee for sure. I would not be telling the truth if I gave a timeline. We had to go to Meta twice before it answered at all. It came back with "Sorry, encryption".

Ms Seoige said in her statement that An Garda Síochána cannot "credibly claim that the current legislation is fit for purpose". We had a good session with An Garda Síochána last week. In fairness, I know that Ms Seoige has thanked the Garda. She has detailed the way in which she found out about the image. Somebody found someone who had the image and they were confronted by An Garda Síochána-----

Yes, several times.

What did An Garda Síochána tell Ms Seoige about where it had to cut off and could not go any further when it confronted the person it knew had the image?

Gardaí asked would the person say where he got it and he said "No". When they asked why, he said it was because he did not want to. They went back and reasoned with him again, and I believe they did it a third time. What I was told then was that a court order would be required for that phone, which is not a given. Then a court order would be required for the next phone, the phone after that and the phone after that. It just was not practical.

The Garda basically said it would not get those court orders or that it was not practical.

It is not a slam dunk.

As in-----

It is not a slam dunk to get a court order.

What I am trying to get at here-----

If you get a court order for one, then you have to keep going.

I am sorry; I am short on time. What I am trying to get at here is whether, when the Garda finally confronted this person and got back to Ms Seoige saying it would need a court order to get the phones, it would not get the court order or that it basically was not worthwhile.

This is well over a year ago now at a time of great stress, but my memory is that you could go and look for the court order but it is not a slam dunk. It is not a guarantee that you will get it-----

At that critical juncture, and I do not want to put words in Ms Seoige's mouth, did she felt that An Garda Síochána had chased it to a point where it just could not go any further, and that is why we have a legislative failure here?

I believe the gardaí did everything they could.

Within the law.

As professionals and as humans, the gardaí did everything they could and they could go no further.

If they did everything they could, why did gardaí not pursue it for the court order?

The Chair would have to ask the Garda that.

I cannot. It is a personal case.

Okay, but I am telling the Chair that what was put to me at the time was that An Garda Síochána can go looking for a court order but that is not a guarantee that it will get one and that when it got one step further, it would have to do the same thing again and again. It is true that going individually to get people's phones is not how to stop crime.

I agree totally. I was just trying to get an example of how far it went so we could demonstrate that this is virtually impossible. We cannot go through it individually because otherwise we will be at it all the time, and really this needs to be taken out is at a much higher level. That is what I was trying to demonstrate.

Correct. That is exactly my point. It needs to be at the platform level.

Yes, I know. Deputy O'Sullivan has joined the meeting. Does he want to ask a quick question? He has three minutes.

I thank the Chair. I am sorry; I was delayed at another meeting. I wish to focus specifically on the role of Meta. We had other witnesses in over the past few weeks. I think this is largely down to different social media platforms not signing up to the spirit or ethos of the legislation that is in place. Will Ms Seoige specifically outline when the initial complaint was made and take us step by step through the various stages or actions that Meta took, up to the point she found herself in? I ask her to be brief.

This is as brief as I can make it. We wrote to Meta twice. The second time, we got an answer, which was that it would be taking no steps and that it would not be dealing with this as it is encrypted messaging. That is it.

Were those legal letters or was it online moderation?

Yes.

They were legal letters.

We wrote to it legally. The party did, on my behalf.

Does Ms Seoige believe the policies or legislation in place are almost intentionally unhelpful? Is the legislation weighted to-----

I do not believe legislation is ever made to be intentionally unhelpful. These platforms, like the institutions of the past, are incredibly powerful and some people are loath or reluctant to go near them. They pay a lot of tax here and have headquarters here. We need to grow some teeth now and tackle them properly. Like I said, it happens in other countries. The value, integrity and dignity of our citizens are more important than the obfuscation that is happening and being told, "Sorry, this is encrypted". It is just not satisfactory. It should not wash in this day and age. As I said before, if it is criminal to do it with your hands, it should be criminal and enforceable so as to catch somebody who is doing it online.

That was the intent of my question. Does Ms Seoige believe big tech is being prioritised for the very reasons she outlined, whether jobs or investment? Is there a fear of the consequences if there were heavier regulation?

