.png)
GEYC was represented by Adelina Dragomir, Head of Future Skills, who participated in discussions on cybersecurity, democratic resilience, digital citizenship education and the protection of young people online. In addition to contributing to exchanges on safeguarding and the responsibilities of youth workers, Adelina delivered a lightning talk entitled “Cybercrime has a ‘before’. Youth workers are already there.” The intervention brought the perspective of youth work and non-formal education into international discussions on cybercrime, highlighting the importance of recognising risks and providing appropriate support before further harm occurs.
Twenty-five years of the Budapest Convention: strengthening international cooperation
The conference opened with reflections on the achievements and future of the Budapest Convention, adopted in 2001 as the first international treaty specifically addressing cybercrime and electronic evidence. Over the past 25 years, the Convention has supported the development of national legislation, investigative procedures and international cooperation mechanisms, including the 24/7 Network of contact points. The anniversary discussions examined how these frameworks can remain effective as digital technologies evolve and criminal investigations increasingly involve electronic evidence held across multiple jurisdictions.
Kenneth Harris, INTERPOL Special Negotiator, emphasised the importance of creativity and flexibility in international legal negotiations. The intervention recalled that many mechanisms now considered essential to cybercrime investigations, including expedited preservation of electronic evidence and international cooperation networks, were relatively unfamiliar when the Budapest Convention was developed. The challenge was to establish meaningful international obligations while allowing countries with different legal traditions to implement them effectively. Particular attention was also given to the importance of privacy and data protection safeguards, especially in the context of the Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention, which strengthens international cooperation in obtaining electronic evidence.
Nathan Whiteman, Director of the Cyber & Tech Multilateral Engagement Section at Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, highlighted the importance of trust and professional relationships in international negotiations. Beyond formal procedures and legal drafting, dialogue between negotiators helps identify common objectives and overcome disagreements arising from different national priorities. The discussion illustrated how informal exchanges, sustained communication and mutual understanding can contribute to international agreements capable of functioning across diverse legal systems.
The relationship between existing and emerging international frameworks was examined by Marcos Sebastián Dotta Salgueiro, representative of Uruguay's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The intervention addressed Uruguay's efforts to align its national legislation with international cybercrime standards and the practical implications for judges, prosecutors and other legal professionals. The discussion also considered the relationship between the Budapest Convention and the newer United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, known as the Hanoi Convention, emphasising an approach based on legal coherence and complementarity. The exchange reinforced the importance of maintaining effective cooperation mechanisms while preserving fundamental rights and avoiding unnecessary fragmentation between international legal frameworks.
Cyber interference, artificial intelligence and democratic resilience
One of the conference's substantive workshops, “Disinformation and foreign manipulation: responding to cyber interference”, examined how coordinated information operations can undermine democratic institutions and electoral processes. Moderated by Pablo Maristany de las Casas, Analyst at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, the session brought together representatives of security institutions, criminal justice authorities, civil society and the private sector. A central theme was that foreign interference extends beyond the dissemination of false information, increasingly involving coordinated account networks, impersonation, artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure designed to amplify manipulative narratives.
Yurii Shaposhnikov, Head of International Cooperation in the Cyber Department of the Security Service of Ukraine, presented Ukraine's experience identifying and attributing coordinated information operations. The intervention explained that investigators must look beyond individual misleading posts and examine the networks responsible for producing, distributing and amplifying content. Technical infrastructure, recurring narratives and simultaneous activity across multiple platforms can help identify coordinated campaigns. The discussion also addressed how information manipulation may accompany periods of crisis, seeking to undermine public confidence in institutions and influence perceptions of unfolding events.
Kristian Bartholin, Head of Division for Countering Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference and Hybrid Threats at the Council of Europe, examined how democratic societies can respond to interference without compromising fundamental freedoms. Manipulation campaigns frequently exploit existing social tensions and political grievances, making it difficult to distinguish coordinated interference from legitimate public debate. The intervention stressed that democratic resilience depends not only on criminal justice responses but also on independent journalism, trustworthy institutions, civil society and citizens' ability to critically assess information. The discussion also covered ongoing Council of Europe work concerning a possible international legal instrument addressing foreign information manipulation and interference.
