What’s The True Cost of Amazon’s Low Prices? The FTC and Congress Have Antitrust Concerns

This story is part of a Recode series about Big Tech and antitrust. Over the next few weeks, we’ll cover what’s happening with Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft.

On the heels of yet another year of record sales, Amazon is dealing with a couple of unwelcome updates in the new year. The Senate Judiciary Committee has announced it will soon be marking up the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, an antitrust bill targeting Amazon and other Big Tech companies. This follows reports that the Federal Trade Commission is ramping up its years-long antitrust investigation into Amazon’s cloud computing arm, Amazon Web Services, or AWS.

It’s clearer now than ever that Amazon, which was allowed to grow mostly unhindered for more than two decades, is caught in the middle of an international effort to check Big Tech’s power.

The Senate bill, one of several bipartisan antitrust bills in Congress, would prohibit Amazon from giving its products preferential treatment, among other things. It’s the bill that would affect the company the most, and the one it has been fighting hardest against. Meanwhile, the renewed scrutiny from the FTC about alleged anti-competitive behavior from AWS, which represents a significant and largely invisible source of Amazon’s profits, could threaten Amazon’s long-term dominance in a number of industries.

Just because a company is successful and dominates a market (or even several markets) doesn’t mean it’s violating any antitrust laws. But Amazon’s critics say it illegally uses its power to harm competition and consumers, particularly with its Marketplace, where outside, or third-party, businesses can sell their products to Amazon customers alongside Amazon’s own wares.

Amazon has been accused of copying popular products to sell under its own labels, using non-public seller data to inform its own decisions, and forcing sellers into agreements that essentially prohibit them from offering lower prices elsewhere. Amazon denies some of these allegations and says other actions are simply meant to provide the services its customers want at the best price.

Some of these complaints have been around a while, but 2022 may be the year that Amazon faces meaningful and real consequences for them. There are still caveats. State attorneys general are rumored to be looking into some of Amazon’s business practices, but only one has filed a lawsuit so far.

The FTC is still waiting for the confirmation of a fifth Democratic commissioner who would break up the deadlock of two Republican and two Democratic commissioners. And while antitrust bills are making progress in Congress, Democratic lawmakers currently seem focused on other initiatives ahead of the midterm elections — elections that could give Republicans a majority in one or both houses of Congress.

Amazon isn’t the only Big Tech company that’s been targeted, but it might have more reason than anyone else to worry about the FTC in particular. One of two federal agencies that enforce antitrust laws, the FTC is now run by Lina Khan, who basically built her career on research surrounding her 2017 Yale Law Journal paper, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox.”

The paper detailed how Amazon’s rise showed the flaws in antitrust laws and led to Khan becoming known as Amazon’s antitrust antagonist. Since her appointment to the FTC last June, it hasn’t seemed like the question is whether the agency will take on Amazon, but rather when and how. Amazon, meanwhile, has asked that Khan recuse herself from any antitrust matters involving the company.

Khan “is best suited to understand the various issues and problems with Amazon,” said Alex Harman, a competition policy advocate at Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group. “And we are very excited that she will be able to bring a significant action against them.”

Khan has a lot to choose from. It’s hard to overstate Amazon’s role in the economy, or how many roles it has. It’s a technology company. It’s a delivery service. It’s an advertising platform. It powers about a third of the internet. It’s a movie studio and a streaming service. It’s a health care provider. It’s a surveillance machine and a data harvester. It’s one of the largest employers in the world and one of the most valuable companies. Also, it sells books.

In response to questions about whether its size and market share were too big in too many sectors, Amazon told Recode it faces “intense competition” in all of its lines of business. It says its expansion is part of a long-running strategy to make “big bets over the long term to reinvent the customer experience.”

Sarah Miller, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, an anti-monopoly advocacy group, sees it differently: “Amazon leverages its power in one space to take over a new space, which is core to their business practice. They have the ability to combine the competitive advantages of different aspects of their business to take over new sectors of the economy.”

While the FTC, for now, seems interested in AWS (and Amazon’s attempt to buy MGM), most of the antitrust attention we’ve seen elsewhere is focused on Amazon’s retail business and how it treats the businesses that sell products through its Marketplace platform. Critics say Amazon uses its power to give its own wares an unfair advantage over third-party sellers, and effectively forces them to pay for extra services and make agreements that could inflate prices everywhere.

“That’s where there’s a lot of obvious harms, and where you have businesses who are unhappy with how they’re being treated,” Miller said.

Consumers may be paying more and missing out on new products, companies, and innovations that a more competitive retail space would have produced. And that may be a violation of the antitrust laws we have now, or those to come.

How Amazon’s power might lead to higher prices

Many antitrust complaints about Amazon’s practices are based on its position as both a platform and a seller on that platform. This gives Amazon a great deal of power over the companies it’s competing against, as well as an incentive to favor its products over theirs. About 60 percent of Amazon’s online sales come through Marketplace.

This can be a mutually beneficial relationship. Marketplace’s sellers — currently more than 2 million of them — get access to Amazon’s huge customer base, and Amazon gets a vastly expanded selection that has helped make it the first and only website many online shoppers visit.

This model brings in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue every year for Amazon, which now has an estimated 40 percent share of the e-commerce market in the United States. The company with the second-largest e-commerce market share, Walmart, has just 7 percent.

At the same time, Amazon likes to say it has but a small sliver — 1 percent — of a competitive global retail market. But that’s online and offline combined, and it includes many industries in which Amazon doesn’t sell anything at all. Amazon is also on track to edge out Walmart and become the most dominant retailer, online and off, in the United States as soon as this year.

No company has the kind of ecosystem Amazon built around its retail business beyond Marketplace. Amazon collects tons of data about its shoppers — data it uses to optimize its services and to fuel its burgeoning and increasingly lucrative advertising business.

Meanwhile, Amazon Prime and its fast free shipping has not only created an intensely loyal customer base but also compelled Amazon to build up its own shipping and logistics arm, Fulfillment by Amazon, to reduce its reliance on outside services and give it more control over its sellers. Many of Amazon’s rival retailers — namely, Walmart and Target — do some or all of these things to a lesser extent, but they’re just playing catch-up.