I feel there is a little bit of a reticence or reluctance there, or there has been until now. Maybe the problem has not been aired enough but we now know more about it and that it is widespread. The big thing I have learned in the past week is that this is not just me or one person it has happened to, and I happen to be somebody with a bit of a profile. This is happening to women and children all over the country. There is real suffering and harm going on. We will have real problems in the future if we do not tackle this now.

I thank Ms Seoige. I think the story she told about the teenager or young girl who was imaged will hit home more forcefully with us all. That is obviously a horrendous story.

We will now have another quick round. I will allow everybody to have 30 seconds. It will be a rapid round, if that is all right with Ms Seoige, and we will see where we go.

That is fine.

Members have 30 seconds so speak and 30 seconds to get a response. We will go in the order in which they spoke already. I call Deputy Gibney.

I thank Ms Seoige again. Her contribution has been so important. I am very much in the camp that we have the law and the regulation but we do not have enforcement or political will. If there is anything that has come about as a result of what has happened in the past couple of weeks, it is that there is more awareness about this. I am blue in the face talking about online safety. I am getting a lot of Government hand-wringing without any action. All artificial intelligence, AI, is doing is amplifying it, and that is what we are seeing happen here. These images were being created but Grok and AI are doing it at scale and forcing a response. What I would love to hear from Ms Seoige is about the voice of victims. She has been very clear that we need that voice in further conversations and in the development of law and regulation. What does that look like and how do we bake the experiences of victims into the further development of law and regulation?

I lost the connection for a period there; I am not sure if the Deputy is aware of that. I think this is the second round of questions so we are going around members again and it is not a repeat. I believe you must call victims to come forward, whether that is privately or publicly. I do not mind doing it publicly because I believe we need to shine a light on this. We must also give people the opportunity to come forward privately and give their testimony. I know that young women came forward on Virgin Media News recently. They told very affecting stories and these are multiplied across the country. Only by hearing the victims first hand will we know how to draw them into the picture when we are working on legislation going forward. I hope that answers the Deputy's question.

I thank Ms Seoige.

Ms Seoige said she feels a deep sense of responsibility towards the girls and women who are going through this. I share with her, as a father and legislator, that same sense of responsibility. If this committee were to take a victims first approach when considering reforms, what principles, rather than technical details, should guide the legislation to ensure victims are protected rather than retraumatised?

That is a brilliant question. There are various supports that victims need. They need fast, reliable takedown routes, not a slow and opaque reporting process, which is what I have engaged with, one of "Go here, go there, talk to this person or that person". Once something is confirmed as illegal or abusive, platforms should be expected to act quickly, make it harder to get it re-uploaded and preserve the evidence so that the perpetrators might be identified. That is really important. This is not a victimless crime but it is also not a crime without a criminal either. People are behind this. Men, and possibly women, are behind creating these images and sending them around, so people need to be held to account. This will not stop until people feel it is not worth the candle, they could get caught here and if they get caught, the shame of it will be huge.

Considering the focus Ms Seoige is putting on the platforms and the need to hold them to account, is she disappointed with the comments by the media Minister at the young scientist exhibition two weeks ago where he laid the blame for the Grok scandal at the feet of users, as opposed to platforms? Does she think that undermined, or perhaps slowed down, the approach to enforcement on platforms in recent weeks?

I will be honest; I was not following those comments. On the face of it, I find them disappointing as a human, but everybody is entitled to say something, to learn and educate themselves and realise maybe that was not on the button. I am prepared to accept that perhaps that Minister, a few weeks later, will have a little more information now. You cannot put the blame on one or the other completely. What you should do is legislate for the behaviour of both, so that people cannot be hurt just by using technology and people's lives cannot be destroyed by other people using technology.

Deputy Carrigy has 30 seconds.

I thank the Chair. Apologies, I was in the Chamber. I wanted to come online to say well done to Ms Seoige for speaking out and going public on this. I am a person who dealt with online abuse and threats to my family, although not in the same format, because I am a politician, as she was because she put herself forward for political life. That is not acceptable. Unfortunately, some of the social media companies seem to believe that someone in political life is fair game. During some of the work we did at the previous committee, we were told by one social media company that it did not take down information straight away if it involved a politician because it felt the public was entitled to see or view what somebody put up, even though it was factually incorrect. That is not acceptable. It is why people do not put themselves forward for political life.