The legal challenges of investigating interference were addressed by Fernanda Teixeira Domingos, Federal Prosecutor and Coordinator of the Advisory Group on Cybercrime at the Criminal Chamber of the Federal Prosecution Service of Brazil. The intervention explained how existing cybercrime legislation can apply to certain forms of election interference, particularly when activities involve unauthorised access to systems, data manipulation or other criminal offences. At the same time, not every form of disinformation constitutes a crime. Investigative measures involving electronic evidence must therefore respect requirements concerning legality, necessity, proportionality and privacy, while international cooperation remains essential when relevant information is held across different jurisdictions.
Isabel Linzer, Elections and Democracy Policy Analyst at the Center for Democracy & Technology, examined how artificial intelligence is transforming political information environments through synthetic content, impersonation and increasingly sophisticated manipulation techniques. Particular attention was given to political influencers, whose relationships with online audiences can be exploited in coordinated influence operations, especially when financial or political connections remain undisclosed. The intervention also stressed that technological solutions and platform regulation cannot address these challenges independently. Civil society organisations have an important role in identifying emerging risks, representing affected communities and contributing to policy development, while ensuring that responses to interference do not undermine freedom of expression and other fundamental rights.
Cătălin Cosoi, Chief Security Strategist at Bitdefender, contributed a Romanian cybersecurity perspective, discussing the rapid amplification of political content on social media during Romania's 2024 presidential election and the challenges of identifying coordinated influence networks. The intervention also addressed the growing use of AI-generated impersonation in online fraud and the difficulties of obtaining timely removal of misleading content from digital platforms. These examples reinforced the need for faster reporting mechanisms, greater platform accountability and stronger cooperation between technology companies, cybersecurity specialists and law enforcement authorities.
Together, these contributions demonstrated that cyber interference requires responses extending beyond technical investigation or content moderation. Protecting democratic processes depends on international cooperation, appropriate legal safeguards, platform transparency and the capacity of institutions and communities to recognise manipulation without restricting legitimate political expression.
Responsible artificial intelligence, online safety and platform accountability
Another important workshop, held on 15 October, examined the responsibilities of technology developers, digital platforms, regulators and public authorities in addressing the harmful applications of AI-generated media. The session, moderated by Naomi Trewinnard, Legal Advisor to the Lanzarote Committee Secretariat, brought together researchers, legal experts, regulators, technology companies and civil society representatives to explore the challenges associated with emerging image-generation technologies and their potential misuse. Discussions focused on responsible technology development, appropriate safeguards, rapid reporting and removal procedures, cross-border cooperation and the availability of effective support for individuals affected by harmful online practices.
Leonie Oehmig, Research and Digital Policy Analyst at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, presented findings from research supported by the United Kingdom's AI Security Institute examining the operation of AI-enabled image manipulation services. The research identified gaps in access controls, user safeguards and oversight across a range of online services, illustrating the challenges created when technological capabilities develop more rapidly than the mechanisms designed to govern them. The presentation also examined how mainstream digital platforms, advertising systems and payment mechanisms can contribute to the visibility and commercial development of digital services. These findings highlighted the importance of accountability across the entire technological ecosystem, with responsibilities extending beyond individual websites to include developers, service providers and other organisations involved in digital infrastructure.
Soyoung Park, Deputy Director for Online Safety Policy at the Korea Communications Standards Commission, presented South Korea's experience in strengthening online protection mechanisms and responding to the misuse of emerging digital technologies. The contribution described measures involving stronger regulation, monitoring of digital services and cooperation with platforms to accelerate the removal of harmful material. Particular attention was given to the importance of accessible support services, including legal guidance and counselling, recognising that an effective response requires more than technical intervention. The Korean experience illustrated the value of coordinated arrangements between public authorities, technology companies and specialist organisations.