Smaller companies simply don’t have the scale or money to offer such services. Amazon, which has turned itself from a bookstore to an “everything store” to an everything platform, is in a class by itself.

“There are dynamics in digital that are fundamentally different,” Andrew Lipsman, principal analyst at eMarketer, told Recode. “Access to data is fundamentally different than we’ve ever had before. And all the other things that has enabled — all these digital businesses that Amazon has spun off — are underpinned by completely different economics than traditional retail economics.”

Amazon is happy to tell you how good it’s been for the small- and medium-sized businesses making money using its platform and how proposed antitrust actions could harm them. Others argue that Amazon makes even more money off of third-party sellers who have to play by Amazon’s rules because their businesses wouldn’t survive without the e-commerce giant and its customer base. And those rules, they say, aren’t always fair.

Last May, the attorney general of Washington, DC, Karl Racine, sued Amazon for antitrust violations over its treatment of Marketplace sellers. In September, he amended that lawsuit to include the wholesalers, or first-party sellers, from which Amazon buys products before selling them to its customers.

Racine told Recode that he started to wonder what the price of Amazon’s much-touted “customer obsession” was, especially after seeing accusations that Amazon copied popular products on its platform and then sold its own similar products for a lower price. (Amazon says it’s standard practice for retailers to use data about customers’ interests to help determine what to make for their own private labels.)

“I found that offensive,” Racine told Recode. “I felt like Amazon was just a copycat and burying a creative source. They were not focused only on the customer. They were also focused on their bottom line.”

The DC attorney general’s office investigated and found that “Amazon, the dominant player, seeks to maximize its profits at the expense of consumers, third-party sellers, and wholesalers,” Racine said. “It’s kept prices for goods artificially high, hampered competition, stifled innovation, and illegally tilted the playing field, all in its favor.”

Racine’s suit echoes some of the issues raised in other lawsuits and investigations as well as those identified in a recent report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit that advocates for locally owned businesses.

The big sticking point is that Amazon’s policies can effectively force other companies to give Amazon the lowest price for their goods. This is due to Amazon’s “fair pricing” policy, which says it can downgrade or stop sales of third-party sellers’ products if they’re priced “significantly higher” on Amazon than at other outlets.

Meanwhile, wholesalers have to agree to give Amazon a certain cut of their products’ sales. But Amazon also sets the prices of those products. If it reduces them to price match another outlet, the wholesaler may end up eating the difference and even losing money. That keeps wholesalers from selling their wares to anyone else for less.

Amazon sees all this as looking out for its customers and making sure they’re getting the lowest prices. But Racine and those who have filed similar lawsuits believe sellers and wholesalers are being stopped from selling their products for lower prices in other stores.

Because of this, competitors can’t offer lower prices to get an advantage over Amazon, and customers end up paying Amazon’s prices even if they don’t shop at Amazon — and paying more. Sellers and wholesalers can choose not to sell to Amazon, but few of them have the size and brand recognition needed to survive in a world where so many shoppers do most, if not all, of their online shopping on Amazon.

“That’s the power of brands: Nike is able to say, ‘You know what, Amazon? We don’t need you,’” Lipsman said. “The more commoditized your product is, the more likely you have to sell through Amazon, and you’re dependent on that channel.”

Amazon has filed a motion to dismiss the DC attorney general’s lawsuit, arguing that it’s simply making sure its customers are getting the lowest prices. The policies don’t force sellers to offer the lowest price on Amazon, Amazon says; they simply discourage them from offering higher prices on Amazon than they do elsewhere. But this hasn’t always been the case.

Just a few years ago, Amazon had a price parity policy, which more explicitly said sellers couldn’t offer lower prices anywhere else. Amazon ended this practice in Europe years ago amid scrutiny there, and then did the same thing in the United States in 2019. Racine says the fair pricing policy that replaced it serves the same function and is similarly anti-competitive.

How Amazon uses its power over sellers to squeeze them for money and data

Even though one of Amazon’s selling points is its low prices, critics say those aren’t necessarily the lowest prices possible, in part due to the increasing costs to sell on Marketplace. Amazon charges sellers a referral fee, typically 15 percent, for items sold. Then it piles on optional services that many sellers feel compelled to buy if they want their businesses to survive, cutting into their margins and forcing some to raise their prices to maintain a profit.

Fulfillment by Amazon, or FBA, is one example of this. Amazon doesn’t require that its sellers use its fulfillment and shipping service, but doing so makes them eligible for Prime, and it’s exceedingly difficult to qualify for Prime if they don’t.

That recognizable Prime badge is important. There’s a higher likelihood that Amazon’s customers will buy Prime products, because the shipping is free for Prime members and because Amazon gives preference to Prime items when it assigns what’s known as the “Buy Box.” When multiple sellers offer the same product, the Buy Box winner is added to carts when customers click “buy.” More than 80 percent of an item’s sales go to the Buy Box winner, so sellers are very motivated to do everything possible to get it. That may include using FBA even if it costs them more than shipping items themselves.

This practice has already gotten Amazon into trouble abroad. In December, Italy’s antitrust regulators fined Amazon about $1.3 billion for giving sellers who use FBA benefits over those who don’t. Amazon says it’s planning to appeal the decision, but more trouble could be on the way: The company is facing a similar investigation from the European Union’s European Commission, and India is also investigating Amazon for violating its antitrust laws.

Sellers have also complained about ads, which give their items better placement in search results. Reports say that Amazon has increased the number of ads, upping its revenue and pushing organic results down even further — which, in turn, compels sellers to buy ads to regain the prominent placement they used to get for free. Amazon told Recode that sellers wouldn’t use FBA or buy ads if those services didn’t add value or come at the best price, as they can always use other fulfillment services and buy ads elsewhere.

But it’s not just fees that Amazon gets from its sellers. Critics say the company uses data it collects from third-party sellers to give itself a competitive advantage. This was the subject of a “statement of objections” from the European Union, and as the DC attorney general has made clear, Amazon is notorious for creating its own versions of popular products sold by third parties.

