← Directory

StopNCII.org

Active

Image-based abuse
Report an issue
Safety score70% — Good

Audience

survivors

Countries

worldwide

Regions

global

Languages

Multiple languages

About this tool

Creators

Funding sources

Tool type

GBV issues

Last review

Not yet reviewed

Endorsement

Yes

StopNCII.org screenshot 1

StopNCII.org uses on-device hashing technology to prevent the non-consensual sharing of intimate images online. People concerned about intimate image abuse can create unique identifiers of their images, (also known as ‘hashes’ or digital fingerprints) from their own device. Only hashes are then shared with StopNCII.org, not the original image (or video), ensuring that the intimate content never leaves the user’s device. Hashes are then shared with participating partners and if an image is uploaded to one of these sites, matches the corresponding hash, and meets partner policy requirements, the image will be sent for moderation. If the image meets the criteria of an intimate image, it will be removed and blocked from being shared further across partner platforms.

✓ Endorsed

it's a safe and intuitive tool that can help people affected by the image-based abuse remove the harmful content from the partnering platforms. The creators also offer a range of partnership pathways designed to suit different types of organisations, incl. integration of the tool.

✓ Best fit for

adults whose intimate images have been posted without their consent on partner platforms like Bumble, Meta, Pornhub, OnlyFans etc.

✕ Not ideal for

Not yet recorded.

Safety criteria— by category, in rubric order

Privacy & data · 20% of score

81% · 8/8 rated
  • Core content accessible without creating an account— Yes
  • No PII collected by default (name, email, IP, location)— Yes
  • Privacy policy in plain language with a short summary— Yes
  • User data not sold or shared with third parties— Partially
  • Option to use pseudonym or alternative name— Yes
  • No auto-save of form content (shared device risk)— Yes
  • Opt-in (not opt-out) consent — granular and revocable— Yes
  • End-to-end encryption used where applicable— No

Safety by design · 20% of score

50% · 2/6 rated
  • Quick-exit button present (redirects discreetly to neutral page)— No
  • Content warnings before sensitive or triggering content— N/A
  • Disguised notifications or discreet app icon option— N/A
  • No "people you may know" feature that could expose users to abusers— N/A
  • Two-factor authentication available— Yes
  • Safe alternative contact options supported (distinct from personal accounts)Not assessed— Not assessed

Agency, consent & participatory design · 15% of score

80% · 5/7 rated
  • User controls what information is public vs. private— Yes
  • Multiple content formats available (video, text, audio)— N/A
  • Self-paced use possible — no forced sequential flows— N/A
  • User can opt out of tracking and cookies— Yes
  • Survivors co-designed AND co-iterated — not consulted once only— No
  • Tool does not force a single pathway (e.g. 'call police' only)— Yes
  • Feedback mechanism exists for users to flag issues or suggest content— Yes

Accessibility, equity & inclusion · 15% of score

72% · 9/9 rated
  • Available in more than one language— Yes
  • Free to use — no paywall for core content— Yes
  • Mobile-friendly / responsive design— Yes
  • WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility compliance documented— No
  • Gender-neutral, non-stigmatising language throughout— Yes
  • Covers intersectional forms of GBV — not single-issue only— Yes
  • Works on low bandwidth / poor connectivity— No
  • Not geographically restricted in access— Yes
  • Mitigates risks for users on shared or monitored devices— Partially

Transparency & accountability · 10% of score

50% · 5/6 rated
  • Creator / organisation clearly identified on the tool— Yes
  • Last update date visible (signals active maintenance)— Partially
  • Scope and limitations clearly stated — including what the tool cannot do— Yes
  • Funding sources disclosed— No
  • Methodology publicly documented— No
  • Content aligned with global GBV/HP standards and reviewedNot assessed— Not assessed

Tone & trauma-informed UX · 10% of score

100% · 5/5 rated
  • No graphic or violent imagery — no sensationalised depictions of violence— Yes
  • Uses "survivor" rather than "victim" language throughout— Yes
  • Warm, non-judgmental, validating tone throughout the interface— Yes
  • Visuals are empowering and gender-diverse — not stereotyping— Yes
  • Does not minimise or hierarchise different forms of abuse— Yes

AI & algorithmic ethics · 5% of score

N/A · 0/5 rated
  • Clearly states if and how AI is used in the tool— N/A
  • Clearly states what AI is usedNot assessed— Not assessed
  • Provides details of how user's inputs are processed/ saved/ shared with third parties.Not assessed— Not assessed
  • Chatbots / automated tools clearly identify themselves as non-human— N/A
  • Human escalation pathway available when AI cannot safely respond— N/A

Sustainability & feminist tech ethos · 5% of score

50% · 2/3 rated
  • Led or co-led by women, gender-diverse people, or Global Majority organisations— Yes
  • Openly licensed — can be used, remixed or adapted by others— No
  • Clearly states compliance with feminist values or trauma-informed design or survivor-centred approachNot assessed— Not assessed

See the Transparency page for how the weighted score and bands are calculated.