Dark web, technology and animal abuse: a digital forensics analyst’s view

Digital forensics and cybercrime analyst Tanvir Hassan Zoha shared his views in a Facebook post on sexual abuse of animals and the role technology plays in such crimes. Below is a summary of his main points in our own words. The opinions are his own.

Zoha argues that such deviant behaviour was once confined to an individual’s private world, but online communities and some criminal networks on the dark web now help spread it, encourage it, and sometimes exploit it commercially.

A recent arrest in Florida, USA, on charges of filming, distributing or possessing images or videos of sexual activity with an animal has revived the debate. According to Channel i Online, the charges concern such images and videos; the booking records do not specifically support social media claims of a direct act involving an animal.

Attraction is not the same as the offence

Zoha distinguishes zoophilia (sexual attraction to animals) from bestiality (sexual acts with animals). In his explanation, zoophilia is not classified as a separate mental illness on its own; it may be considered a paraphilic disorder when specific clinical criteria are met.

Where technology adds risk

He stresses there is no scientific evidence that the internet itself creates such attraction, but online spaces can reinforce existing harmful tendencies. He highlights four areas:

• Online communities: some groups may present such abuse as normal, and mutual validation can raise the risk of offending.
• The dark web: some criminal networks may trade abusive content, though reliable statistics are limited and not all dark web use is criminal.
• Desensitisation: repeated exposure may reduce sensitivity to violence in some people, but viewing such content does not scientifically imply someone will offend.
• AI and deepfakes: generative AI can produce synthetic abusive images or videos, which, while not evidence of real events, can be used to encourage abuse, spread confusion or promote criminal content.

What forensic investigators should examine

With legal authorisation, Zoha says, investigators can analyse phones, computers, online communications, image and video metadata, cloud records and digital transactions, looking for evidence of creating, storing, distributing or selling abusive content, while ensuring evidence integrity, chain of custody and forensic verification. He cautions that suspicious content on a device does not by itself prove a real act of abuse; the link between digital evidence and a real event must be established independently.

A predictor of future crime?

Some research links animal abuse with violence against people, he notes, but there is no firm scientific conclusion that someone with zoophilia will commit sexual offences against people. Criminal history, repeated behaviour, violent tendencies and mental health assessment matter most.

What needs to be done

In Bangladesh, Zoha argues, such allegations should not be treated as curiosity or humour. Animal protection, enforcement of applicable laws, psychiatric assessment and digital forensic capacity need to work together. Technology is not the sole cause of crime, he concludes, but its misuse can hide, spread and organise exploitation. Animals cannot consent, so this is a matter of animal safety, ethics and legal accountability, not personal freedom.