The company recently opened up some of its data to sellers, possibly in an effort to ward off some of this criticism, and says it prohibits the use of non-public data about individual sellers to develop its own products. But founder Jeff Bezos told Congress he couldn’t guarantee that policy has never been violated, and multiple press reports suggest that it has.

The company has also been accused of self-preferencing, or giving its products preferential treatment — and a competitive advantage — over those sold by third parties. This could take the form of giving its own products the Buy Box or prominent search rankings they didn’t earn. Amazon has total control over its platform, so the company can really do whatever it wants, and there isn’t much sellers can do about it.

Self-preferencing has become a catch-all term for many of Amazon’s alleged anti-competitive practices. It’s attracted the most attention from regulators so far. The company denies that it gives preference to its own items in search results and says the reports that it does are inaccurate. Many legislators aren’t buying that and have proposed bills forbidding self-preferencing, with Amazon specifically in mind.

How Amazon could be changed by new antitrust laws

Per its policies, the FTC has stayed mum on what, if anything, it’s investigating on Amazon. Congress, on the other hand, has been very public.

The House Judiciary Committee spent 16 months looking into competition and digital markets, focusing on Amazon as well as Apple, Google, and Facebook. Last year, a bipartisan and mostly bicameral group of lawmakers proposed a package of Big Tech-focused antitrust bills. The House’s bills made it through committee markup last June, but have yet to be put to a vote.

The American Innovation and Choice Online Act is the only Senate bill to be scheduled for markup so far. The House’s Ending Platform Monopolies Act, which still doesn’t have a Senate equivalent, is likely the most expansive of the bills in the antitrust package, forbidding dominant digital platforms from owning lines of business that incentivize them to give their own products and services preference over third parties. Should that bill become law, it could have a huge impact on Amazon, forcing it to split off its first-party store from its sales platform.

Amazon has fought back against the bills. It has sent emails to certain sellers and set up an informational website warning them about how the bills, if they become law, could negatively impact them. Amazon claims that it might have to shut down Marketplace or limit its ability to offer Prime services. The bills’ supporters say that companies would still be able to offer all of those services, but could finally compete on a level playing field.

“We urge Congress to consider these consequences instead of rushing through this ambiguously worded bill,” Brian Huseman, Amazon vice president of public policy, told Recode in a statement. He added that the bills should apply “to all retailers, not just one.”

While Amazon waits to see what the FTC and Congress do, its antitrust battles, real and potential, haven’t seemed to harm its bottom line. Business is good, growing, and disruptive. Amazon is even reportedly preparing to take on Shopify, a platform that helps businesses create their own online shops and has grown exponentially during the pandemic, with a similar offering that could come out as early as this year. If true (Amazon wouldn’t comment), it shows that Amazon isn’t afraid of going after potential threats even while under more scrutiny than it’s ever experienced.

That’s exactly the attitude Racine, the DC attorney general, takes issue with. “Amazon claims to be all about consumers,” he said. “What our evidence shows is that Amazon is all about more profit for Amazon, at the cost of competition and at the expense of consumers. And we’re looking forward to proving that in court.

Sara Morrison

Sara Morrison covers Big Tech and antitrust regulation, in addition to personal data and privacy. She previously covered technology’s impact on the world for Vocativ. Her work has also appeared in the Atlantic, Jezebel, Boston.com, Nieman Reports, and Columbia Journalism Review, among others.

Source: What’s the true cost of Amazon’s low prices? The FTC and Congress have antitrust concerns. – Vox

.

More contents:

 

Facebook Will Shut Down Facial Recognition System

Facebook Inc (FB.O) announced on Tuesday it is shutting down its facial recognition system, which automatically identifies users in photos and videos, citing growing societal concerns about the use of such technology.

“Regulators are still in the process of providing a clear set of rules governing its use,” Jerome Pesenti, vice president of artificial intelligence at Facebook, wrote in a blog post. “Amid this ongoing uncertainty, we believe that limiting the use of facial recognition to a narrow set of use cases is appropriate.”

The removal of face recognition by the world’s largest social media platform comes as the tech industry has faced a reckoning over the past few years over the ethics of using the technology.

Critics say facial recognition technology – which is popular among retailers, hospitals and other businesses for security purposes – could compromise privacy, target marginalized groups and normalize intrusive surveillance. IBM has permanently ended facial recognition product sales, and Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) have suspended sales to police indefinitely.

The news also comes as Facebook has been under intense scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers over user safety and a wide range of abuses on its platforms.

The company, which last week renamed itself Meta Platforms Inc, said more than one-third of Facebook’s daily active users have opted into the face recognition setting on the social media site, and the change will now delete the “facial recognition templates” of more than 1 billion people.

The removal will roll out globally and is expected to be complete by December, a Facebook spokesperson said. Privacy advocacy and digital rights groups welcomed the move.

Alan Butler, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said, “For far too long Internet users have suffered personal data abuses at the whims of Facebook and other platforms. EPIC first called for an end to this program in 2011,” though he said comprehensive data protection regulations were still needed in the United States.

Adam Schwartz, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that although Facebook’s action comes after moves from other tech companies, it could mark a “notable moment in the national turning-away from face recognition.”

Facebook added that its automatic alt text tool, which creates image descriptions for visually impaired people, will no longer include the names of people recognized in photos after the removal of face recognition, but will otherwise function normally.Facebook did not rule out using facial recognition technology in other products, saying it still sees it as a “powerful tool” for identity verification for example.

The company’s facial recognition software has long been the subject of scrutiny. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission included it among the concerns when it fined Facebook $5 billion to settle privacy complaints in 2019. A judge this year approved Facebook’s $650 million settlement of a class action in Illinois over allegations it collected and stored biometric data of users without proper consent.

By:  and

Source: Facebook will shut down facial recognition system | Reuters

.

Related Contents:

Staff, By GCN; Jun 10, 2020. “IBM bows out of facial recognition market -“. GCN. Retrieved October 7, 2021.“Mugspot Can Find A Face In The Crowd – Face-Recognition Software Prepares To Go To Work In The Streets

Bonsor, K. (September 4, 2001). “How Facial Recognition Systems Work”ford, Mark. “Facial recognition progress report

  • October 6, 2011.