I will ask about a public awareness programme. What Ms Seoige is doing is making the public more aware of this, which is important, but it is also important that our courts system deal with this. Number one, Coimisiún na Meán should deal strongly with the companies but, number two, as Ms Seoige said, if somebody is behind this, they need to be identified. The companies need to give information to the Garda on who that user is and where they are, and that person should be brought before the courts. The courts need to strongly deal with it. I wanted to make those few points and say well done.

I agree.

Senator Noonan is next, but he is not here.

I will try to be brief. To follow up on the Meta piece, looking from the outside, Ms Seoige was clearly let down by the media platform in this case. From previous witnesses, as Deputy Gibney and I said, it is about enforcement of legislation. There seems to be enough legislation there, as far as we are concerned, to do an awful lot.

I do not agree. I do not agree there is enough legislation.

I have only got 30 seconds so I will ask one question. If Ms Seoige had to send a message to Meta today for future victims and, unfortunately, there probably will be future victims of something similar to what happened to her, what would she ask of Meta in its dealings with those potential victims into the future?

I am not guessing that there will be future victims. I know there are victims today. Right now, there are pictures going around of women and children that will traumatise them and that are illegal. This is happening right now. It is not a message to Meta. It is a message to the Government of Ireland to deal with Meta and make it responsible for what it is carrying around on its platform. Meta will not do a single thing until it is made a problem of its architecture. At the moment, Meta is perfectly allowed to do what it is doing under our current law. We need to change the law so that it does not get away with it any more.

Does Ms Seoige think our economic relationship, as a country, with big tech is having a chilling effect? This is judging by the fact we have not had prosecutions to date and that legislation does not seem to be focused on the big players and on tech companies.

No more than all institutions in Ireland that have been responsible for abuse in the past, there is a reluctance to tackle the big monster, the big powerful person in the conversation, and the person who is holding a lot of money, status and mystery around them. The mystery surrounding technology is something that is often enough to make people back away from challenging them. That is why I called on "Prime Time" the other night, when we are drafting legislation here, for us to bring people with technological online experience. There are loads of very educated, experienced and talented Irish people working in this sector. They are working with some of the big companies here. We should bring them into the conversation, so this hiding behind words like "end-to-end encryption" cannot continue to happen. It is time we tackle the monster in the room and put women and children first.

I am really sad to hear Ms Seoige say she would not recommend women go into public service because women need to speak for other women. I am from a different background and I will not be deterred. Looking around the room, there are Senators Joanna Byrne, Evanne Ní Chuilinn, Lynn Ruane and Eileen Flynn and Deputy Sinéad Gibney, all of whom are from very different backgrounds. We need to speak for other women. I mean no harm to the gentleman colleagues here, but I would not want this room full of men to speak about this very important subject. Would Ms Seoige reconsider her advice? She has shown that she has got a valuable contribution to this and that there will be a change effected from it. I understand it is from a place of trauma but, at the same time, women need to speak for women in public service. Would she reconsider using her voice, not just for her but for other women?

I agree that women need to speak for women. That is the reason I went in in the first place but, in reality, did we not have the most female candidates ever stand in the last election, yet so few were elected? I hate the phrase "chilling effect" because, again, it is a euphemism for women being made to not feel welcome in politics. That is what is happening. I say "well done" to Alison and every other female in the room for getting through, getting elected or getting nominated to the Seanad. Well done to them, but I am speaking from my own personal experience. It was not a welcoming place. I was not treated well, either in the media or online, and sometimes in my own constituency. I can only speak from my own experience - it was ferocious. I am talking today about some of the experiences I had. While I applaud everybody who gets elected, and we need more female representation, unless there are actual real supports to make that happen, again, I cannot recommend it to somebody, especially if it were somebody I am fond of. I could never say go ahead, even though I know what is in front of them. I am sorry but that is my experience.

I am concerned because Ms Seoige was a selected and excellent candidate. As a role model to encourage people into public life, it is important. It is important, as Senator Comyn said, that people, males as well as females, continue to speak out about this behaviour.

I will talk about the importance of digital identity. Ms Seoige's voice is well-known. How do we go about protecting her voice, image and likeness? That applies as much to her as a broadcaster as it does to her as a public servant or politician.