Maria Bjarnadottir, Expert in Technology Law, argued that the misuse of emerging digital technologies must be understood in relation to broader social behaviours rather than treated exclusively as a technological challenge. Although artificial intelligence changes how harmful material can be produced and distributed, the underlying issues often involve established patterns of intimidation, discrimination and misuse of power. Drawing on Iceland's experience, the contribution highlighted the importance of combining legislation with sustained prevention initiatives involving schools, police officers, prosecutors, parents and community organisations. Education and behavioural change were presented as essential complements to legal accountability, particularly when addressing behaviours that may evolve alongside technological developments.
Michael Stawasz, Deputy Chief for Computer Crime at the United States Department of Justice's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, presented developments in the American legal response to harmful digital content, including mechanisms that strengthen reporting procedures and require covered platforms to respond promptly to valid removal requests. The contribution also described an international investigation involving cooperation between authorities in the United States and Europe that resulted in action against online services facilitating unlawful activities. The example demonstrated how established international frameworks, including the Budapest Convention, can support cooperation between jurisdictions and how legal and technical measures can be combined to address harmful digital services and their supporting infrastructure.
The workshop also included contributions from Thiago Tavares, President of SaferNet Brazil, and Guillermo Galarza Abizaid, Global Law Enforcement Outreach Lead for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at TikTok, who contributed to discussions on platform responsibilities, reporting procedures and international cooperation. The exchanges highlighted that harmful digital services often rely on interconnected technological and commercial infrastructure, making coordinated action essential. Participants emphasised that effective responses must combine legal measures, responsible technology governance, prevention, clear accountability mechanisms and accessible support for individuals experiencing online harm.
GEYC raises the question of safeguarding for youth workers
During the workshop, Adelina Dragomir, Head of Future Skills at GEYC, contributed to the discussion by highlighting the preparedness of youth workers and non-formal educators to respond when young people experience online harm involving emerging digital technologies. Youth workers are frequently among the first trusted adults approached by young people facing online threats, manipulation or harassment, yet many do not have specialised training or clear procedures for addressing such situations. The intervention therefore raised a practical question: What should the minimum safeguarding and response protocol for non-formal educators include?
The exchange connected the workshop's discussions on regulation, criminal justice and individual support with the realities of youth work. When a young person discloses an experience of online harm, the initial response may influence whether further difficulties can be prevented and whether appropriate assistance is accessed. For GEYC, this highlights the importance of strengthening youth workers' capacity to recognise warning signs, respond without blame and facilitate referrals, while maintaining clear professional boundaries and ensuring that specialist responsibilities remain with the appropriate institutions.
Digital citizenship education: connecting European policy with practical prevention
Beyond the formal workshops, the conference provided opportunities to discuss digital citizenship education and its role in democratic resilience and online safety. These exchanges were particularly relevant to the Council of Europe's work towards a Road Map for Strengthening Digital Citizenship Education 2027-2031, which aims to support more coordinated approaches involving public policy, awareness-raising, education and training. The discussions reinforced the importance of moving beyond isolated educational activities towards sustainable cooperation between educational institutions, public authorities and civil society organisations.
GEYC's experience through the PRISMA European Network provided a practical perspective on these objectives. The European Digital Citizenship Education Week 2026, held between 14 and 20 September, brought together 280 registered activities across 20 countries, engaging more than 7,000 direct participants. The campaign connected organisations and practitioners working on digital rights, online safety, media literacy, artificial intelligence and democratic participation. The conference also provided opportunities to revisit GEYC's earlier cooperation with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue through the Young Digital Leaders initiative, which supported digital citizenship and media literacy education in Romania. These experiences demonstrate the importance of connecting international policy discussions with practical educational initiatives delivered in schools, youth organisations and local communities.
Adelina Dragomir delivers the lightning talk “Cybercrime has a ‘before’. Youth workers are already there.”
On 16 October, Adelina Dragomir, Head of Future Skills at GEYC, delivered a lightning talk entitled “Cybercrime has a ‘before’. Youth workers are already there.” The intervention brought a prevention-oriented perspective to a conference focused largely on cybercrime legislation, investigations and international cooperation, highlighting the importance of recognising online harm before situations escalate and connecting young people with appropriate support. Rather than beginning with the legal classification of an offence, the talk focused on the moments when young people first encounter manipulation, pressure, deception or harmful online behaviour and may turn to someone they already trust.
The intervention opened with the question “Can I show you something?”, illustrating a situation in which a young person approaches a trusted adult after receiving a troubling message online. Feeling frightened and uncertain about what to do, their immediate concern is not whether a criminal offence has occurred, but rather “Who can help me now?” This scenario illustrated the gap between the first signs of online harm and the moment when a situation reaches a platform, helpline or law enforcement authority. By that stage, the young person may already have responded to messages, deleted relevant information or decided to remain silent. An offence may already have occurred, but opportunities can still exist to prevent further escalation and support a safer response.
Adelina described this critical period as the prevention window. Youth workers are often already present within it because they work in the same communities as young people, establish relationships before problems arise and may be among the first trusted adults approached when something goes wrong. However, as the intervention emphasised, being present does not automatically mean being prepared. Youth workers need appropriate knowledge, safeguarding procedures and clear connections to specialised services if they are to respond effectively when young people disclose concerns involving online manipulation, harassment or other forms of digital harm.
Drawing on GEYC's work through the PRISMA European Network and European Digital Citizenship Education Week, the talk emphasised that digital citizenship education must move beyond theoretical awareness towards practical prevention. As Adelina stated, “Awareness is not prevention if people do not know what to do when the risk becomes real.” Knowing what phishing is matters, but knowing how to respond after clicking a suspicious link matters more. Understanding AI-generated impersonation is relevant, but when someone is experiencing digital manipulation, they need more than a definition. They need to recognise escalation, avoid actions that could increase harm, preserve relevant information and know where to seek specialist help. Digital citizenship education should therefore strengthen both young people's capacity to respond and the preparedness of trusted adults around them.
The presentation introduced a visual model illustrating how everyday online situations may progress from initial warning signs, such as manipulation, deception, pressure or suspicious contact, towards more serious forms of harm involving fraud, impersonation, account compromise or other forms of technology-facilitated abuse. Within this process, youth workers can contribute by recognising concerns, supporting an appropriate initial response, understanding the importance of evidence preservation and facilitating referral to specialist services. Crucially, this does not mean asking youth workers to become investigators or assume responsibilities belonging to law enforcement, legal professionals or specialised safeguarding institutions. Instead, the intervention advocated for recognising them as informed prevention and referral partners, whose trusted relationships with young people can help connect existing support systems earlier.
A central message was that young people should not have to identify an offence before they can find help. The objective is not to transfer responsibility away from criminal justice authorities or specialist services, but to ensure that these systems can be reached through trusted adults who may encounter the first signs of harm. As the talk concluded, “If we want cybercrime prevention to begin earlier, we have to start where young people often start: with someone they already trust. Youth workers are already there. Let’s make that presence count.” Through this intervention, GEYC advocated for stronger recognition of youth work, safeguarding and non-formal education within the wider cybercrime prevention ecosystem.
The final message captured this perspective: “Because cybercrime has a ‘before’. And that is where digital citizenship education becomes prevention.”
Connecting international cooperation with prevention at community level
The Octopus Conference 2026 demonstrated that cybercrime requires responses extending across criminal justice, cybersecurity, technology governance, public policy and education. The discussions on the Budapest Convention reinforced the importance of adaptable international legal frameworks and effective cooperation in obtaining electronic evidence, while the workshops on foreign interference and responsible artificial intelligence highlighted the challenges of coordinated manipulation, online safety and platform accountability. Across these different subjects, a common conclusion emerged: stronger legal and technical responses must be accompanied by prevention, informed communities and accessible support systems that can respond before harm escalates.
For GEYC, the conference reinforced the importance of connecting international expertise with practical educational approaches that prepare young people and trusted adults to navigate digital risks. Through its work in digital citizenship education, democratic participation and the PRISMA European Network, GEYC will continue to promote cooperation between youth organisations, educators and institutions responsible for online safety and cybercrime prevention. Digital citizenship education is not a substitute for criminal justice or specialised support, but it can contribute to earlier recognition of harm, safer responses and stronger connections between young people and the services they need.