Kimmel, Ron. “Three-dimensional face reco

Riggan, Benjamin; Short, Nathaniel; Hu, Shuowen (March 2018). “Thermal to Visible Synthesis of Face Images using Multiple Regions”

“Galaxy S8 face recognition already defeated with a simple picture”. Ars Technica. Retrieved November 2, 2017.

“Facial recognition technology is coming to Canadian airports this spring”. CBC News. Retrieved March 3, 2017.

“TSA had expressed its intention to adopt a similar program for domestic air travel”. USA Today. August 16, 2019.“Police use facial recognition technology to detect wanted criminals during beer festival in Chinese city of Qingdao”. opengovasia.com. OpenGovAsia. Archived from the original on N

Dai, Sarah (June 5, 2019). “AI unicorn Megvii not behind app used for surveillance in Xinjiang, says human rights group”. South China Morning Post.

Government Secretly Orders Google To Identify Anyone Who Searched A Sexual Assault Victim’s Name, Address Or Telephone Number

The U.S. government is secretly ordering Google to provide data on anyone typing in certain search terms, an accidentally unsealed court document shows. There are fears such “keyword warrants” threaten to implicate innocent Web users in serious crimes and are more common than previously thought.

In 2019, federal investigators in Wisconsin were hunting men they believed had participated in the trafficking and sexual abuse of a minor. She had gone missing that year but had emerged claiming to have been kidnapped and sexually assaulted, according to a search warrant reviewed by Forbes. In an attempt to chase down the perpetrators, investigators turned to Google, asking the tech giant to provide information on anyone who had searched for the victim’s name, two spellings of her mother’s name or her address over 16 days across the year. After being asked to provide all relevant Google accounts and IP addresses of those who made the searches, Google responded with data in mid-2020, though the court documents do not reveal how many users had their data sent to the government.

It’s a rare example of a so-called keyword warrant and, with the number of search terms included, the broadest on record. (See the update below for other, potentially even broader warrants.) Before this latest case, only two keyword warrants had been made public. One revealed in 2020 asked for anyone who had searched for the address of an arson victim who was a witness in the government’s racketeering case against singer R Kelly. Another, detailed in 2017, revealed that a Minnesota judge signed off on a warrant asking Google to provide information on anyone who searched a fraud victim’s name from within the city of Edina, where the crime took place.

While Google deals with thousands of such orders every year, the keyword warrant is one of the more contentious. In many cases, the government will already have a specific Google account that they want information on and have proof it’s linked to a crime. But search term orders are effectively fishing expeditions, hoping to ensnare possible suspects whose identities the government does not know. It’s not dissimilar to so-called geofence warrants, where investigators ask Google to provide information on anyone within the location of a crime scene at a given time.

“As with all law enforcement requests, we have a rigorous process that is designed to protect the privacy of our users while supporting the important work of law enforcement,” a Google spokesperson said.

The latest case shows Google is continuing to comply with such controversial requests, despite concerns over their legality and the potential to implicate innocent people who happened to search for the relevant terms. From the government’s perspective in Wisconsin, the scope of the warrant should have been limited enough to avoid the latter: the number of people searching for the specific names, address or phone number in the given time frame was likely to be low. But privacy experts are concerned about the precedent set by such warrants and the potential for any such order to be a breach of Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches. There are also concerns about First Amendment freedom of speech issues, given the potential to cause anxiety amongst Google users that their identities could be handed to the government because of what they searched for.

“Trawling through Google’s search history database enables police to identify people merely based on what they might have been thinking about, for whatever reason, at some point in the past. This is a virtual dragnet through the public’s interests, beliefs, opinions, values and friendships, akin to mind reading powered by the Google time machine,” said Jennifer Granick, surveillance and cybersecurity counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “This never-before-possible technique threatens First Amendment interests and will inevitably sweep up innocent people, especially if the keyword terms are not unique and the time frame not precise. To make matters worse, police are currently doing this in secret, which insulates the practice from public debate and regulation.”

The Wisconsin case was supposed to have remained secret, too. The warrant only came to light because it was accidentally unsealed by the Justice Department in September. Forbes reviewed the document before it was sealed again and is neither publishing it nor providing full details of the case to protect the identities of the victim and her family. The investigation is ongoing, two years after the crimes occurred, and the DOJ didn’t comment on whether or not any charges had been filed.

Forbes was able to identify one other, previously unreported keyword warrant in the Northern District of California in December 2020, though its existence was only noted in a court docket. It also has the potential to be broad. The order, currently under seal, is titled “Application by the United States for a Search Warrant for Google Accounts Associated with Six Search Terms and Four Search Dates.”

There’s more that the government can get with such requests than simple Google account identities and IP addresses. In Wisconsin, the government was hopeful Google could also provide “CookieIDs” belonging to any users who made the searches. These CookieIDs “are identifiers that are used to group together all searches conducted from a given machine, for a certain time period. Such information allows investigators to ascertain, even when the user is not logged into a Google account, whether the same individual may have conducted multiple pertinent searches,” the government wrote.

There was another disturbing aspect to the search warrant: the government had published the kidnapping victim’s name, her Facebook profile (now no longer accessible), her phone number and address, a potential breach of a minor’s privacy. The government has now sealed the document, though was only alerted to the leak after Forbes emailed the Justice Department for comment. That mistake—of revealing the identity of minor victims of sexual abuse in court documents—has become a common one in recent years. As in the latest case, the FBI and DHS have been seen choosing pseudonyms and acronyms for victims, but then publishing their full Facebook profile link, which contains the name of the minor.

UPDATE: After publication, Jennifer Lynch, surveillance litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), highlighted three other Google keyword warrants that were used in the investigation into serial Austin bombings in 2018, which resulted in the deaths of two people.

Not widely discussed at the time, the orders appear even broader than the one above, asking for IP addresses and Google account information of individuals who searched for various addresses and some terms associated with bomb making, such as “low explosives” and “pipe bomb.” Similar orders were served on Microsoft and Yahoo for their respective search engines.

As for what data the tech companies gave to investigators, that information remains under seal.