I would love protection. I would have loved it during the election. I would like it even now, but the point is it does not exist. People can manipulate and use technology to make what they want of you, if they feel that you are an image that would attract attention or would be effective. We need to be careful when we get into things about digital identities and stuff like that. There is an uneasiness around that, which I understand, but if we tackle the platforms and make the law more muscular here, we can do something good. We can protect future generations and young children growing up today to make sure what happened to me does not happen to them.

I apologise; I was tied up at another committee. I cannot commend Ms Seoige enough on speaking out. There are a couple of young girls, Lucy Geraghty and Sonia Milbourne, who also spoke out on Virgin Media News.

Yes, that is right.

We have to listen. I brought this up at our last meeting. I am very interested in what Ms Seoige said about writing and complaining to Meta and its response. I brought up in this very room only last week that there are 25,000 referrals and no case being taken against companies like Meta.

I know that the laws have to improve and it is up to us in this room to improve them. Will Ms Seoige share her complaint and share the response, if she had one, from Meta?

The complaint was made on my behalf through the party and as I said, we had to write a second time before we even got a response, which was to say that a response was coming. When the response came, it gave us very short shrift and basically told us where to go. This is where we are right now. They would not do that if they did not think they could get away with it or if the law did not provide for it but it does. What we need to do is change the law and change the architecture around it so it is not up to the victim to come up with the perpetrator or to solve the crime and so that gardaí have more powers to freeze what is going on and to bring people to book. Until this happens and until culturally we change things so that it is not okay to do this to women and girls, we will have 25,000 referrals next year and the year after.

In terms of the response from Coimisiún na Meán, An Garda Síochána and Meta, it is obviously a personal case so it is up to you to decide what to share but, by way of an example, would you consider sharing with this committee the responses from Meta and Coimisiún na Meán?

I would.

That would be very helpful. We would really appreciate that. Seeing what they said would be a great contribution to the work of this committee. I would commend you if you were to share that with us.

Absolutely, no problem..

Following the introduction of Coco's Law, there was a campaign online, on television and on radio explaining that it was a crime to share images. We know that we have a cultural issue to deal with but we also have an equation to deal with. What I am taking from your contribution today is that we all know about big tech, the cultural issues, the legal impediments and the fact that we need new legislation but there is another equation at play here. On one side we have encryption and privacy and, on the other, we have profit and abuse. That sums it up for me. The problem here is that equation or see-saw. We are going to have to rebalance that so that encryption and privacy, while hugely important, do not facilitate crime by e-commerce companies. At the end of the day, all of these companies are e-commerce companies; they make money. We have to make sure that the profit and abuse side is rebalanced so that we can deal with the issues that have been brought up and ensure they are not hidden behind encryption and privacy. Would you accept that, based on your experience?

Yes, absolutely. Fines are where it is at, as well as talking about the crimes and making them public so that the companies do not get to shrug or brush off people, even if they are in politics, like what happened to me. Fines are needed. It is about hitting them where it hurts. They make billions of euro. Yes, they pay a lot in tax but fines are essential.

In your experience, the legislation as currently constituted does not fit the purpose or meet the requirements. Is that correct?

Coco's Law came through. It is named after somebody. It came through after an awful lot of effort and I do not in any way wish to look down on what happened. In fact, I say "Thank you" to everybody who was responsible for that law coming about in the first place. It came from a place of pain. We are here in another place of pain because technology has moved forward so we need another law, whatever it will be called. Technology is moving forward, people's ability to create these images is growing and changing and legislators need to stay agile and alive to that. They also need to recognise that there will be more to do in the future because things will continue to change. Coco's Law was fantastic but we need more now.

Thanks very much. We really appreciate you coming forward today. Furthermore we would really appreciate it if you would share the response you received because we are meeting with the tech companies on 4 February. If you would share that information with us, it would be very helpful because it would enable us to digest it before we meet them and to challenge them, based on your experience. If you would share that documentation with us, that would be really helpful. On behalf of the committee, I thank you for coming forward and sharing your experience. We really appreciate it.

Go raibh míle maith agaibh. Thank you for giving me your time today.

I propose that we suspend briefly and then resume in private session. Is that agreed? Agreed.