You can read the orders on Google here, here and here. The Microsoft and Yahoo orders can be found here and here. Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website. Send me a secure tip

By: Thomas Brewster

I’m associate editor for Forbes, covering security, surveillance and privacy. I’m also the editor of The Wiretap newsletter, which has exclusive stories on real-world surveillance and all the biggest cybersecurity stories of the week. It goes out every Monday and you can sign up here: https://www.forbes.com/newsletter/thewiretap

I’ve been breaking news and writing features on these topics for major publications since 2010. As a freelancer, I worked for The Guardian, Vice, Wired and the BBC, amongst many others. 

Tip me on Signal / WhatsApp / whatever you like to use at +447782376697. If you use Threema, you can reach me at my ID: S2XY9B9U.

If you want to tip me with something sensitive? Get in contact on Signal or Threema, and we can use OnionShare. It’s a great way to share documents privately. See here: https://onionshare.org/

.

Related Contents:

Peter Cameron, George Jelinek, Anne-Maree Kelly, Anthony F. T. Brown, Mark Little (2011). Textbook of Adult Emergency Medicine E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 658. ISBN978-0702049316. Retrieved 30 December 2017.

“Sexual Assault Fact Sheet” (PDF). Office on Women’s Health. Department of Health & Human Services. 21 May 2015. Retrieved 11 March 2018. Assault, Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition. See also Ibbs v The Queen, High Court of Australia, 61 ALJR 525, 1987 WL 714908 (sexual assault defined as sexual penetration without consent); Sexual Offences Act 2003 Chapter 42 s 3 Sexual assault (United Kingdom), (sexual assault defined as sexual contact without consent), and Chase v. R. 1987 CarswellNB 25 (Supreme Court of Canada) (sexual assault defined as force without consent of a sexual nature)

“Sexual Assault”. Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Retrieved 11 May 2019.

“The National Center for Victims of Crime – Library/Document Viewer”. Ncvc.org. Archived from the original on 20 July 2012. Retrieved 9 December 2011.

“Child Sexual Abuse”. Medline Plus. U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2 April 2008. Archived from the original on 5 December 2013. “Guidelines for psychological evaluations in child protection matters”. American Psychologist. 54 (8): 586–93. 1999. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.586. PMID10453704. Lay summaryAPA PsycNET (7 May 2008). Abuse, sexual (child): generally defined as contacts between a child and an adult or other person significantly older or in a position of power or control over the child, where the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the adult or other person Martin, Judy; Anderson, Jessie;

Romans, Sarah; Mullen, Paul; O’Shea, Martine (1993). “Asking about child sexual abuse: Methodological implications of a two stage survey”. Child Abuse & Neglect. 17 (3): 383–92. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(93)90061-9. PMID8330225.

“Child sexual abuse definition from”. the NSPCC. Archived from the original on 7 February 2012. Retrieved 9 December 2011. Brown, Rick; Napier, Sarah; Smith, Russell G (2020), Australians who view live streaming of child sexual abuse: An analysis of financial transactions, Australian Institute of Criminology, ISBN9781925304336 pp. 1–4. Roosa, MW; Reinholtz, C; Angelini, PJ (1999). “The relation of child sexual abuse and depression in young women: Comparisons across four ethnic groups”. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 27 (1): 65–76. PMID10197407. Widom, CS (1999). “Posttraumatic stress disorder in abused and neglected children grown up”. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 156 (8): 1223–9. doi:10.1176/ajp.156.8.1223 (inactive 31 May 2021). PMID10450264. Levitan, Robert D.; Rector, Neil A.; Sheldon, Tess; Goering, Paula (2003). “Childhood adversities associated with major depression and/or anxiety disorders in a community sample of Ontario: Issues of co-morbidity and specificity”. Depression and Anxiety. 17 (1): 34–42. doi:10.1002/da.10077. PMID12577276. S2CID26031006. Messman-Moore, T. L.; Long, P. J. (2000). “Child Sexual Abuse and Revictimization in the Form of Adult Sexual Abuse, Adult Physical Abuse, and Adult Psychological Maltreatment”. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 15 (5): 489–502. doi:10.1177/088626000015005003. S2CID145761598. Teitelman AM, Bellamy SL, Jemmott JB 3rd, Icard L, O’Leary A, Ali S, Ngwane Z, Makiwane M. Childhood sexual abuse and sociodemographic factors prospectively associated with intimate partner violence perpetration among South African heterosexual men. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2017;51(2):170-178 Dinwiddie, S.; Heath, A. C.; Dunne, M. P.; Bucholz, K. K.; Madden, P. A. F.; Slutske, W. S.; Bierut, L. J.; Statham, D. B.; Martin, N. G. (2000). “Early sexual abuse and lifetime psychopathology: A co-twin–control study”. Psychological Medicine. 30 (1): 41–52. doi:10.1017/S0033291799001373. PMID10722174. S2CID15270464. Courtois, Christine A. (1988).

Healing the Incest Wound: Adult Survivors in Therapy. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 208. ISBN978-0-393-31356-7. Julia Whealin (22 May 2007). “Child Sexual Abuse”. National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, US Department of Veterans Affairs. Archived from the original on 30 July 2009. David Finkelhor (Summer–Fall 1994).

“Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse” (PDF). The Future of Children. (1994) 4(2): 31–53. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 October 2008.

“Crimes against Children Research Center”. Unh.edu. Archived from the original on 23 August 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2011.

“Family Research Laboratory”. Unh.edu. Archived from the original on 26 November 2011. Retrieved 9 December 2011. Gorey, Kevin M.; Leslie, Donald R. (1997). “The prevalence of child sexual abuse: Integrative review adjustment for potential response and measurement biases”. Child Abuse & Neglect. 21 (4): 391–8. CiteSeerX10.1.1.465.1057. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(96)00180-9. PMID9134267.

“Adult Manifestations of Childhood Sexual Abuse”. http://www.aaets.org. American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress. Archived from the original on 3 April 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018.

“About Sexual Violence”. Pcar.org. Archived from the original on 20 October 2014. Retrieved 10 September 2016.

“2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 – CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 6 – SEXUAL OFFENSES :: § 16-6-5.1 – Sexual assault by persons with supervisory or disciplinary authority; sexual assault by practitioner of psychotherapy against patient; consent not a defense; penalty upon conviction for sexual assault”. Justia Law. Archived from the original on 4 September 2017. Retrieved 18 June 2017.

“Sexual Violence”. Archived from the original on 2 April 2015. “Resources | Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape (PCAR)”. Archived from the original on 19 October 2014. Roberts, Albert R.; Ann Wolbert Bergess; CHERYL REGEHR (2009). Victimology: Theories and Applications. Sudbury, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. p. 228. ISBN978-0-7637-7210-9. Krantz, G.; Garcia-Moreno, C (2005).

“Violence against women”. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 59 (10): 818–21. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.022756. PMC1732916. PMID16166351. “Sapphire”. Metropolitan Police Service. Archived from the original on 6 December 2012. Retrieved 18 January 2010. Abbey, Antonia; Beshears, Renee; Clinton-Sherrod, A. Monique; McAuslan, Pam (2004).

“Similarities and Differences in Women’s Sexual Assault Experiences Based on Tactics Used by the Perpetrator”. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 28 (4): 323–32. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00149.x. PMC4527559. PMID26257466. Kaufman, A; Divasto, P; Jackson, R; Voorhees, D; Christy, J (1980). “Male rape victims: Noninstitutionalized assault”. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 137 (2): 221–3. doi:10.1176/ajp.137.2.221. PMID7352580. Tjaden, Patricia (2000).

“Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey” (PDF). National Institute of Justice Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tjaden, Patricia; Thoennes, Nancy.

“Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey Control and Prevention” (PDF). National Criminal Justice Reference Service. National Institute of Justice Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. p. 2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 December 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018. rape is a crime committed primarily against youth: 18 percent of women surveyed said they experienced a completed or attempted rape at some time in their life and 0.3 percent said they experienced a completed or attempted rape in the previous 12 months. Of the women who reported being raped at some time in their lives, 22 percent were under 12 years old and 32 percent were 12 to 17 years old when they were first raped. YING HUI TAN, Barrister (12 January 1993).

“Law Report: Attempted rape came within definition of ‘sexual offence’: Regina v Robinson – Court of Appeal (Criminal Divisional) (Lord Taylor of Gosforth, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Potts and Mr Justice Judge), 27 November 1992”. The Independent. London. Archived from the original on 21 February 2010. Retrieved 27 October 2010. The Age, 3 June 2019,

One in three women victim to ‘stealth’ condom removal Paludi, Michele Antoinette; Barickman (1991). Academic and Workplace Sexual Harassment. SUNY Press. pp. 2–5. ISBN978-0-7914-0829-2. Dziech et al. 1990, Boland 2002

“Facts About Sexual Harassment”. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 27 June 2002. Archived from the original on 11 July 2017. Retrieved 18 September 2017.

“About Sexual Violence”. Pcar.org. Archived from the original on 20 October 2014. Retrieved 10 September 2016. Dworkin, Emily R.; Menon, Suvarna V.; Bystrynski, Jonathan; Allen, Nicole E. (1 August 2017).

“Sexual assault victimization and psychopathology: A review and meta-analysis”. Clinical Psychology Review. 56: 65–81. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2017.06.002. ISSN0272-7358. PMC5576571. PMID28689071. Kennedy KM, Heterogeneity of existing research relating to sexual violence, sexual assault and rape precludes meta-analysis of injury data. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. (2013), 20(5):447–459 Kennedy KM, The relationship of victim injury to the progression of sexual crimes through the criminal justice system, Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 2012:19(6):309-311 Mandi, Dupain (2014). “Developing and Implementing a Sexual Assault Violence Prevention and Awareness Campaign at a State-Supported Regional University”. American Journal of Health Studies. 29 (4): 264. Miller, Cohen, & Weirsema (1996).

“Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look” (PDF). National Institute of Justice. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 May 2016. Retrieved 1 September 2016. Tjaden & Thoennes (2006).

“Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Rape Victimization: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey”. National Institute of Justice. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Archived from the original on 16 September 2016. Retrieved 1 September 2016. Byrne, Christina A.; Resnick, Heidi S.; Kilpatrick, Dean G.; Best, Connie L.; Saunders, Benjamin E. (1999). “The socioeconomic impact of interpersonal violence on women”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 67 (3): 362–366. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.67.3.362. PMID10369056. Chrisler, Joan C.; Ferguson, Sheila (1 November 2006). “Violence against Women as a Public Health Issue”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1087 (1): 235–249.

Bibcode:2006NYASA1087..235C. doi:10.1196/annals.1385.009. ISSN1749-6632. PMID17189508. S2CID41330781. Loya, Rebecca M. (1 October 2015). “Rape as an Economic Crime The Impact of Sexual Violence on Survivors’ Employment and Economic Well-Being”. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 30 (16): 2793–2813. doi:10.1177/0886260514554291. ISSN0886-2605. PMID25381269. S2CID25732109. Wang, C., & Wein, L. M. (2018). Analyzing Approaches to the Backlog of Untested Sexual Assault Kits in the U.S.A. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 63(4), 1110-1121.doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13739 Varcarolis, Elizabeth (2013). Essentials of psychiatric mental health nursing. St. Louis: Elsevier. pp. 439–442. Posmontier, B; Dovydaitis, T; Lipman, K (2010).

“Sexual violence: psychiatric healing with eye movement reprocessing and desensitization”. Health Care for Women International. 31 (8): 755–68. doi:10.1080/07399331003725523. PMC3125707. PMID20623397. Schiff, M; Nacasch, N; Levit, S; Katz, N; Foa, EB (2015). “Prolonged exposure for treating PTSD among female methadone patients who were survivors of sexual abuse in Israel”. Social Work & Health Care. 54 (8): 687–707. doi:10.1080/00981389.2015.1058311. PMID26399489. S2CID9288531. Relyea, M.; Ullman, S. E. (2013).

“Unsupported or Turned Against”. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 39 (1): 37–52. doi:10.1177/0361684313512610. PMC4349407. PMID25750475. Fallik, S., & Wells, W. (2014). Testing Previously Unsubmitted Sexual Assault Kits. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(6), 598-619. doi:10.1177/0887403414528001 Smothers, Melissa Kraemer; Smothers, D. Brian (2011). “A Sexual Assault Primary Prevention Model with Diverse Urban Youth”. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 20 (6): 708–27. doi:10.1080/10538712.2011.622355. PMID22126112. S2CID20570694. Foubert, John D. (2000). “The Longitudinal Effects of a Rape-prevention Program on Fraternity Men’s Attitudes, Behavioral Intent, and Behavior”. Journal of American College Health. 48 (4): 158–63. doi:10.1080/07448480009595691. PMID10650733. S2CID38521575. Vladutiu, C. J.; Martin, S. L.; Macy, R. J. (2010). “College- or University-Based Sexual Assault Prevention Programs: A Review of Program Outcomes, Characteristics, and Recommendations”. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 12 (2): 67–86. doi:10.1177/1524838010390708. PMID21196436. S2CID32144826. Yeater, E; O’Donohue, W (1999). “Sexual assault prevention programs Current issues, future directions, and the potential efficacy of interventions with women”. Clinical Psychology Review. 19 (7): 739–71. CiteSeerX10.1.1.404.3130. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00075-0. PMID10520434. Garrity, Stacy E. (2011). “Sexual assault prevention programs for college-aged men: A critical evaluation”. Journal of Forensic Nursing. 7 (1): 40–8. doi:10.1111/j.1939-3938.2010.01094.x. PMID21348933. S2CID39471249. Thomas, KA; Sorenson, SB; Joshi, M (2016). “”Consent is good, joyous, sexy”: A banner campaign to market consent to college students”. Journal of American College Health. 64 (8): 639–650. doi:10.1080/07448481.2016.1217869. PMID27471816. S2CID3816453. Foubert, John (2011). The Men’s and Women’s Programs: Ending Rape Through Peer Education. New York: Routledge. ISBN978-0-415-88105-0.[page needed] Foubert, John D.; Newberry, Johnathan T; Tatum, Jerry (2008). “Behavior Differences Seven Months Later: Effects of a Rape Prevention Program”. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice. 44 (4): 728–749. doi:10.2202/1949-6605.1866. S2CID219289954. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J.; Foubert, J. D.; Brasfield, H. M.; Hill, B.; Shelley-Tremblay, S. (2011). “The Men’s Program: Does It Impact College Men’s Self-Reported Bystander Efficacy and Willingness to Intervene?”. Violence Against Women. 17 (6): 743–59. doi:10.1177/1077801211409728. PMID21571743. S2CID40387531. Foubert, J. D.; Godin, E. E.; Tatum, J. L. (2009). “In Their Own Words: Sophomore College Men Describe Attitude and Behavior Changes Resulting from a Rape Prevention Program 2 Years After Their Participation”. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 25 (12): 2237–57. doi:10.1177/0886260509354881. PMID20040715. S2CID7505859. Foubert, John D.; Cremedy, Brandynne J. (2007). “Reactions of Men of Color to a Commonly Used Rape Prevention Program: Attitude and Predicted Behavior Changes”. Sex Roles. 57 (1–2): 137–44. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9216-2. S2CID55694984. Banyard, Moynihan & Plante, 2007[full citation needed] Banyard, Plante & Moynihan, 2004[full citation needed] Banyard, Ward, Cohn, Plante, Moorhead, & Walsh, 2007[full citation needed] Cissner, 2009[full citation needed] Coker, Cook-Craig, Williams, Fisher, Clear, Garcia & Hegge, 2011[full citation needed]

“Edmonton Sexual Assault Awareness Campaign: ‘Don’t Be That Guy’ So Effective City Relaunches With New Posters (PHOTOS)”. Huffingtonpost.ca. December 2012. Archived from the original on 2 September 2016. Retrieved 10 September 2016. Abbott, Katy (20 September 2014).

“White House announces college-campus sexual assault awareness campaign”. Reuters. Archived from the original on 21 September 2014. Retrieved 19 September 2014. Campbell, R., Pierce, S. J., Sharma, D. B., Feeney, H., & Fehler-Cabral, G. (2016). Developing Empirically Informed Policies for Sexual Assault Kit DNA Testing: Is It Too Late to Test Kits Beyond the Statute of Limitations? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(1), 3-27. doi:10.1177/0887403416638507

The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2001–2002)Archived 21 November 2013 at the Wayback Machine – Table 02.08 Total recorded rapes, Unodc.org “Statistics | RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network”. rainn.org. Archived from the original on 20 November 2015. Retrieved 18 November 2015. Dichter ME, Wagner C, True G. Women veterans’ experiences of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual assault in the context of military service: implications for supporting women’s health and well-being. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2016 Sep 20. [Epub ahead of print]

“Who are the Victims? – RAINN – Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network”. Rainn.org. Archived from the original on 6 June 2016. Retrieved 10 September 2016.

“Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization — National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011”. http://www.cdc.gov. Retrieved 28 February 2021. [1] Fedina, Lisa; Holmes, Jennifer Lynne; Backes, Bethany L. (2016). “Campus Sexual Assault: A Systematic Review of Prevalence Research From 2000 to 2015”. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 19 (1): 76–93.

doi:10.1177/1524838016631129. PMID26906086. S2CID1224327. “College Student Health Survey Report : 2007–2011” (PDF). Bhs.umn.edu. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 October 2016. Retrieved 10 September 2016.

“The Offenders – RAINN – Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network”. Rainn.org. Archived from the original on 28 May 2016. Retrieved 10 September 2016. “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on 9 December 2012. Retrieved 9 December 2012. Paquette, Danielle.

“The disturbing truth about college football and rape”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 25 August 2016. Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2006[full citation needed] Koss, Mary P.; Gidycz, Christine A.; Wisniewski, Nadine (1987). “The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 55 (2): 162–70. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.55.2.162. PMID3494755.

“Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance: National College Health Risk Behavior Survey — United States, 1995”. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 14 November 1997. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017. Douglas, Kathy A.; Collins, Janet L.; Warren, Charles; Kann, Laura; Gold, Robert; Clayton, Sonia; Ross, James G.; Kolbe, Lloyd J. (1997). “Results from the 1995 National College Health Risk Behavior Survey”. Journal of American College Health. 46 (2): 55–66. doi:10.1080/07448489709595589. PMID9276349. Finkelhor, David (June 2015). “Prevalence of Childhood Exposure to Violence, Crime, and Abuse: Results From the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence”. JAMA Pediatrics. 169 (8): 746–54. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0676. PMID26121291. Mohler-Kuo, M; Dowdall, GW; Koss, MP; Wechsler, H (2004). “Correlates of rape while intoxicated in a national sample of college women”. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 65 (1): 37–45. doi:10.15288/jsa.2004.65.37. PMID15000502. Kilpatrick, Dean; Resnick, Heidi; Ruggiero, Kenneth; Conoscenti, Lauren M.; McCauley, Jenna (July 2007).

Drug Facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study. U.S. Department of Justice. Archived from the original on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 22 November 2013.[page needed] Pugh, Brandie; Ningard, Holly; Ven, Thomas Vander; Butler, Leah (2016). “Victim Ambiguity: Bystander Intervention and Sexual Assault in the College Drinking Scene”. Deviant Behavior. 37 (4): 401–418. doi:10.1080/01639625.2015.1026777. S2CID147081204. Pugh, Brandie; Becker, Patricia (2 August 2018).

“Exploring Definitions and Prevalence of Verbal Sexual Coercion and Its Relationship to Consent to Unwanted Sex: Implications for Affirmative Consent Standards on College Campuses”. Behavioral Sciences. 8 (8): 69. doi:10.3390/bs8080069. ISSN2076-328X. PMC6115968. PMID30072605. Bonnar-Kidd, Kelly K. (2010).

“Sexual Offender Laws and Prevention of Sexual Violence or Recidivism”. American Journal of Public Health. 100 (3): 412–9. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.153254. PMC2820068. PMID20075329. See Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 61 HA (3) s 61H(1) Crimes Act 1990 Crimes Act 1958 (VIC) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA) Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) Criminal Code Act 1899 (QLD) Criminal Code 1924 (TAS) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Personal Safety Survey. Canberra: ABS Heath, M. (2005). The law and sexual offences against adults in Australia (Issues No. 4). Melbourne: Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault Lievore, D. (2005). Prosecutorial decisions in adult sexual assault cases. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 291, January. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology

“Sexual assault laws in Australia”. 27 February 2011. Archived from the original on 6 March 2017. Retrieved 5 March 2017. Ryan v R [1967] HCA 2; 121 CLR 205 He Kaw Teh v R (1985) 157 CLR 523 R v Bilal Skaf [2005] NSWCCA 297,16 September 2005 R v Mohommed Skaf [2005] NSWCCA 298, 16 September 2005 Crimes Amendment (Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company) Act 2001 No 62 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Victim Impact Statements) Act 2004 No 3

“Criminal Code”. Laws.justice.gc.ca. Archived from the original on 9 November 2011. Retrieved 9 December 2011. Mike Blanchfield (27 May 2011).

“Woman can’t consent to sex while unconscious, Supreme Court rules”. The Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 12 June 2013. Retrieved 27 May 2011. Barry, Garrett; Boone, Marilyn (24 February 2017).

“Protest follows not guilty verdict in RNC officer Doug Snelgrove sexual assault trial”. CBC News. CBC News. Archived from the original on 4 March 2017. Retrieved 4 March 2017. Demonstration held on court steps following verdict Mullaley, Rosie (23 February 2017).

“Case of police officer accused of sexual assault in jury’s hands”. The Telegram. Archived from the original on 23 February 2017. Retrieved 4 March 2017.

“Here’s why the issue of consent is not so clear in sexual assault cases”. The Canadian Press. Global News. 3 March 2017. Archived from the original on 3 March 2017. Retrieved 4 March 2017.

“‘Consent is a very complex issue’: Lawyer looks at Snelgrove sexual assault trial”. CBC News. Canada: Yahoo!. 25 February 2017. Archived from the original on 4 March 2017. Retrieved 4 March 2017. “Kunarac, Vukovic and Kovac – Judgement – Part IV”. Icty.org. Archived from the original on 12 March 2016. Retrieved 10 September 2016. Bottke, Wilfried (1999). “Sexuality and Crime: The Victims of Sexual Offenses”. Buffalo Criminal Law Review. 3 (1): 293–315. doi:10.1525/nclr.1999.3.1.293. JSTOR10.1525/nclr.1999.3.1.293. “GERMAN CRIMINAL CODE”. Gesetze-im-internet.de. Archived from the original on 15 November 2012. Retrieved 10 September 2016. National SATU Guidelines Development Group. Rape/Sexual Assault: National Guidelines on Referral and Forensic Clinical Examination in Ireland. 3rd Edition; 2014. Available at http://www.hse.ie/satu

“Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007, as amended” (PDF). Department of Justice. Retrieved 4 February 2021.

“Sexual Offences Act 2003”. Legislation.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 15 October 2016. Retrieved 10 September 2016.

“The Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008”. Legislation.gov.uk. 26 May 2011. Archived from the original on 14 November 2011. Retrieved 1 August 2011.

“Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009”. Legislation.gov.uk. 26 May 2011. Archived from the original on 29 July 2011. Retrieved 1 August 2011. “Sexual Assault”. United States Department of Justice. 23 July 2014. Archived from the original on 10 October 2016. Retrieved 14 September 2017.

“State Law Report Generator”. RAINN. Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Archived from the original on 14 September 2017. Retrieved 14 September 2017. Scheb, John M.; Scheb II, John M. (2008).

Criminal Law (5 ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 20. ISBN978-0495504801. Archived from the original on 6 November 2017. Larson, Aaron (13 September 2016).

“Sexual Assault and Rape Charges”. ExpertLaw. Archived from the original on 14 September 2017. Retrieved 14 September 2017.

“PENAL CODE CHAPTER 22. ASSAULTIVE OFFENSES”. Statutes.legis.state.tx.us. Archived from the original on 10 August 2011. Retrieved 1 August 2011.

%d bloggers like this: