[Senate Hearing 105-214]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 105-214
PROLIFERATION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON THE INTERNET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-512 cc WASHINGTON : 1997
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CONRAD BURNS, Montana TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HARRY REID, Nevada
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BYRON DORGAN, North Dakota
LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Subcommittee Staff
Jim Morhard
Kevin Linskey
Paddy Link
Dana Quam
Scott Gudes (Minority)
Emelie East
C O N T E N T S
----------
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Page
Statement of Ernest E. Allen, president and CEO, National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children............................. 1
Statement of Diane Doe, parent advocate.......................... 1
Child Pornography and the Internet: What Every Parent, Teacher,
and Child Should Know.......................................... 2
Prepared statement of Ernest E. Allen............................ 9
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Statement of Louis J. Freeh, Director............................ 19
``Innocent Images''.............................................. 22
FBI capabilities................................................. 23
Safe computing tips.............................................. 25
Prepared statement of Louis J. Freeh............................. 25
Preventing victimization......................................... 26
Crimes against children initiative............................... 26
Sexual exploitation of children.................................. 26
``Innocent Images''.............................................. 27
Child abductions................................................. 28
Child abuse on Government and Indian reservations................ 28
Parental/family custodial kidnaping.............................. 29
Child Support Recovery Act....................................... 29
Violent crimes against youth..................................... 29
FBI response and capabilities.................................... 29
Traveler case demonstration...................................... 31
National Academy investigative computer courses.................. 36
``Innocent Images'' training..................................... 36
Child abduction response plan.................................... 37
Budget and legislative initiatives............................... 38
Victims assistance to law enforcement............................ 38
Victim input..................................................... 39
Increasing safety awareness...................................... 39
FBI tour......................................................... 39
1998 budget request.............................................. 40
Additional committee questions................................... 43
Questions submitted by Senator Judd Gregg........................ 43
Questions submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings................ 44
Crimes against children initiative............................... 44
Industry cooperation with law enforcement........................ 44
FBI role in child pornography on the Internet.................... 44
(iii)
PROLIFERATION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON THE INTERNET
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1997
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State,
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Gregg and Hollings.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
STATEMENTS OF:
ERNEST E. ALLEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING
AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN
DIANE DOE, PARENT ADVOCATE
Senator Gregg. This hearing today involves the issue of
child pornography and solicitation of children for sex over the
Internet, and it is an attempt to address an issue which I
think is growing and which we as a Nation must be more
concerned about.
Currently, there is a large community of individuals,
unfortunately, who share pornographic pictures of children and
actively seek sexual relations with minors using the Internet.
When my children were young, I would tell them never to talk to
strangers, and I think that is something many parents say to
their children: ``Don't talk to strangers.'' Well,
unfortunately, today the stranger is in your house and coming
into your house through the Internet. The question is: How can
we address that?
I am interested in this hearing not only relative to the
efforts that the law enforcement community is making to stop
these illegal activities and illicit activities, but also for
recommendations from the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]
and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
regarding avenues of prevention and protection which all of us
can tell our own children.
At this time there are 6 million children in the United
States who have ready access to the Internet, but by the year
2002 it is expected that there will be approximately 20.2
million children using the Internet. Unless precautionary
measures are taken, the number of children who are exploited by
sexual predators on the Internet will grow.
Time and again, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that any
pictures depicting a child in a sexually explicit way are
illegal. Dissemination of it is also illegal. My interest in
this subject is to facilitate the enforcement of laws that are
already in place, to investigate the need for new laws, and to
protect our children from individuals who are breaking those
laws.
Enforcement of the law is only one way that we can protect
our children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. We, as a
Nation, need to educate ourselves, our children, and our
communities about ways to avoid contacts with sexual predators
or child pornographers who are online. Parents need to become
more involved in their children's use of the Internet. It is an
important source of information and a stimulation that can be
enjoyed by just about anyone. However, it can be a dangerous
place where children are in contact with and can converse with
strangers whose names and identities are hidden and protected.
Parents and teachers need to be aware of both aspects of the
information highway and to proceed with caution.
I have found that there is little material available to
parents and teachers to offer guidance on how to monitor
children's use of the Internet. It is for this reason that I
have drafted a booklet, which we have with us today which is
entitled, ``Child Pornography and the Internet: What Every
Parent, Teacher, and Child Should Know'' which I will place in
the record. The purpose of this booklet is to simply assist
parents in how to deal with children using the Internet. It is
my hope that this outreach will help educate parents and
children and will assist us in saving children from becoming
victims of this vast anonymous activity on the Internet, which
is so predatory.
I welcome any recommendations with regard to prevention
strategies from the FBI and the National Center for Exploited
Children, or any other interested group, and I feel that it is
important that our Nation work together to help stop these
insidious crimes.
[The information follows:]
Child Pornography and the Internet: What Every Parent, Teacher, and
Child Should Know
What is Child Pornography?
Child pornography is the real or virtual depiction of a child
posing in or performing a sexual act. Some of the pictures available on
the Internet are of real children and some are digitally enhanced to
look like children. All of these pictures are illegal.
Child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment to the
Constitution. Time and again, the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged
our nation's right to protect our children from sexual exploitation. In
addition, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not
protect the right to possess child pornography in one's own home.
How Does the Internet Play a Part in the Distribution of Child
Pornography?
By the early 1990's, the cottage trade of child pornography was
almost nonexistent, due to the U.S. Postal Service's commitment to
catching child pornographers who distribute material through the U.S.
mail. Today, the accessibility to the Internet has played a significant
role in resurrecting the child pornography industry. Child pornography
produced as far back as the 1960's is now being re-released. The
Internet also has created a demand for new material. In addition, there
is a substantial amount of written material containing graphic
descriptions of child sexual abuse that is distributed over the
Internet. Pedophiles have essentially created a virtual community where
they can support each other and further validate the distribution of
child pornography.
Currently, the avenue for distribution of sexually exploitative
material is through chat rooms visited primarily by pedophiles and
child pornographers. In these chat rooms, the offenders speak freely
about their desire to trade pictures. Anyone who taps into the chat
room is immediately solicited for pictures of themselves or of other
children, who are depicted in a pornographic manner. In addition,
pedophiles will often share the names of children with whom they
currently have a relationship. In this way, pedophiles will ``pass
around'' their victims.
Many times, children are solicited by child pornographers or
pedophiles who tap into ``kids-only'' chat rooms and pose as children
themselves. Some offenders will overtly solicit sexual favors from
users they know to be children. Others seek to develop relationships
with children in the chat room, encouraging them to meet and, then,
sexually violating them.
Children Who Have Been Exploited by Cyberspace ``Buddies''
Unfortunately, not every child is informed about the dangers of
meeting up with strangers they meet over the Internet. Following are a
few true stories that depict the very real dangers that exist on the
Information Superhighway.
--August 1996--A 35-year-old Long Island, New York, man was charged
with using America Online to lure a 14-year-old boy into an
illicit sexual encounter. The offender met the boy via a chat
room, arranged a liaison, and had sexual contact while the
boy's parents were out.
--April 1996--A 66-year-old Tampa, Florida, man was charged with
attempting lewd conduct with a child and arrested on charges of
cruising the Internet for illicit purposes by soliciting a
teenager for oral sex. The man allegedly transmitted a
pornographic picture over the Internet and was arrested in
Tampa at what he thought was a rendezvous with a 15-year-old
girl.
--March 1996--A 32-year-old former Mississippi disc jockey was
sentenced to six years in prison for using his personal
computer to arrange a sexual liaison with someone he thought
was a 13-year-old boy. The man pleaded guilty to transporting
child pornography by computer and traveling across state lines
for a sexual encounter with a child.
--October 1995--A 29-year-old Keizer, Oregon, man was convicted of
third-degree rape for having sex with a 14-year-old girl he met
on the Internet. The girl encountered the man while using her
father's computer to exchange messages with other teenagers via
computer bulletin boards and the Internet. The man, who is
married and has two children, developed a relationship with the
girl and eventually moved from Internet communications to
lengthy telephone conversations with her.
--August 1995--A 40-year-old Fort Lauderdale, Florida, man was
charged with sexual battery after he persuaded a 15-year-old-
girl he met on-line to run away and meet him in Orlando,
Florida, where he raped her in a hotel room. He then took the
girl to his Fort Lauderdale home where she used his computer to
contact a friend who then helped her to flee.
What is Being Done to Catch These Offenders?
In 1993, the kidnapping of a Maryland boy led police and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to two suspects who allegedly had
used their computers to contact and sexually abuse and solicit several
juveniles along the Atlantic seaboard. Further investigations into
these suspects' activities led the FBI to the discovery of wide usage
of the Internet by child pornographers and pedophiles to distribute
child pornography and to solicit minors for sexual encounters.
This discovery prompted the FBI to launch an investigation, dubbed
``Innocent Images.'' This initiative is an undercover operation
coordinated by the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the
Justice Department's Criminal Division to identify and develop criminal
cases against individuals who use America Online to recruit minors for
sex or who use it to distribute child pornography.
The undercover agents go on-line, posing as children, and tap into
chat rooms that are designed for children only or are known to be
places where child pornographers contact each other to swap pictures.
The agents wait until they are solicited and when they are contacted,
they launch an investigation against those individuals who are actively
distributing child pornography or are actively soliciting minors for
sex.
At this time, Innocent Images has produced over 80 convictions.
Unfortunately, there are potentially thousands of individuals who go
on-line every day with the express purpose of soliciting child
pornography or sex with minors.
The FBI will be increasing its efforts to combat Internet child
pornography as part of its new Office for Crimes Against Children. This
office will work to prevent a variety of crimes against our nation's
children; one of its primary focuses will be to prevent child
pornography over the Internet.
What Can Parents, Teachers, and Children Do to Avoid the Dangers of
Cyberspace?
Kids:
Be aware that there are people on-line who are looking to harm you.
Notify your parents or teacher and the police if you receive any kind
of solicitation that is sexual or threatening in nature or that simply
makes you feel uncomfortable. Do not respond to this kind of message.
Never give out your name, address, phone number, the name of your
school, or other personal information to anyone on-line without your
parent's permission.
Never agree to meet anyone who has contacted you on-line without
your parent's permission. Thousands of children are abducted each year
by strangers whom the children mistakenly trusted.
You have a responsibility to yourself and your community to report
any on-line contact that may be harmful to you or another child.
Parents:
You should talk to your children about the information contained in
this pamphlet. Both parents and kids should be educated about the types
of predators to avoid. Be sure that your children are aware that not
all ``friends'' whom they meet on the Internet will be well-meaning.
Consider using a pseudonym for your child on the Internet. Contact
your service provider about how to unlist your child's name from its E-
mail list.
Should your child request to meet in person a friend whom he or she
has met on-line, make sure that the meeting is in a public place and
you accompany your child to the meeting.
Household computers should be kept in a common area, such as a
family room or the kitchen. It is easier to be involved in your child's
exploration of the Internet and see what kinds of people he or she is
meeting when the computer is not in the privacy of a child's bedroom.
Parents should learn more about computers and how to access the
chat rooms and Websites that your children visit often. Most parents
will never know as much about computers as their kids do; however,
anyone can learn the basics. If you need help logging on, or finding
what you're looking for, ask your kids to help you. This is a good way
to let them know that you care about their interests and what they do
when they go on-line.
Encourage your children to tell you about anything that they
receive on-line that makes them feel uncomfortable. Contact the local
authorities or your regional FBI office if you find that your child has
received inappropriate sexual or threatening material via E-mail or on-
line chat rooms. Do not allow your child to respond to this type of
contact.
Remember that, even in cyberspace, the most vulnerable children are
those with low self-esteem. Encourage your children to find friends and
interests outside of the Internet.
If your child spends an inordinate amount of time on the Internet,
or is on-line late into the night, this may be an indication that there
is a problem.
Teachers:
Keep an eye on your students' explorations on the Internet.
Supervision of usage can be the best prevention.
Contact your local authorities or regional FBI office immediately
if any of your students receives inappropriate sexual or threatening
material via the Internet. Do not allow your students to respond to
this type of contact.
Parents and teachers:
There is a variety of software available for parents to help filter
out chat rooms and Websites that are inappropriate for your children.
You may want to contact your on-line service company to inquire about
the type of protections that it offers. It is important to be aware,
however, that these filters do not offer 100 percent protection against
the invasion of predatory individuals who may seek out your child. For
instance, none of the filters can provide protection against explicit
material transmitted by E-mail. All of the above suggestions are still
viable protections that can be used in addition to an on-line filter.
Who to Contact and What to Do if Your Child is Solicited On-line
First, contact the local police. In some towns, the local Police
Department is equipped to investigate computer crimes such as on-line
solicitation of a minor.
Second, contact your regional FBI office. The listing for this
office should be in your local phone book.
Third, contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children (NCMEC) at 1-800-843-5678. The NCMEC can be a great source of
information and support. In addition, the Center works closely with the
Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention to prevent the exploitation of children.
Fourth, contact your on-line service provider and let them know
that someone is using its service to transmit or solicit child
pornography or solicit sexual material or services from your child.
In addition, you may want to contact your school and your
children's friends' families who also have access to the Internet. Let
them know how your child was contacted and what to avoid. It is
important that everyone in your community be educated as to how to
avoid sexual predators on-line.
Where to Find More Information About Protecting Your Kids From
Exploitation
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Toll free
phone number: 1-800-843-5678. E-mail: [email protected].
The National Crime Prevention Council Presents McGruff & Scruff and
the CRIME DOGS. Toll free phone number: 1-800-WE PREVENT. Website:
http://www.lois.net/crimedog/.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Website:
http://www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm.
The Child Abuse Yellow Pages. Website: http://idealist.com/cayp/.
Senator Gregg. Now I would yield to the ranking member,
Senator Hollings, for his comments.
Senator Hollings. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for
setting the hearing. Last year we enacted the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, and at the time we treated in
depth this problem of pornography on the Internet. Under the
leadership then of Senator Exon of Nebraska, we moved forward,
and I thought we had a good, balanced, constitutional proviso
to prevent this pornography. But it has already been set on
appeal, and it is being taken up by the courts.
In the meantime, of course, as you have mentioned, we have
got the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that
has four divisions around the country, one in my State. They
are doing an outstanding job, and I think we will find out
again from the witnesses here that the problem is real. I do
not think we are behind the curve, but I think maybe we are
just in time. And I think we have got to really do everything
we can to possibly support not only the center and other
entities, but particularly our own Federal programs, the FBI,
and others, who are already working in the field. I appreciate
very much the hearing.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Hollings.
Our first two witnesses, if they would come up to the
bench, are: Ernest Allen, who is the president and CEO of the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; and Diane
Doe. We would ask the press relative to Ms. Doe, relative to
filming Ms. Doe, if you could show some restraint. She is going
to tell a personal story, and she has been very generous and
brave, I think, to come forward. But she has asked, to the
extent possible, to have some anonymity for the sake of her
family, and I think that is a reasonable request.
Mr. Allen, if you could give us your thoughts on this
issue?
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Hollings. I
have submitted a formal statement.
Senator Gregg. Yes; and that will be made part of the
record.
Mr. Allen. Thank you very much. What I would like to do is
briefly summarize. Let me begin by thanking you for your
leadership and for the support of this committee. The national
center, as you know, for the past 13 years has served as the
congressionally designated national resource center and
clearinghouse on the missing children issue. We are grateful
for your support and for Senator Hollings' support over those
years, and we believe that we have made important strides in
protecting children.
But a coequal part of our mission and our function is to
address the whole area of child sexual exploitation. We have
done that in a number of ways. For the past decade, we have
operated the National Child Pornography Tipline in conjunction
and cooperation with the U.S. Customs Service. Leads received
through that tipline are provided to our Federal law
enforcement partners, to the FBI, to the Customs Service, to
the Postal Inspection Service, and to the Justice Department's
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section.
We are also expanding our role in the area of helping
exploited children, and just in the last Congress, the Treasury
Appropriations Subcommittee of this committee provided
financial support to create at the center an exploited child
unit which would do in exploited child cases what we do
currently on missing child cases, working with State and local
law enforcement, and we are grateful for your support in that
area as well.
So what we are attempting to do is to focus on two primary
areas of victimization in terms of the Internet and the online
world. The first is the enticement of children online, and we
are aware of 50 or 60 such cases. There are not thousands. We
think there are more than we know about, but the Internet,
technology, cyberspace, can be a tool used by pedophiles, just
as other sorts of tools are used, to win the confidence of the
child, to gain access to the child, and then to victimize the
child.
Mr. Chairman, as you point out, there is a second area of
focus is the whole issue of child pornography on the Internet
and online. Since the Ferber decision of the Supreme Court in
the 1980's indicating that child pornography is not protected
speech, we think that some very significant things have
happened. Through the leadership and the work of Federal law
enforcement, particularly the Customs Service and the Postal
Inspection Service, child pornography is largely gone from the
shelves of adult bookstores. And through the crackdown of the
Postal Inspection Service, child pornography through the mails
is far less a problem than it was earlier.
The problem, however, today is that it has become more
covert, more insidious, and better networked as pedophiles and
those who prey upon children have sought the relative anonymity
of the Internet, of the online services in cyberspace, to trade
images and information to gain access to children and then to
victimize children.
So what we have tried to do as an organization is attack
the problem in three ways. The first is through basic
prevention education. As you were doing, Mr. Chairman, with
your publication, we have tried to do the same thing as well,
to reach out to families. Families and children do not truly
appreciate that in this powerful and important medium there are
some risks. A lot of parents do not know what their children
are doing online, and they have a false sense of security: My
child is at home; he is in his room; he is doing something
positive and productive that is going to help him in the
future. And for a lot of kids, there is a world of unreality.
It is like a glorified computer game.
What we have tried to do--and we have disseminated almost 2
million of these--is we have produced a publication called
``Child Safety on the Information Highway.'' I know the members
of the committee have seen this. Our attempt is to provide
positive information to parents and kids about how to use this
important tool responsibly and safely.
Second, in partnership with Federal law enforcement, we
have created mouse pads. The goal of the Federal Government is
to wire every school in America for the Internet by the year
2000. Our goal is to make sure that every PC and modem located
in a school that is wired to the Internet has one of these
mouse pads with, again, safety information, positive
information about the use of the Internet. As you will note, on
the mouse pads, there is the logo of the national center, in
addition to the FBI, Customs, and the Postal Inspection
Service. So those are the kinds of outreach things we are
trying to do.
A second part of our strategy has been to support and
encourage the development and use of technology tools--access
controls to give parents the ability to limit where their kids
can get and the vulnerability to their kids online. And I think
important progress is being made.
But today I would like to focus on the third part of our
strategy, and I think I can tell you that we are making great
progress as a Nation, but there is a lot more to do. And that
is just basic enforcement. The reality is child pornography is
not protected speech, and regarding the whole debate over
privacy rights, the reality is those who are misuing the
Internet--those who are misusing cyberspace for illegal
purposes--need to be identified, need to be prosecuted. We need
to pierce that veil of anonymity.
I want to commend Director Freeh and the leadership of
Federal law enforcement because I think we have made important
progress. The innocent images task force has brought to the
Nation's attention the fact that there is such a problem.
Important prosecutions are being made. People are being
identified.
The Customs Service has established a new child pornography
unit, an expanded effort for Customs that is focusing on this
problem. They are making important progress.
One of the great areas of need, however, in our judgment,
in addition to expanding that Federal presence and the Federal
resources, is to build expertise and specialized units at the
State and local level. The reality is, while this is a global
medium, the victims are local. And victim families and victim
children are victimized by this medium just as they have been
victimized in the past by pedophiles in other ways.
Unfortunately, there are not a lot of specialized units out
there in local law enforcement. There are some significant
exceptions--the San Jose high-tech crimes unit. There is a very
important effort here in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
But there are a lot of police departments that still do not
even have personal computers and modems.
One of the things that the center is trying to do as part
of our public-private partnership is to encourage corporations
to donate computers, as they upgrade their technology, to the
center so that we can place it in local police departments
around the country. We have done that with almost 400 computers
already, and we have just begun.
So, Mr. Chairman, you asked for recommendations, and I
would like to make sort of summary recommendations in four
basic areas.
One, for all the progress that has been made, it is our
judgment that Federal law enforcement needs more help. Federal
law enforcement needs more resources, greater attention to this
problem. There is an important role for Federal leadership in
this arena because of the nature of the medium, because it is a
national and multinational medium. So we would like to see more
resources directed to personnel and technology, to the FBI, to
the Customs Service, to the Postal Inspection Service.
Second, we would encourage more resources at the State and
local level, resources including training, resources to build
specialized expertise, specialty units, so that we can expand
on this whole area of multigovernmental, multidisciplinary
response to the problem.
We have encouraged the creation of multidisciplinary teams
involving law enforcement, prosecution, and social services. We
think that is something that needs to be emulated. And, Senator
Hollings, our center in South Carolina has really taken the
lead in making South Carolina the first State in the Nation to
build a multidisciplinary team statewide, attacking the problem
of missing and exploited children.
Third, we think there needs to be greater attention to the
victims. You are going to hear from Diane, and there are
thousands of stories like Diane's out there across America. In
these cases, somebody has to interview the victims. Somebody
has got to talk to these children because there is a common
denominator in these cases, and that is, these guys do not just
do it once. They are not monogamous. They tend to victimize
lots of kids, and what we have discovered is that if you
interview children properly, if you talk to the kids about what
happened to them, you discover there are other victims and
there are many more cases. So the key role for local
authorities, local law enforcement, local officials is there.
Then, finally, we think we need to do more, as you are
doing, in the area of aggressive public education. Our
consistent message is that the Internet is an important
resource, a positive resource. We encourage parents and
children to explore and use it, but we need to also send the
message that there are risks, and we need to send the message
to those who would prey upon children online that there is no
sanctuary in cyberspace, that illegal activity on the Internet
or at the shopping mall or at the school or anywhere else is
just as illegal and law enforcement is going to come after them
and get them.
PREPARED STATEMENT
That is, I think, the sense of my recommendations, and
those are my comments.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ernest E. Allen
Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, as President of
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, I want
to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding
child sexual exploitation on the Internet. I also want to thank
you for your commitment to child protection and your visionary
leadership on this vital and growing issue.
Let me begin by first briefly describing the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Established
in 1984, NCMEC is a private, nonprofit organization working
with the U.S. Department of Justice to help find missing
children and prevent child victimization. Serving as the
national resource center on missing and exploited children
required under the Missing Children's Assistance Act passed by
the U.S. Congress, NCMEC provides assistance to parents, law
enforcement, public and private agencies, legislators, and
other professionals handling cases of missing children and
child sexual exploitation. Since June 1987, NCMEC has also
worked in cooperation with the U.S. Customs Service to operate
the National Child Pornography Tipline, and in 1994 NCMEC
partnered with the Interactive Services Association to create
and publish the brochure, ``Child Safety on the Information
Highway.'' We have distributed over one million copies of this
publication in the past 2\1/2\ years, making it one of our most
successful publications ever. The brochure includes general
guidelines for parents, as well as specific tips for child
online users--``My Rules for Online Safety.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For a copy of ``Child Safety on Information Highway'' or for
further information on any of the issues discussed herein please
contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-
800-THE-LOST or (703) 235-3900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nineteen ninety-six was an important year for NCMEC and the
issue of child sexual exploitation. Last year, Congress
earmarked additional funding for the creation of a special
division at NCMEC to provide information and technical
assistance specifically in cases of sexual exploitation. The
Exploited Child Unit (ECU) will provide the same kind of
assistance to families and law enforcement in sexual
exploitation cases that NCMEC provides in missing child cases.
The ECU will develop technology and other resources to assist
law enforcement in all areas of child sexual exploitation,
including emerging issues such as online exploitation and
international child sex tourism. It will serve as a primary
point of contact on this issue and provide informational
support for local, state, and federal investigators, forward
incoming leads to appropriate law enforcement agencies, and
provide needed support and information to victims and other
concerned citizens. The ECU will also be working in close
partnership with the U.S. Secret Service, Forensics Division,
to provide case analysis and lead enhancement for state and
local investigations.
Gary Costello, a 25-year veteran of the Montgomery County,
Maryland Police Department, will head the unit. During his
career in law enforcement, Mr. Costello conducted more than 700
child sexual exploitation and child pornography investigations,
interviewing more than 500 child victims, and interrogating
more than 200 offenders. Mr. Costello headed the Washington
Metropolitan Council of Governments Child Exploitation
Committee. Although the Unit will not officially open until
this summer, he is already busy assembling his team and
providing a wide range of services to law enforcement officers
involved in the investigation of child sexual exploitation. The
Unit is also working with our education and training division
on a program NCMEC has developed to place donated computer
hardware and software departments nationwide. Many police
departments in America still do not have PC's and modems. This
lack of technology hinders their understanding of the criminals
they pursue as well as their efforts to apprehend them. Through
this program, NCMEC's corporate and business sponsors donate
computers and software programs to NCMEC, which we then in turn
place in police departments with demonstrated needs. To date,
we have placed 3 computers in law enforcement departments
across the country. The computer placement program hopes to
bridge the technology gap. The ECU is NCMEC's newest and
brightest star, and we are excited and enthusiastic about
improving our services in this vital area.
You invited me to speak to you today about an issue that is
as complex as it is important. Child sexual victimization is a
persistent and pervasive problem, crossing all racial,
geographic, and socio-economic barriers. According to a 1996
U.S. Department of Justice study, 78 percent of violent state
prison inmates convicted of sexual assault had abused a child,
and three in 10 of these offenders committed their crimes
against multiple victims. Children are the most vulnerable
victims of sexual exploitation. A 1992 report by the National
Victim Center revealed that 61 percent of rape victims are less
than 18, and 32 percent of all rape victims are 12 to 17 years
old. The National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect
estimates that in 1994, there were at least 406,000 reported
cases of child sexual abuse. This number is enhanced when
considered with the FBI assertion that rape and child
molestation are the most underreported crimes, with less than
10 percent of these offenses are ever disclosed. Even when
cases are reported to law enforcement, the online aspect may
not be mentioned in the interview or make it into the officer's
official report. The officer may report it as a simple sexual
assault or child pornography case. As a result, it is nearly
impossible to estimate how many children are sexually
victimized on or through cyberspace. Since 1994, NCMEC has been
notified of 18 cases of child sexual exploitation that involved
online access, and has learned of 18 more through the media or
other non-profit organizations. Most of the cases reported to
NCMEC involve children who have run away from home, ostensibly
to meet ``friends'' they've ``met'' over the Internet. We
suspect total numbers of online exploitation to be much higher.
Child pornography is an insidious form of child
exploitation--it is a frozen record of the sexual victimization
of a child. This record follows the victim throughout life,
often re-emerging when they are adults and respected members of
society, as happened to a 30-year-old man in San Diego in 1995.
Seventeen years after the molestation and years of therapy and
family support, the victim was leading a normal and productive
life--until pornographic pictures of him taken at thirteen
resurfaced on the Internet and were distributed in his
community. Devastated, the young man suffered the humiliation
and exploitation of the abuse all over again.
Law enforcement officials report that nearly all child
molesters also collect child pornography. Child molesters use
child pornography for a variety of reasons: (1) for sexual
fantasies and gratification, (2) to share with fellow
pedophiles to curry friendships and gain more information and
pornography, (3) to reaffirm their belief that what they are
doing is normal, acceptable, and shared by others, (4) to
introduce potential child victims to sexual concepts and the
methods of sexual conduct enjoyed by the molester, and (5) to
``blackmail'' their victims into silence. Child pornography is
a vital element of child sexual exploitation, and its ubiquity
on the Internet should be a troubling indication of the
potential and current sexual exploitation of America's
children.
Child sexual exploitation on the Internet takes various
forms. Some child molesters use on-line chat rooms to openly
solicit sexual favors from on-line users they know to be
children. Others are more subtle, establishing ``friendships''
with the children that later lead to meetings and sexual
victimization. In 1996, a school textbook salesman, identified
online as ``Coach N.H.,'' befriended a person he believed to a
14-year-old boy in an America Online chat room. He encouraged
the ``boy'' to talk about his problems, and within minutes was
engaging the ``boy'' in an explicit sexual discussion and
sending pornographic pictures of adults, children, and young
men having sex. After several more conversations, Coach N.H.
asked if he could visit the ``boy'' and described in detail
what he wanted to happen when he did. The ``boy'' agreed and
the pedophile eagerly boarded a plane and flew across country
for the meeting. To his surprise, he was greeted, not by an
enthusiastic teenager, but by a team of local police. He was
arrested and charged with five counts of attempted sexual
exploitation of a child. Federal authorities later added other
charges. The ``boy'' had actually been a local police
detective. This case demonstrates the dedication and
determination with which child molesters pursue their online
victims.
Still other pedophiles use the Net to communicate with
other child molesters, discussing and exchanging child
pornography and children they have sexually abused. Law
enforcement, academic researchers, journalists, and on-line
users have all documented the other types of child sexual
exploitation occurring in cyberspace. This past January, a 21-
year-old student at a New York University was arrested by state
authorities for transmitting three dozen sexually explicit
photos of children, including pictures of children as young as
18 months old engaged in sex acts. A 1995 Carnegie Mellon
University study found that over a year and a half period, 83.5
percent of digitized pictures stored on Usenet groups were
pornographic in nature. The study also asserted that
pedophilic, hebephelic, and paraphiliac images accounted for
approximately 3 million downloaded images from an ``adult''
online bulletin board. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism in 1995, Postal
Inspector Paul Hartman testified that he had previously been
convinced that pedophiles were members of an underground
subculture with no formal lines of communication--until he
discovered the prolific use of computers to exchange
information and discuss their sexual desires. Intuitive common
sense supports this sad reality: what more inviting place for a
child molester than the anonymous, immediate, private,
interactive network? Sadly, time in prison does not necessarily
deter or prevent this behavior. Last month in Minnesota a 57-
year-old prisoner in a medium-security state prison was
arrested by federal agents for receiving and distributing child
pornography on the Internet. His private collection contained
287 pictures of minors engaged in sexual conduct he had
downloaded from the Internet through a prison computer. Again,
a demonstration of the persistence of these offenders.
Many commentators have been concerned with possible
Constitutional implications of any regulation or policing of
the Internet. This is an understandable concern; the First
Amendment represents a fundamental principle of American
society. The freedom to speak and exchange information without
government censorship is a cherished value of our culture. It
has long been a truth, however, that not all forms of speech
receive the same degree of Constitutional protection. The U.S.
Supreme Court has consistently held that child pornography does
not receive protection under the First Amendment due to the
unique nature of the harm it inflicts upon the victims it
portrays.\2\ Possession, transmission and distribution of these
materials are likewise unprotected and are criminal under both
federal and state laws. Similarly, soliciting a minor for
sexual purposes is not covered by the First Amendment's
protections and is a crime in all jurisdictions. Many states
also have enhanced penalties for solicitation of a minor as
opposed to an adult. Of course, child molestation is itself
also a crime in all jurisdictions. Therefore, pedophilia and
the distribution of materials to facilitate such exploitation
find no safe haven in the First Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). Pornography depicting
adults rather than children still retains Constitutional protection
under this narrow ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, fourteen-
year-old Donelle Gruff testified to how she was stalked by a
man she met through a bulletin board chat room. Four months
later, that man was still running his bulletin board, and
presumably still preying on young girls. The Gruffs were told
that law enforcement could not act due to lack of evidence,
despite copies of the pornographic materials and messages sent
to Donelle during the stalking. Such frustration and
misunderstanding is not uncommon. There are indeed current
state and federal laws criminalizing the behavior of the man
who stalked Donelle. Unfortunately, much of law enforcement,
like much of America, is uncertain as to how or even if these
laws apply to cyberspace. Law enforcement must be educated
regarding these situations and their legal alternatives for
prosecution, so as to encourage and dispose them to more active
pursuit of these cases.
Patrolling the cyber frontier is time-consuming work
requiring substantial knowledge of computers and
telecommunications technology. The FBI Innocent Images Task
Force has demonstrated that a well-trained, effective federal
cybercop unit can affect the environment of cyberspace.
Investigators from the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. Postal
Service have also had considerable success in apprehending
individuals distributing child pornography. Recent federal
searches and prosecutions have shown the federal government's
commitment to this issue and its ability to catch these
offenders.
State and local authorities have also been participating in
policing cyberspace, and their role is an equally important
one. Local law enforcement officers are often the first point
of contact for a victimized child and family, and as members of
the communities they police, they have a vested interest in
protecting all of their neighborhoods, including the virtual
ones. Unfortunately, state and local law enforcement in America
presently are generally ill-equipped to tackle this task.
Training, funding, and resources are needed to create an
effective localized units of cybercops.
We believe there is a real place for state and local
involvement in online exploitation investigations. Current
federal prosecutions are primarily content-driven, meaning that
often the case is entirely made on what the offender said or
transmitted online, as intercepted by a federal agent. As a
result, oftentimes it is not necessary for the federal
prosecuting authorities to interview victims. While this may be
sound investigative policy and an efficient use of federal
funds, it may not provide the victim or the local area with a
sense of contribution or resolution. Also, this approach limits
what information we are able to gather about these individuals
and their victims; if the case is rejected for federal
prosecution, it effectively disappears from the statistical
database. State and local authorities could provide more
comprehensive background and on-going investigations as to what
the state of Internet exploitation is, particularly on local
online bulletin boards. There are several police departments
across the country that have already formed such units and are
struggling with resource constraints, such as the San Jose, CA
high-tech crimes unit and a similar unit in Montgomery County,
MD. With federal assistance, the state and local authorities
could play an enhanced and important role in the investigation,
prosecution, and resolution of these cases. The threat of
getting caught must be so real and immediate that predatory
child molesters recognize and are intimidated by it. It should
be scarier to them than the current Net is to our children.
Much has been made over parental control technology and
parental responsibility for child safety in cyberspace. Some
industry leaders have touted parental control devices as the
final answer to the dilemma, and makers of parental control
devices have echoed this optimistic call. Parental control and
parental responsibility are indeed vital to an effective
response to cyberspace exploitation, but again, they alone
cannot solve the problem. In an ideal world, parents would have
complete knowledge at all times regarding the safety, well-
being, and disposition of their children. Certainly, no one can
reasonably suggest that this could ever be a reality however,
even for the best, most concerned and attentive parent, and not
all parents are concerned and attentive.
For parents that do play a dynamic, active role in the
lives of their children, parental control devices enable them
to greatly limit the potential harm to their family if used
properly. They allow parents to block access to certain chat
rooms, etc. based on the title of the area, much like channel
blocking for cable television. Parents need to understand
however, that the screening mechanisms utilized by these
services may be evaded by determined pedophiles who simply
misspell or encrypt their chat room or bulletin board names
(i.e. ``childpoorn'' rather than ``childporn'', or
``dadsndaughters''). Some parental control devices are able to
block whole portions of the Net, which may assist parents in
avoiding many of these groups. The most obvious problem
associated with parental control devices is the knowledge
required to implement them. The reality is that most parents
have less computer and telecommunication knowledge than their
school-age children. The generation gap is frequently
accompanied by a technological gap. This technological gap is
important and a far cry from the blinking clock on the VCR:
some parents will simply not be able to or not choose to
utilize these parental controls, leaving their children
vulnerable to the shadows of cyberspace. For parents with the
education, money, and inclination, parental control devices are
undoubtedly a valuable and necessary tool in protecting our
children, but their presence alone will not stop the on-line
pedophiles.
There are plenty of other proactive steps parents and
educators can take to improve online safety for children. The
first and most important is to talk to children and educate
them about the potential dangers online. This can be done in an
honest, nonthreatening manner, by simply talking with the child
about common dangers in any city or neighborhood and explaining
why the same precautions are necessary on the Internet or in
bulletin boards. It is vital to ensure that children understand
that while the majority of people online are perfectly nice and
interesting individuals, many are not who they say they are.
Remind children that because they can't see the person, it is
easy for the person to misrepresent themselves. Warn children
against giving out any identifying information, including their
name, to anyone they meet online, without first getting
permission from an adult, and encourage them to use an online
pseudonym. Children should be told never to respond to a
message that makes them uncomfortable, and to notify a trusted
adult immediately. Likewise, they should never arrange a face-
to-face meeting with someone they've ``met'' online, without
prior parental permission, and without being accompanied by an
adult. Parents should consider locating the computer in a
family area, rather than a child's room, and should monitor
online time closely. Also, parents and educators need to
realize that children may be accessing computers at friends'
houses, public libraries, and ``Net Cafes,'' and should be
prepared to discuss these issues in relation to those locations
as well. Parents may want to designate a trusted adult outside
the immediate family that the children can confide in about
online issues and problems if they are uncomfortable or
reluctant to discuss these issues with their parents. Finally,
and most importantly, adults need to get involved in their
children's online ``life''--talk to the children about what
they're doing online, who they've met, what interesting things
and sites they've discovered. Supervision and communication are
the keys to online safety.
While some young cyberspace explorers are talented and
experienced computer hackers, many more are simply children
wandering along the information highway and investigating rooms
that pique their curiosity. Children, particularly teenagers,
are bound to be curious about sex and the mysterious and
forbidden discussions relating to it. However, curiosity
shouldn't result in sexual exploitation. It is vitally
important to recognize that child molesters have traditionally
preyed on the most vulnerable victims they can find: children
with low self-esteem, uneasy social skills, and a need for
acceptance. This sad tradition persists in cyberspace.
Unfortunately, these are also the children least likely to have
parents who are actively involved in their lives. We cannot
ignore the persistent vulnerability of these children. Children
need to be educated directly about all aspects of the Internet,
and encouraged to come forward when they encounter something
that makes them uncomfortable or frightened. As with all child
protection measures, education and communication are vital to
helping our children help themselves. Parents need to talk to
their children about the information superhighway and
responsible uses of it. Schools also should take a responsible,
proactive approach to this technology, especially since many
children are receiving their first glimpse of the Internet at
school. On-line companies need to address this audience,
perhaps by exploring means by which scared and embarrassed
children can report violations directly to the service. If we
are to introduce our children to this new technology and
encourage their use of it, we must also arm them with the
necessary education to protect them from the dangerous
underworld of this exciting frontier.
The on-line world is perhaps one of the most promising and
equalizing influences of the future. It allows us to exchange
information in ways and at speeds only imagined a few decades
ago. It has the potential to help us better understand each
other and our world. NCMEC encourages parents and children to
explore cyberspace. However, as with other aspects of life,
there are some risks. This does not have to be a zero-sum
situation: the protection of our children need not come at the
expense of this expanding technology. We need to work together
as society to create a dynamic, responsive, holistic approach
to a problem that is as diffuse as the Internet itself. A
proactive stance by industry, coupled with greater awareness
and commitment on the part of the parents will go far to
eliminating the child molesters' access to children. Better law
enforcement training and funding for policing cyberspace will
also threaten the secure playground pedophiles have found
there. Cooperation among federal and state legislators to fill
gaps in existing laws and prioritize emphasis on the
prosecution of these cases will send a ``zero tolerance''
message to those tempted to victimize our children. Finally,
intelligent and open discussion and education of our children
regarding the benefits and dangers of life on the information
superhighway will empower them to protect themselves from such
exploitation. Any meaningful solution to the problem of the
sexual exploitation of children in cyberspace will require a
multi-faceted, long-term effort by all parties involved.
America is the telecommunications world leader; surely together
we can make the technology we create and explore safe for our
children.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Mr. Allen. That is an excellent
presentation. It gives us a lot to work with.
Ms. Doe, I appreciate your coming today. I think this is
very courageous of you. I recognize that something like this
has to be tremendously trying and emotional, and certainly what
you have been through has been terribly emotional. The fact
that you have the courage to come here today and talk about it
is very impressive, but also--more importantly--very helpful to
a lot of people. So we thank you for coming. I do appreciate
the fact the press is willing to show you the courtesy of some
anonymity. I think that is important. So if you could give us
your thoughts, we would appreciate those.
Ms. Doe. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to come before
you and tell my story. I hope that my being here will be
helpful to you and that you will take meaningful action on this
important issue as a result of this hearing.
One morning just over 2 years ago, right after I had
arrived at my job, a detective called and asked that I meet
with him at the sheriff's office, that my 11-year-old son had
been the victim of a crime. Once I arrived at the sheriff's
office, I was escorted to a small room where I was advised that
my son had been sexually molested many times over the past year
by four teachers, that these molestations were videotaped, and
that these tapes were copied and mailed all over the country.
This group of men had molested three other boys in addition
to my son. The ringleader lived in my neighborhood and had
first befriended my son on the local basketball court. Next, he
invited him over and paid him to wash his truck. After that,
the man invited my son into his house and began victimizing
him. He repeated this technique with two other boys in our
neighborhood, giving them all money and telling them to be
quiet. For over 1 year, my son said nothing because of his fear
and shame.
The teachers made contact with one another by way of a
Prodigy chat room run by a pedophile in Arizona. They used this
room to make the arrangements for their visits, giving detailed
descriptions of the contents of these pornographic tapes, and
arranged for the sale and distribution of the tapes. The ring
was finally broken up when Customs agents found the man in
Arizona and he had the tapes of my son on his premises.
The man confessed to his own crimes, told the agents about
the head of the ring in my State, and received probation in
exchange for his information. While the mastermind in my State
says he did not violate Federal law because he did not download
in order to transmit these images, the pedophiles who reviewed
and received the tapes did download the images and messages.
All of the men pleaded guilty and received at least 20 years in
prison from both State and Federal prosecutions.
I can only speak for my own case, but I thought it was
handled very well by all the authorities. I could tell it was
more difficult for the State authorities since they had to rely
on the evidence from the Federal case, and they sometimes
complained that Customs was not turning over all of their
information. Both my State officials and the Federal Customs
agents seemed very committed to my case and did what I wanted
most: put those men away for a very long time without my son
having to testify and relive his abuse.
Although the Customs agents were able to confiscate most of
the tapes and disks, we believe there is still at least one
missing tape. There is no way of knowing if someone in another
part of the country, or even abroad, had been casually surfing
the Internet, come across the images, copied them, and used
them for their own pleasure or gain. We do know that because of
the easy access into any of these chat rooms, my son's image
could appear at any time, anywhere.
Due to the pervasive reach of the Internet, the fear of
these pictures and his identity being brought out around the
world at any time, whether next week or 10 years from now, is
overwhelming to my son. What happens if or when one of his
classmates accidentally clicks into one of these forbidden
areas and sees my son's pictures? Please do not even suggest
that there are ways to block minors from entering these areas
or that this responsibility is up to the parents to monitor
what their children are doing on the computer. Parents do need
to be more aware of what is out there and should have a means
to control what is available to their children on the Internet.
This is an almost impossible task. My family does not even own
a computer, yet its easy accessibility greatly contributed to
the further violations of my son.
All these so-called securities, precautions, and blocks are
not effective on their own. If they were, we might not be here
today. There is not a child anywhere who could not get past the
no-access codes. And there is not a pedophile out there that
will not find new ways to entice innocent young victims.
My son will soon be 15. He should be enjoying and exploring
his youth and his young sexuality, not being concerned if the
images of his rape are being seen and by whom.
When all the investigations were going on and both he and I
were being interrogated by all the various departments, I asked
over and over to see the tapes to see what was done to my son.
Although I was never able to do that, what I did learn and read
in the newspapers, and knowing that I did not know it all but
that the Internet world did, sickened me.
Computers, the Internet, the online services are all
marvelous technological wonders. So much is being accomplished
in every field. So many bridges are being crossed and friends
being made all over the world. How sad that something so good
is being used in such a heinous way. How sad that such a
wonderful learning tool is being used to coerce and deceive our
innocent children into exposing themselves in such a malicious
way.
While I firmly believe in the freedom of speech, the
freedom of press, and all those other wonderful freedoms we
enjoy, I feel these freedoms are being stripped away by this
rampant rape of our youth. Over and over, everyone says the
children of today are the hope of the future. Our
responsibility now is to protect them from the atrocities so
many of our young are facing so they can go to be productive
protectors of these freedoms for their children.
I by no means wish to see the end of the Internet. I do
feel better measures need to be implemented in order to protect
the children from this type of physical, mental, and emotional
destruction. I do not want what my son went through--and is
still going through--to happen to another child. And I do not
want another mother to feel the constant turn of the knife in
her heart like I do every day.
Thank you.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Ms. Doe. That was a very
compelling statement and it reflects the seriousness of this
situation.
I would ask, Mr. Allen, if you have any estimate as to how
many people are involved in this or if there is any way to
estimate that?
Mr. Allen. It is very difficult. Our assumption is that
there are large numbers, but the FBI has told us that in most
of these cases, the FBI estimate has been 1 to 10 percent ever
being reported to the police. So our assumption to begin with
is that these are cases of hidden victims, and that once we
identify a case, then invariably there is a ripple effect in
which we identify other cases associated to this person.
Probably the most disturbing thing about the use of the
Internet by pedophiles is they use it for multiple purposes.
They use it to network with each other, with like-minded
individuals. They use it to trade information, not just for
purposes of arousal or sexual gratification, but to trade or
access children. Now, this is not new. It is a methodology that
has existed for a long time. What is new is they are using this
tool in which they feel they have the lowest risk of exposure
and the greatest potential of anonymity.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings?
Senator Hollings. Mr. Allen, you heard Ms. Doe--well, maybe
I can ask Ms. Doe and then ask you. In one breath, Ms. Doe, you
say that all these so-called securities, precautions are not
effective on their own, and yet we wind up asking--you say that
you do feel that better measures need to be implemented in
order to protect the children. Such as? Do you have any idea of
other measures?
Ms. Doe. Senator Hollings, I am not a computer-literate
person. Like I said, I have not got a computer in my home.
There is no way, I do not think, to really block or stop these
people from doing this type of thing unless there are a lot of
people, other good people out there who are willing, when they
do accidentally scan across it or whatever they do, report it
immediately to the local authorities and to the national
authorities. I do not know--I was totally unaware of any of
this type of activity until this happened to my son. I never
even heard of such a thing before.
Senator Hollings. That would be public education.
What about it, Mr. Allen?
Mr. Allen. Senator, I think she makes a very good point,
and that is that technology tools and access controls are not
absolute. They are not guarantees. None of these things are.
What we believe is the best response is a comprehensive
response in which we do educate parents and kids, we try to
encourage better parenting so that parents get involved and
know what their kids are doing online. We do encourage access
controls and technology tools, but we do not assume that it is
a panacea or that it is enough.
Our view in this area is that whatever the disposition by
the court of the Communications Decency Act, this is an area
where we have got law. Child pornography is not protected
speech. It does not have to be defined or classified as
indecent speech. It is illegal speech. And so I think the key
is to do those things, do the public awareness, do the access
controls, but also go aggressively after the people who are
abusing the Internet, who are engaging in unlawful acts online.
Senator Hollings. Well, as you know, we extended the
telephone pornography laws to the Internet. It was heard by the
Supreme Court only a couple of weeks ago, so we will have to
see if they will continue to reaffirm that finding. But in the
four areas where you say we need more public education and
interviewing of the victims to lead to others, strengthening
both the State and the Federal efforts--I guess the only way we
are going to get to this is really strengthen the State effort,
and that is going to have to come through the Federal
Government.
What about the FBI's effort? Can you make a comment about
it?
Mr. Allen. I think the FBI's effort has been extraordinary.
The FBI has created the Innocent Images task force, which I
think brought this problem to the attention of the Nation--
began to make cases. The FBI has a new crimes against children
unit that is being formed.
I would like to see more Federal resources addressed to
this problem. I do not think--and it is not a criticism of the
FBI or Customs or anybody--I think this is a problem where,
frankly, we have only scratched the surface. I suspect that
Federal law enforcement will tell you the cases we have made
are in many ways the tip of the iceberg.
I had one commanding officer say to me years ago--and I
think it is absolutely true on this situation--that the only
way not to find this problem is simply not to look for it. And
in our judgment, America has begun to look, and the FBI and the
Customs Service and the Postal Service and Federal law
enforcement has led the way. But when the automobile was
developed, there were law enforcement officials who said only
the crooks will have the cars and we will be at a disadvantage.
And I think what we are encountering here is exactly the same
situation. Those who are most technology-adept in some cases
are misusing the technology, and law enforcement once again has
been behind the technology curve.
Because of the leadership of the FBI and Customs and
others, we are catching up. State and locals are way behind
except in isolated situations. So my judgment is this is not
something that Federal law enforcement can do on its own. State
and locals need to play a part. But the optimum solution would
be if there were a real partnership, a real comprehensive
approach to the problem.
Senator Hollings. You have both made excellent statements.
I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Hollings.
I think Senator Hollings raises a good point, whether or
not we should, maybe through the violent crime trust fund, set
up some initiatives which would assist State and locals to set
up task forces which would mirror the FBI effort and use the
FBI experiences--an educational initiative. Do you think that
might be helpful?
Mr. Allen. Yes, sir, I agree. I think that would be very
important.
Senator Gregg. Well, we very much thank you folks for
coming. We especially thank you, Ms. Doe. It is very generous
of you to take the time to come here. And we thank you, Mr.
Allen, because your input is substantive and thoughtful and
very useful to us.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Federal Bureau of Investigation
STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH, DIRECTOR
ACCOMPANIED BY:
LINDA HOOPER, SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT
JORGE MARTINEZ, SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT
RICHARD POTOCEK, SPECIAL AGENT
Senator Gregg. We will now hear from Director Freeh.
Director, we appreciate your taking the time from what we
know is a very hectic schedule to come here today to testify on
the initiatives which the FBI has undertaken in the area of
child pornography and arresting pedophiles who use the Internet
for the purposes of soliciting children for sex. We have heard
some testimony already, and everybody has made an opening
statement, so I would like to just turn to you to get your
thoughts on how we should proceed from here; how this committee
can be helpful; what the Congress should do; and what people
should do relative to dealing with the Internet in their homes
and with their families?
Mr. Freeh. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning. Senator Hollings, good morning. It is a pleasure to be
before the committee, particularly on a topic which is as
critical and important to the country and to all of us right
here.
Let me compliment you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
particular hearing. It is the first time in 3\1/2\ years that I
have appeared at a hearing strictly focused on crimes against
children, and specifically now crimes on the Internet involving
pornography and children, and we think it is an outstanding
effort.
I would like to introduce, with your permission,
Supervisory Special Agent Linda Hooper, who is on my right.
Supervisor Hooper is in charge of the Innocent Images case in
Baltimore and has been running that initiative very, very
successfully, which I will talk about in my remarks. On my left
is Supervisory Special Agent Jorge Martinez, who is the program
manager for the national online child pornography initiative,
Crimes Against Children Office. And I have asked them to assist
me this morning, with your permission.
Let me begin by just saying that the environment in which
crimes against children, and particularly child pornography on
the Internet, are committed is a new venue, a new environment
for all of us in law enforcement. Generally speaking, the
advent of computers and the Internet, where by the year 2000
100 million people will transact together, present new
challenges and new burdens for law enforcement--and, of course,
new opportunities for criminals, particularly in this very
dangerous area.
All of us are parents or brothers or sisters, and we have a
great concern, as will be demonstrated during parts of my
testimony, about the impact that the Internet and the
availability to pedophiles and other criminals of this new
environment. This new medium establishes for them basically an
entry into our homes. Unlike people who call on the telephone
or knock on the door, pedophiles, people who would commit
crimes against our children, can literally enter our homes over
a computer, over the Internet, over an online service; many
times without the knowledge or certainly without the
opportunity for a parent or an adult to even screen or be aware
of that activity. That is a very new and very dangerous
environment for families and for children, and that is what we
want to focus on a little bit today.
Generally, the Crimes Against Children Program has been
being pursued by the FBI since approximately 1994. The Attorney
General and I, early in 1994, decided that we needed to do
several things to deal with the growth of crimes against
children. One thing we did was to establish in Quantico, VA, a
new unit, the child abduction and serial killer unit. That
unit, which is now fully staffed, is an operational unit which
deploys and assists local and State departments in solving some
of the worst types of crimes against children, including crimes
involving abductions and rapes, and serial murders. That was
established by the Department of Justice to deal with this
particular problem.
We have since, with the authorization of the Congress,
established the Morgan P. Hardiman task force, which works
directly with the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children. You heard from Mr. Allen, I believe, a few moments
ago. The 15 Federal agents who are on that task force--
including three FBI agents, and two each from Secret Service,
Customs, DEA, Marshals, Postal Inspection Service, and ATF--
work, again, operationally in that particular area where sexual
predators, particularly in abduction cases, are involved in
very high profile cases.
Unfortunately, we do not have to go very far in the news to
see cases where children, particularly in sexually related
crimes, are victimized and abducted and where a very quick and
comprehensive response, not just by the Federal Government, but
by the State and local governments with our assistance, is
critical.
Just several weeks ago, there was a kidnapping of two young
girls from Detroit--I am sure you remember reading about it--
two sisters, 6 and 9 years old. The three subjects who were
later arrested because of the efforts of the FBI and the police
in Kalamazoo, MI, as well as Daytona Beach, FL, were charged
with being responsible for the sexual molestation of at least
one of those little girls.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, in your own State there is a
continuing investigation in which several Federal warrants have
been issued for the arrest of an individual linked to the
disappearance of a 13-year-old girl in Nashua, NH, who remains
missing. We know that the subject of the warrant in this
particular case established a relationship with the victim on
the Internet by communicating with each other. There are many,
many cases which we are all tragically aware of the impact in
this area.
The beauty of computer technology is that it allows your
child to reach out to the world and browse through
encyclopedias and expand greatly and exponentially the
opportunity for knowledge. The reverse side and the dark side
of the technology is that criminals or pedophiles can reach
into your home and transmit pornography and other materials to
children, again, without many safeguards.
There is commercial blocking software available, and there
is some legislation in Congress which would require that to be
provided. The technology experts--I am not one of them--advise
me, however, that this is not an effective means to screen and
protect children against these types of intrusions, principally
because the software is often computer-specific. The ability of
pedophiles and criminals to deal directly over the Internet by
profiling users, including children searching for information
for a school project, can quickly and easily defeat that
software.
Part of the solution to the problem is really not a law
enforcement solution but parental education and safeguards
which have to be put in place in the home where children are
using these computers. I can speak, if you wish, very briefly
about that later.
We know that pedophiles and sexual predators use the
Internet and online services to target and recruit victims--
children--as well as to facilitate the meetings with those
children. The one case which I mentioned is what we call a
traveler case, where somebody using the Internet reaches out to
a child, makes contact, and then makes an appointment to meet
and pursue that relationship, which generally results in sexual
abuse or sexual molestation.
The demonstration which we will provide to the committee at
the close of my remarks, if you request it, is actually a
documented case, a case which has been fully adjudicated, where
the FBI used the screen name or the cyberspace alias name of a
14-year-old girl. The undercover agent, working under very
strict investigative guidelines, portrayed himself as a 14-
year-old girl. The subject in the case that you will see
reached out for that girl and arranged a meeting. The subject
was arrested at the meeting and prosecuted because he traveled
from Maryland to Virginia.
We have worked approximately 19 traveler cases, as we call
them, as part of the Innocent Images cases, and we feel that
these are just part of the overall problem.
The online services provide chat rooms which are easily
accessible venues for pedophiles and criminals to profile and
contact juveniles--children using the Internet. The difficulty
of this environment is that you never know who you are speaking
to. You speak to a screen name who appears to be a 14-year-old
high school peer and that person is actually a 40-year-old
convicted pedophile. There is no way to determine who you are
speaking to, which is one of the primary safety rules which
parents need to be aware of as they evaluate what their
children are doing there.
We also know that there is available, and we have seen
used, very low cost scanners and software which allow the
capture of original still photographs, as well as video images,
to transmit and originate pornographic material to be sent
either over the Internet or over online services and exchanged
in chat rooms or from bulletin boards. It's easily made
available by anyone who has that access.
Innocent Images
Let me speak a few moments about the Innocent Images
investigation. This case was initiated in 1994 as a result of
the disappearance of a 13-year-old boy named George Burdynski,
who is still missing. The case was worked by the FBI and local
detectives. They determined that two of the suspects in that
case were using computers, and using online services to
transmit, exchange, and originate child pornography. This
became the basis for what is now known as the Innocent Images
case.
That particular case currently maintains a grand jury file,
which is the best way to describe it, of 3,978 true names of
people who have been identified, pursuant to grand jury
subpoena, as engaging or attempting to engage in violations of
criminal law relating to pornography or solicitation over the
Internet. There are currently 455 of those cases which are
actively being worked as current investigations.
Over the course of the last 3 years, we have looked at
many, many matters which fall within the area under the
jurisdiction of the agents and support people who are working
on the Innocent Images case.
Why are not the other cases being worked? The answer to
that question is that we have investigative criteria which have
been established, not only by the FBI but by the Department of
Justice, to determine when a case is taken from this grand jury
file and evaluated for prosecution by sending it outside the
district--in many cases, actually 95 percent of the cases--to a
venue around the country where there would be criminal
jurisdiction.
The investigative and prosecutive criteria were established
by the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice has a
specialized child exploitation and obscenity unit which is
staffed by 10 lawyers that evaluate these cases. They require
that the subject of the investigation, before being worked as a
criminal case, generally speaking--and I will give the
exception to that in a moment--transmits text and images of
pornographic material involving children, on at least three
different occasions. So that the triggering criteria for the
initiation of the full criminal investigation and its referral
is that on three separate occasions there is an origination or
transmission of a pornographic image plus text. And the
requirement for the text is to show intent, which would be
necessary to prove in court.
That being said as the general investigative guideline, it
is clear, and it has been our practice, that in any case--and
each case is looked at on a one-by-one basis--if there is an
egregious indication that the case needs to be looked at
quickly without the criteria of the three separate events, we
do that quickly. For instance, in any of the traveler cases,
where someone is attempting to meet a juvenile through an
online service for a date or what-not, that case is immediately
worked. If the image being transmitted, or the text, is
particularly egregious, if there are suggestions of rape or
things like that, that case would be worked very quickly
despite the investigative criteria which generally requires
three separate instances.
In the processing of Innocent Images cases, as of March 5,
1997, there have been 200 search warrants issued, 40 consent
searches, 33 informations, 81 indictments, 91 arrests, and 83
felony convictions.
Innocent Images has allowed the FBI and the Department of
Justice to develop investigative guidelines for these crimes
relating to cyberspace, which are the ones that I just detailed
for you.
Senator Grassley has written a letter with respect to
inquiries about the number of matters in this data base, which
ones are being worked, and the criteria. I have responded to
him by one letter, and he has sent another letter which I will
try to respond to today.
We are very proud of the Innocent Images investigation. It
has become a national clearing center within the FBI for those
types of cases. The protocols established in that investigation
have been shared with the other Federal agencies. In fact, the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement uses that protocol to
work its cases. The guidelines are established to avoid
entrapment, to avoid investigation and prosecution of people
who, short of criminal violation, perhaps have just, for
whatever reasons, inquired into this particular area. And,
again, the prosecution and the evaluation of the cases are done
by the attorneys in the Department of Justice, and ultimately
the assistant U.S. attorneys, because 95 percent of these cases
go outside of the Baltimore-District of Columbia area.
FBI CAPABILITIES
Let me talk briefly about some of the other FBI responses
and capabilities. We know, unfortunately, that on an annual
basis, studies show that the child abductions, nonfamily child
abductions, number from 300 to 4,600 around the country,
depending on what particular criteria you use to describe them,
which is a large number, a tragically large number of children.
And we feel, very justifiably based on our investigations, that
the use of the Internet, particularly the use by sophisticated
pedophiles and criminals, greatly expand the opportunities for
these crimes. It is an area where we feel the FBI and the other
enforcement agencies, particularly the Customs Service and the
Postal Inspection Service--all three agencies having
jurisdiction in child pornography matters--can be and have been
very effective, particularly when they are combined together,
as with the Morgan P. Hardiman task force.
We have established an office for Crimes Against Children,
which is located in FBI headquarters and whose mission is to
coordinate as well as establish training, dissemination of
information, and operational assistance to the 56 FBI field
divisions who work these particular cases.
We have also recently established an Office of Indian
Country Investigations, many of which include sexual crimes
against children. And by teletype, by training, by materials
prepared at headquarters, we coordinate the national efforts
and initiatives in that area, which are limited by resources, I
might add.
We have, in addition to those resources, as I mentioned,
the child abduction and serial killer unit. The unit was
established in 1994 and became operational in 1995. That is the
unit that actually gets on the telephone with the local
detective in a small department who has a child abduction or a
serial killer case and needs the assistance of the people who
are specialized in that unit. They coordinate forensics, the
dispatching of evidence response teams, as well as profiling
with respect to suspects so the local jurisdiction can target
and evaluate the evidence that they have.
Again, the Morgan P. Hardiman task force is an adjunct
initiative to the child abduction and serial killer unit, both
supervised by the same FBI supervisor and working with the
national center.
We also have established around the country five task
forces or networking associations to deal with joint State and
local efforts with respect to crimes against children. They are
in Baltimore, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, and Las
Vegas.
The FBI laboratory is directly involved in many of the
cases involving child abductions. In the Polly Klaas case in
Petaluma, CA, Richard Allen Davis would not have been
identified, albeit convicted later on, without the palm print
which the FBI evidence response team took from a particular
location and which was analyzed by the FBI laboratory, which is
the best forensic laboratory in the world, in my view.
Another operational support unit we use is what we call our
computer analysis response teams, which this committee has
generously funded over the last few years. These are the
computer experts who can assist the agents who are working
cases involving online transmissions and originations and give
them the coordinates and assistance to obtain the evidence
which is necessary.
We maintain in the FBI laboratory the combined DNA
information system, CODIS, which, again, this committee has
generously funded over the years. That system is now active in
62 different laboratories in 31 States, expanding to 22 more
laboratories this year. That is a State and local operational
ability to share and compare DNA sampling materials, which are
critical as part of solving abduction and serial killer cases.
We have in our Information Resources Division a rapid start
team, which is an automated case support system. So if we have
a major kidnapping in a particular venue, we can send our
experts from this division who will immediately set up data
bases and computer assistance to work complicated cases.
We have in the Criminal Justice Information Services
Division the National Crime Information Center, NCIC, which is
very active and now maintains files for missing persons and
unidentified deceased persons, which are very helpful in the
solving of these cases.
Since February 1997, we have provided an interim sexual
offender tracking and identification system as part of the
NCIC. This system will become a permanent part of the NCIC 2000
feature in 1999. That system is the congressionally mandated
index which is very important to solve these cases.
Even our legal attaches overseas, particularly in England
and Germany, another one in Austria, have worked very carefully
in the Innocent Images initiative. These offices give us a
capability overseas, because the Internet is not limited to the
United States or any particular jurisdiction. You can get on
the Internet and within 5 minutes be talking to somebody
anywhere in the world. And we feel that we need that type of
external presence to work these particular cases.
In closing, there is no more precious asset than our
children. There is certainly no greater danger to them in the
context of this subject matter than the Internet and the very
easy use which pedophiles and criminals can make of the
Internet, as well as online services, to transmit pornography
and also to literally meet and see our children in places where
we would not want them to go.
SAFE COMPUTING TIPS
Just very, very briefly, since I know, Mr. Chairman, that
you are particularly interested in this, there are several sort
of rules of the road that parents are reminded of--and I can
list them very briefly here--with respect to protecting
children who use computers at home against these very present
and immediate dangers. And these are actually guidelines from
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. A lot
of them are common sense, but it does not hurt to review them.
One is never hand out identifying information to people
over the computer--home addresses, school names, telephone
numbers, things like that. Get to know the services that your
child uses. Many times we walk past our children using the
computer, and we do not really know what they are doing or how
they are doing it or why. It is not bad, particularly for older
parents like myself, to understand what the new generation and
the new technology requires. I know I have to rely on my 7-
year-old to get on to some of the computers.
Never allow your child to arrange a face-to-face meeting
with somebody that he or she meets over the computer. Again,
common sense, but something which does not hurt to be repeated.
Never respond to messages or bulletin board items that are
suggestive, obscene, belligerent, threatening, or would make
you feel uncomfortable.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And, again, perhaps most importantly, people and things are
not what they seem on the Internet. You may think you are
researching a school project and talking to a retired history
teacher. But you have no idea who you are talking to or where
that person is or what his motives are. And it is a great
technological revolution, computers, telecommunications, but
like everything new, it poses new threats and new concerns, and
everybody wants to protect our most precious asset.
Again, I am very pleased to be here.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Louis J. Freeh
Good morning, Chairman Gregg and members of the subcommittee. I am
grateful for this opportunity to discuss the serious problems of child
pornography, especially child pornography involving the Internet and
on-line computer services. The FBI has developed a comprehensive
``crimes against children'' initiative that focuses on the full range
of federal crimes involving the victimization and physical harm of
children.
Our children are our nation's most valuable asset. They represent
the bright future of our country and hold our hopes for a better
nation. I can think of no greater satisfaction than that of being the
parent of five young boys and watching them grow up in this great
country.
Our children are also some of the most vulnerable members of
society. As a parent, I share the same anxiety and outrage that parents
across the nation experience each time a child is sexually exploited,
sexually abused, or murdered. Protecting our children against the fear
of crime and from becoming victims of crime must be a national
priority.
Unfortunately, the same marvelous advances in computer and
telecommunications technology that allow our children to reach out to
new sources of knowledge and cultural experiences are also leaving them
unwittingly vulnerable to exploitation and harm by pedophiles and other
sexual predators in ways never before possible.
The proliferation and ready availability of child pornography
through the Internet and on-line services, and the use of these
services by pedophiles and sexual predators to target and recruit
children for exploitation, represent new challenges to the FBI and the
law enforcement community. These challenges include: (1) developing
innovative investigative and prosecutive strategies for dealing with
federal crimes committed in cyberspace, and (2) building strong legal
precedents that support these prosecutions in federal court.
The FBI brings to cases involving child pornography and other
crimes against children a full range of investigative resources and
technical capabilities. FBI agents working these cases possess an
extraordinary wealth of investigative expertise and experience. The FBI
has a demonstrated ability to apply modern technology to investigate
crimes facilitated by computers and related mediums. Finally, the FBI
maintains strong relationships with state and local law enforcement
that allows us to provide investigative, forensic, and technical
assistance when requested.
PREVENTING VICTIMIZATION
At the same time, the widespread and growing availability of this
technology demands that all of us--elected and appointed public
officials, law enforcement, parents, educators, and industry--be more
vigilant and responsible by teaching our children how to avoid becoming
victims of sexual predators. Parents should talk to their children
about the potential dangers they may encounter through the Internet and
on-line services. Several groups, including the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, have issued guidelines for parents on
safeguarding children who use computers linked to the information
highway. Schools that offer computer classes and access to students
should include appropriate discussion of this problem in their
curriculum. Creating awareness of the problem is a first step toward
reducing vulnerability.
Additionally, arrangements with on-line service providers and
commercial software are available to block access to sexually-oriented
Internet and on-line bulletin boards, chat rooms, and sites. Such
arrangements and software can help reduce--but will not totally
eliminate--the vulnerability of children against sexual predators.
Teenagers who are adept at developing their own programming codes have
been able to circumvent blocking software. Also, since blocking
technology is often specific to a particular computer, children can
obtain access to the Internet and commercial services from an
unprotected computer. Despite these limitations, blocking technology
can be an effective tool in safeguarding young children.
Strong and effective prevention strategies that develop and instill
a sense of responsibility in accessing the Internet and on-line
services, in partnership with effective law enforcement initiatives,
are necessary if we are to be successful in reducing the vulnerability
of our children to sexual predators and related crimes.
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN INITIATIVE
As I indicated earlier, the FBI is attacking the proliferation of
child pornography on the Internet and on-line services through a
comprehensive ``crimes against children'' initiative. This initiative
encompasses several major crime problems, including: the sexual
exploitation of children; child abductions; child abuse on government
and Indian reservations; parental/family custodial kidnapings; Child
Support Recovery Act; and violent crimes against youth.
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN
Sexual exploitation of children involves sexual activity in which
the perpetrator receives sexual gratification and may benefit
financially, such as through the manufacture and distribution of child
pornography. Exploitation may include contacts for sexual purposes,
prostitution, pornography, or other sexually exploitative activities.
Increasingly, pedophiles and sexual predators are using the Internet
and on-line services to target and recruit victims and to facilitate
the distribution of child pornography.
Pedophiles often seek out young children by either participating in
or monitoring activities in chat rooms that are provided by commercial
on-line services for teenagers and pre-teens to converse with each
other. These chat rooms also provide pedophiles an anonymous means of
establishing relationships with children. Using a chat room, a child
can converse for hours with unknown individuals, often without the
knowledge or approval of their parents. There is no easy way for the
child to know if the person he or she is talking with is, in fact,
another 14-year old, or is a 40-year old sexual predator masquerading
as a peer. In other instances, a pedophile may use e-mail capabilities
to send child pornography to persons who enter a chat room, even though
the recipient does not request or want such mail.
Pedophiles and sexual predators also target children by posing as
other children seeking pen pals or by posting notices on bulletin
boards. Relationships are developed for the purpose of making contact
for conducting illicit sexual acts.
The FBI has investigated more than 10 cases involving pedophiles
traveling interstate to meet juveniles. In one case investigated by the
FBI in Maryland and Florida, in conjunction with the Clearwater,
Florida, Police Department, a subject was arrested in November 1995,
after traveling from his home in Minneapolis, Minnesota, to Tampa,
Florida, for purposes of having sex with what he thought was a 13-year
old juvenile whom he had met through an on-line bulletin board system.
In reality, the ``victim'' in this case was an undercover FBI agent.
This subject, who was married and the parent of five children, was
convicted in federal court.
Finally, on-line chat rooms, Internet news groups--electronic
forums that cater to special interests and topics--and e-mail are used
on a daily basis by pedophiles for trading and distributing child
pornography. These sites are often filled to capacity by users
throughout the day. The availability of low cost scanners and software
that allows the capture of original still photographs and video images
from television and video recorders as computer graphic image files has
made it possible for pedophiles to take original pornography and
facilitate its distribution to other users of the Internet and on-line
services.
In July 1996, 16 members of a group that often frequented a chat
room known as the ``Orchid Club'' were indicted in federal court on a
variety of charges involving the production and distribution of child
pornography, as well as conspiracy. A joint investigation by the FBI,
the United States Customs Service, and the United States Postal
Inspection Service determined that individuals used the chat room to
arrange for and transmit child pornography. While in the chat room,
they also discussed their involvement and desires in molesting
children. What was especially significant in this case was that many of
those conspirators later admitted active participation in child
molestations within each of their own geographic locations.
One subject of the ``Orchid Club'' case admitted to having sexual
attractions to girls age four to ten years old. He also admitted to
writing diaries of his sexual desires for children and to secretly
videotaping children at playgrounds. During a search of this subject's
residence, investigators found approximately 700 floppy diskettes, 100
videotapes, diaries, writings, books, magazines, clippings, and related
materials that indicated the subject's sexual interest in children.
``INNOCENT IMAGES''
In 1994, the FBI initiated an innovative and proactive
investigation, designated as ``Innocent Images,'' to focus on the
sexual exploitation of children through the Internet and on-line
services. This investigation grew out of our experience in the May 1993
disappearance of George Stanley Burdynski, Jr., a 13-year old, in
Prince George's County, Maryland.
In the course of the Burdynski investigation, FBI agents and Prince
George's County Police detectives identified two suspects who had
sexually exploited numerous juvenile males over a 25-year period.
Investigation of these two suspects determined that both adults and
juveniles were routinely using computers to transmit images of minors
showing frontal nudity or sexually explicit conduct, as well as to lure
other minors into engaging in illicit sexual activity with the
suspects.
Consultations with experts, both within the FBI and in the private
sector, revealed that the use of computer telecommunications was
rapidly becoming one of the most prevalent techniques by which
pedophiles would share photographic images of minors, as well as
identify and recruit children for sexually illicit relationships.
To combat the use of computer telecommunications by pedophiles and
sexual predators, the FBI and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity
Section of the Department of Justice jointly developed an investigative
and prosecutive strategy to identify subjects who originate, upload, or
forward child pornography to other subscribers through the use of on-
line service providers. Our highest priority is on those individuals
who indicate a willingness to travel for the purpose of engaging in
sexual activity with a juvenile and those who are distributors of child
pornography.
As of March 5, 1997, the ``Innocent Images'' investigation has
generated 200 search warrants, 40 consent searches, 81 indictments, 33
informations, 91 arrests, and 83 felony convictions.
The ``Innocent Images'' task force is staffed by agents of the
FBI's Baltimore, Maryland, field office, other federal agencies, and
investigators from surrounding state and local jurisdictions in
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. However, it is
estimated that 95 percent of the subjects identified by the ``Innocent
Images'' investigation reside in other states.
The ``Innocent Images'' investigation has allowed the FBI and the
Department of Justice to develop the investigative techniques needed to
address child pornography and other crimes in cyberspace. These
techniques fully take into account the Attorney General's guidelines
for criminal investigations, including federal statutes that apply to
electronic communications and the public's first amendment rights.
The search warrants, seizures of computer equipment, and
convictions resulting from the ``Innocent Images'' are putting
pedophiles and criminals on notice that these crimes are being
investigated and prosecuted. They also serve to deter others who may
consider engaging in such illicit acts.
This ongoing investigation also provides us with extensive
background and intelligence on how pedophiles and sexual predators use
and manipulate the Internet and on-line services; how they search for,
target, and recruit victims; and how they try to evade notice by law
enforcement. For example, some pedophiles now post their solicitations
in legitimate news groups and bulletin boards knowing that law
enforcement is aware of the more obvious sites frequented by
pedophiles.
CHILD ABDUCTIONS
Each year, as many as 300 children are abducted by strangers and
either murdered, ransomed, taken with intent to keep, or detained at
least overnight. A substantially larger number of children, as many as
4,600 each year, are victims of relatively short-term abductions, a
large majority of which are sexually motivated. These nonfamily
abductions pose an enormous challenge for law enforcement.
Each reported or suspected child abduction presents complex and
unique circumstances with respect to jurisdictional issues, local
liaison, local law enforcement expertise, and other considerations.
Experience and research have underscored the crucial need for an
immediate response to actual or suspected child abductions, and to
mysterious disappearances that occur under circumstances suggesting a
child may have been abducted.
The FBI's response to a reported abduction or mysterious
disappearance may be in the form of a full investigation based on a
reasonable indication that a violation of the federal kidnaping statute
has occurred, or it may take the form of a preliminary inquiry in order
to determine if that statute has been violated. In either case, the FBI
response is immediate and comprehensive.
CHILD ABUSE ON GOVERNMENT AND INDIAN RESERVATIONS
Another focus of the crimes against children initiative is child
abuse on government and Indian reservations. Investigations of child
sexual abuse on Indian reservations are among the most sensitive cases
worked by the FBI. In fiscal year 1996, the FBI investigated 1,148
cases involving the sexual and/or physical abuse of children, which is
an increase of 74 percent when compared to the 660 cases investigated
during fiscal year 1994.
While Indian child and adolescent abuse and neglect are issues of
widespread concern, no reliable statistics exist regarding their
prevalence. In 1995, 21 Indian tribes in Arizona reported 115 cases of
child molestation and sexual contact with a minor. For the period July
1995 to July 1996, the Navajo Nation Division of Social Services
reported 626 cases of child sexual abuse. In the 626 cases reported,
174 were substantiated. In 22 of the 174 cases, substance abuse was
involved.
A strategy currently being used in FBI field offices to respond to
these cases is the formation of multidisciplinary teams that include a
special agent, tribal or Bureau of Indian Affairs investigator, social
worker, clinical psychologist, a victim/witness coordinator, and an
assistant United States attorney. Using a team effort to investigate
child abuse allegations facilitates the successful prosecution of the
child's abuser, while the child is protected from further
victimization.
The FBI also provides advanced training to Bureau of Indian Affairs
investigators and tribal police officers in an effort to improve
delivery of law enforcement services on Indian reservations; enhance
the identification, preservation, and collection of evidence at crime
scenes; and establish closer working relationships and partnerships
between the agencies responsible for investigating crimes committed in
Indian country.
PARENTAL/FAMILY CUSTODIAL KIDNAPING
Parental/family custodial kidnaping refer to those situations where
a family member takes a child or fails to return a child at the end of
an agreed upon visit in violation of a custody agreement or decree. A
1988 National Incidence Study on Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrown
Away Children estimated that over 354,000 children each year may be
victims of parental/family abduction. Within that large group, it was
estimated that over 163,000 children were transported interstate or
internationally in an attempt to conceal or prevent contact with the
child, or the abductor intended to keep the child or permanently change
custodial privileges. It is this latter group of victims and violators
in which the FBI typically becomes involved.
Most of the victims of parent/family abductions are young; 33
percent were between 2 and 5 years old, and 28 percent were between 6
and 9 years old. Most were returned within a week; 62 percent were
returned in 6 days or less, and 28 percent were returned in 24 hours or
less. For over half of the children abducted by a family member, their
caretaker knew their whereabouts more than half of the time they were
away from home.
Three key laws were enacted to address interstate and international
parental child abductions: the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act,
the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act, and the Hague Convention on
Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
CHILD SUPPORT RECOVERY ACT
Criminal nonsupport has become a high-profile issue, with
nonsupport being viewed as an increasing threat to the children, in
particular, who are denied the benefits and opportunities of lawful
financial support, and to society, as a whole, which is often required
to bear the financial burden of providing basic support and services
for children as a result of nonsupport.
Some states have local remedies that include a felony prosecution
for failing to pay child support, which in some cases would be
preferable to the prosecution of a federal misdemeanor offense.
However, many states either do not have a felony offense or view the
federal Child Support Recovery Act as an additional tool to be used in
the area of child support enforcement, and they rely upon federal
assistance.
The FBI actively participates with the United States attorneys, the
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, the Office of Inspector
General for the Department of Health and Human Services, the United
States Marshals' Service, and other federal, state, and local agencies
to ensure compliance with the Child Support Recovery Act, to coordinate
program efforts, and to obtain maximum benefits from resources
available for these cases.
VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST YOUTH
Violent crimes against youth is another focus of the crimes against
children initiative. Our nation's youth are increasingly finding
themselves the victims of violent and serious crimes. The growth in
violent crimes against children is most disturbing: between 1984 and
1994, the number of juveniles murdered in the United States rose 82
percent; in 1994, an average of 7 juveniles were murdered each day; 50
percent of the juveniles murdered in 1994 were between the ages of 15
and 17 years old; and 30 percent of the juveniles murdered in 1994 were
younger than 6 years of age.
A 1992 study found that abused or neglected children were 53
percent more likely to be arrested as juveniles and were 38 percent
more likely to be arrested for violent crime. This study also reported
that 75 percent of chronic violent delinquents suffered serious child
abuse by a family member and that 80 percent witnessed extreme acts of
violence.
The nation's changing demographics indicate that this problem may
become even more challenging in the years ahead. By 2010, the juvenile
population is expected to reach 74 million, an increase of seven
percent from 1995. Youth violence and violence against youth are
expected to increase appreciably. For the FBI and other law enforcement
agencies, there will be the special challenges of addressing child-
victimization and encountering juvenile offenders more frequently.
FBI RESPONSE AND CAPABILITIES
Let me describe some of the steps the FBI has taken to address each
of these crime problems and some of the capabilities the FBI possesses
to meet these challenges.
As I indicated earlier, the FBI has begun a comprehensive ``crimes
against children initiative.'' Under this initiative, the FBI has
consolidated all investigative operations and administrative matters
involving child victimization.
At FBI headquarters, I have established two offices within our
Criminal Investigative Division--the Office of Crimes Against Children
and the Office of Indian Country Investigations--to plan, manage, and
coordinate our nationwide efforts under the crimes against children
initiative.
Nationwide, there are 56 FBI field offices located in major cities
across the United States, along with approximately 400 resident
agencies in smaller cities and towns. This extensive field
organization, along with over 11,300 authorized agents, provides the
FBI with a unique federal law enforcement capability in these types of
cases.
The Baltimore, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, and Las Vegas
field offices have successfully joined other law enforcement agencies
in forming interagency task forces or networks to create
multidisciplinary teams to address child abductions, sexual
exploitation of children, and other crimes against children.
Several components of the FBI's critical incident response group
are often called upon to support cases involving sexual predators and
pedophiles. The child abduction and serial killer unit was established
to provide specialized investigative support services to this category
of investigations. Additionally, in compliance with the Violent Crime
Act of 1994, the FBI established the Morgan P. Hardiman task force on
missing and exploited children as part of the unit.
The Hardiman task force brings together agents and investigators
from seven federal agencies--the FBI, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the United States Marshals' Service, the United States
Secret Service, the United States Postal Inspection Service, the United
States Customs Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms--to serve as a resource for state and local law enforcement
agencies requiring assistance in a missing child investigation.
The child abduction and serial killer unit provides profiling
services to federal, state, local, and, on occasion, foreign law
enforcement that are often used to direct and guide investigative
efforts. The unit also assists agents and investigators by developing
strategies for interviewing persons suspected of crimes against
children based upon information known about the crime and the suspect.
The unit also coordinates the services of the violent criminal
apprehension program (VICAP). Through VICAP, the FBI provides profiling
assistance in serial crimes to other law enforcement agencies.
Along with members of the Hardiman task force, the unit provides
on-scene advice to state and local officers. Working together, the unit
and task force facilitate the use of federal agency resources and
capabilities, where appropriate, to assist state and local agencies. On
a daily basis, the members of this unit and the Hardiman task force
work closely with the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children.
The recently established Computer Investigations and Infrastructure
Threat Assessment Center (CITAC) will be a source of expert computer
support to cases involving the Internet.
The FBI laboratory provides a wide range of services that are used
in these types of investigations. For example, in the Polly Klaas case,
FBI evidence specialists used advanced forensic technologies to
discover the palm print of Richard Allen Davis on Polly Klaas' bedroom
wall. This evidence was crucial to the California state prosecution and
conviction of Davis for the abduction and murder of Polly Klaas.
Computer analysis response team (CART) agents and technicians,
trained under the auspices of the FBI laboratory, assist in the search
and examination of computer and telecommunications equipment used by
pedophiles and sexual predators. Pedophiles and sexual predators are
often very computer savvy and use advanced techniques to protect
themselves from being detected by law enforcement. The FBI laboratory
maintains a child pornography reference library that supports
investigators in tracing the source of images and materials.
Another important forensic tool is the FBI's combined DNA
information system (CODIS) that serves as a national index containing
DNA profiles from convicted offenders and unsolved crimes. Currently,
there are 62 forensic laboratories in 30 states and the District of
Columbia that are part of the CODIS network. We are hoping to add
another 22 state and local forensic laboratories to the CODIS network
this year.
Our Information Resources Division provides critical automation
services to support investigations of child pornography and other
crimes against children. These services include the Rapid Start team,
which is deployed to cities where a child abduction or similar crime
has been committed and there are large volumes of information that must
be computerized, indexed, and made available for analysis for the
investigators. Crimes against children investigations often generate
multitudes of leads from concerned citizens. Rapid Start provides
investigators with critical and timely information management
capabilities. This division also provides necessary technical services
and support, such as radios, communications, and electronic
surveillance, to joint task forces operations.
Our Criminal Justice Information Services Division operates and
maintains the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which includes
files for missing persons and unidentified persons. Through NCIC, the
FBI also makes available criminal history data that is contained in the
interstate identification index.
Additionally, the FBI has established an interim capability for a
national sexual predator and child molester registration system, as
mandated by President Clinton in Executive Order 137789 and the Pam
Lyncher Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996. An
interim capability became operational in February 1997. A permanent
sexual offender registry file, which will include the capability to
electronically transmit photographs of registered sex offenders, is
being developed within the NCIC 2000 system that is expected to become
operational in July 1999.
Finally, our overseas legal attaches support child exploitation
cases. For example, our legal attache offices in London and Bonn
assisted the ``Innocent Images'' investigation by facilitating the
dissemination of evidence regarding subjects who resided in England and
Germany that were receiving and transmitting child pornography through
an American commercial on-line service. Austrian authorities have
provided the FBI with evidentiary images obtained from the Internet as
part of their efforts to identify individuals transmitting child
pornography.
FBI legal attaches also serve as a ready resource for
investigations in foreign countries in cases involving international
parental kidnapings.
CONCLUSION
Protecting our children from becoming the victims of crime is
everyone's responsibility. It is a tough responsibility for parents,
neighbors, teachers, coaches, clergy, and public officials. It is a
responsibility that requires constant vigilance and perseverance.
Violent crimes committed against children are among the most
emotional and demanding cases that investigators and prosecutors must
face. Let me assure you that the FBI, as well as everyone in the
Department of Justice, accepts its responsibilities in this area
seriously and wholeheartedly. Our commitment is to work closely
together on all such cases that are brought to us for investigation so
that persons who prey upon our nation's children can be brought before
the bar of justice to answer for these offenses.
This concludes my prepared remarks. I would like to respond to any
questions that you may have.
TRAVELER CASE DEMONSTRATION
Mr. Freeh. Mr. Chairman, if you want, either now or later,
we do have the ability to do a very short demonstration, with
text only, of a traveler case. That is a case where someone
contacts a child over the Internet, arranges for interstate
transportation, and we are happy to do that now or----
Senator Gregg. Why don't you do it now, Mr. Director? Then
we can ask questions.
Mr. Freeh. Great. I will ask Richard Potocek, who is our
expert, also an agent assigned to the Innocent Images case, to
just explain to us what he is doing. Richard, do you want to
take over, please?
Mr. Potocek. Thank you. While the computer is counting down
and warming up, let me explain. This is an actual case that was
worked last year by the Innocent Images squad in Calverton, MD.
It involved an undercover agent who happened to be online, and
he was contacted by the defendant in this case, who was using
the screen name ``XderAlte.'' The undercover agent was using
the screen name ``JulieJ1982,'' and in online parlance that
would generally mean it is a female, Julie J., with a year of
birth of 1982.
This is a very brief portion of the online conversation
that went back and forth between these two people, the
defendant and the undercover agent. This is in a private chat
room where no one else could see this, no one else who was
online. It has been edited somewhat to take out some of the
language that was used, and what I will do is just read through
it line by line. Just by way of background, the defendant in
this case was a CEO of a manufacturing company in Columbia, MD.
That first line is an administrative message from the
computer system telling anyone in this particular room which
room they are in. This room was created by the defendant. And
XderAlte says, ``Have you ever actually met anyone you met
online?'' Julie, actually the undercover agent, responds, ``No;
not exactly.''
He states, ``What do you mean, not exactly?''
Julie: ``I was going to meet somebody once but chickened
out.''
XderAlte: ``Would you chicken out if we had plans for
lunch, do you think?'' ``I might.'' [Smiley face.]
``Are you there, Julie? Didn't mean to have that question
upset you.''
Julie: ``I don't think so. I'm in school during lunch.''
``The meeting sounds very nice, Julian.''
XderAlte: ``I would very much enjoy that. I would give you
a very gentle hug when we met!''
Julie: ``That would be nice.''
He asks her, ``Do you drive? How would I meet you? Is there
a restaurant you like very much?''
Julie: ``No; I don't drive, but I have friends who do.''
XderAlte: ``I think if we meet, it should be someplace
where you would feel safe.''
Julie: ``But then what would I do with my friend? What
about a mall? How long do you think we would need?''
He responds, ``A mall sounds very good. I think the first
time we meet it should be just long enough for us to get to
know each other better * * * no strings attached, and just see
how we are together.''
And so on. That is the end of the text.
What eventually happens is another--actually, the same
undercover agent using a different screen name finds this
individual online, suggests to him that he, the undercover
agent, has the ability to procure minors for sexual purposes,
and the defendant in this case expressed interest in that.
There was a meeting arranged in Arlington, VA. The defendant
traveled from Columbia, MD, to Arlington, VA, where he met an
undercover agent, paid him $180 for the sexual services of a
minor female, at which time he was arrested.
Mr. Freeh. Thanks, Rich.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
Mr. Director, I appreciate that demonstration. How easy is
it to find individuals in these chat rooms who either, one, are
willing to send pornographic photographs of minors--of
children, or, two, are looking to make contact with a child?
Mr. Freeh. The contact cases or the traveler cases, as we
have mentioned them, are less frequent. In fact, we have only
worked 19 of them since the inception of the Innocent Images.
In terms of people willing to contact what appears to be a
young child and the speed with which they will send
pornographic images, it is almost frighteningly amazing. We did
a demonstration in my conference room yesterday where Rich went
online realtime as a 14-year-old girl, and I think several
seconds after he was in the chat room, he was getting contacts
and solicitations for images. Several minutes after he was in
the chat room, there was a list of waiting messages. The chat
rooms are basically full all the time, which means there are
people in there constantly. And there is no reluctance to
engage in those types of conversations and transmissions.
I was told yesterday that in one instance the FBI
undercover agent, who was working under a screen name in one of
these venues, told the subjects or the people who were
contacting her that she was an FBI agent, and that did not
deter or interrupt the solicitations or transmissions at all.
So I think there is a huge reservoir of people out there
who are willing to engage in this, and the demonstration which
I had yesterday--it is certainly available to you to have it; I
think you have had part of it--shows that there is no shortage
of interest or activity in that regard.
Senator Gregg. Do you have any idea what percentage of that
is within the country and what percentage is outside the
country?
Mr. Freeh. It is hard to estimate. I know looking at some
of the messages yesterday, we identified some of them, at
least, through the screen name as originating from foreign
activities. Some of the profiles--and I am not the computer
person here, but there is an inquiry mode to ask for a profile
or background of the people in the chat room, and one of them
showed yesterday an individual from West Germany. So that is
very, very common.
Senator Gregg. The main concern, then, is the projection of
child pornography images over the Internet. That is basically
what you are looking for?
Mr. Freeh. Yes; that is the basic violation, and most of
the cases deal exactly with that violation.
Senator Gregg. There is a pretty clear law on that. Do you
need additional legislation in that area?
Mr. Freeh. I do not think we do. The law is fairly clear
that one transmission is sufficient to predicate a criminal
investigation and support a conviction. I think the law is
fairly clear on that. It is more of a resource issue for us and
the other agencies to be out there actively and proactively to
deal with what is a huge problem.
Senator Gregg. We are talking child pornography here,
purely child pornography?
Mr. Freeh. Yes.
Senator Gregg. So there is no issue of first amendment
rights.
Mr. Freeh. That is correct. We are not talking about any
community standards relating to obscene or indecent material.
This is strictly child pornography.
Senator Gregg. Now, maybe you could give us a sense of how
you are setting up--to the extent you are willing to disclose
it in a public forum--how you are setting up this process? Are
you bringing agents in with computer backgrounds? What is the
training? Is there a special training process for agents
involved in this? How are you structuring it?
Mr. Freeh. I would answer that in two parts. There is a
comprehensive effort, as I think I told the committee last
year, to recruit people who have backgrounds in computer
sciences and technology. We have hired, since 1993, 400 special
agents who have computer or high-tech backgrounds. We have
hundreds of agents who are proficient now in the use of
computers. When we graduate our new agents at Quantico every 2
weeks now, we give them a gun, a badge, and a laptop computer,
which is not only symptomatic but requisite in terms of the
kinds of cases they are going to be working on.
The agents who work the Innocent Images cases do not
necessarily need a computer science background.
They can be trained and are trained very proficiently to
use the tools they need in this particular case. But in the
investigative detection--in other words, to identify
subscribers to online services, particularly if it is a foreign
online service, or just to try to run down and identify
somebody on the Internet that works outside the purview of an
online subscriber service requires a lot more computer
expertise, which is why we have our CART unit and why we are
looking for people who have that type of background.
Senator Gregg. Do you have a special class structure now at
Quantico dealing with the forensics of computer science and the
issue of pornography on computers?
Mr. Freeh. Yes; we do. In addition to the new agents'
training, we have training which we provide in the field to
more experienced agents for greater proficiency. We have
found--when we started hiring agents in 1994, after a 22-month
hiatus--the course that was presented to the new agents was a
little bit stale. The instructors told me that when they
presented the computer keyboarding class that was part of the
older curriculum, a couple of the agents came up to them and
said: You know, we learned that stuff in high school. What else
do you have?
We have now substantially upgraded and made a much more
complicated and comprehensive curriculum to get the kind of
expertise that we need.
Senator Gregg. Senator Hollings.
Senator Hollings. Well, that is what interests me, is how
we are going to really extend the techniques, the know-how to
the State and local level. Here is child pornography, an
offense that the Federal Government does not have the resources
to take over singularly as a responsibility. And the only way
it is really going to be controlled is at the State and local
level. I am thinking back when the then FBI Director came and
said now we have given up on bank robberies, we are turning
that over to the States and the local authorities, because we
did not have the resources. In a similar fashion, I commend you
for what you have done. You have got your setup. You have got
the various task forces. You have got the parts to the FBI
school and everything else. But it seems to me that what we
need to do is institute a special school for the local and
State authorities to sort of bring them up to date here,
because you can see from Mr. Allen's testimony that, just like
you just started in 1994, I do not know whether any of the
other States have started in even yet.
What we need is just that, some comprehensive approach at
this time because we are growing like Topsy. The Justice
Department has grown in 10 years from $4 billion to $19
billion. Your FBI budget just 10 years ago was $1 billion, and
now you are asking this year for about $3 billion. And
everywhere I go on the Senate floor, Members say that they are
cutting taxes and cutting spending.
With that kind of environment, we have got to be sensible
about this, if we are really going to do it. I think a full-
court press of educating the State and local authorities is
called for so that they can take it over and handle it in an
authoritative manner, and then we will be able to control this
Internet child pornography. But these particular cases that you
have got here, you can be setting those up ad infinitum, and we
just do not have enough money in the Federal Treasury to take
care of it and monitor every personal computer.
So with that in mind, what would you suggest? In this FBI
budget request that you have before us this year--and I think
we are going to be hearing that in this subcommittee here on
Thursday--what amounts do you have set aside for any
comprehensive educational approach? You have got the know-how.
You have got those who really understand how to really get on
top of it. But to get this information and get this expertise
down and the techniques down to the local and State law
enforcement agencies, what part of the $200 million are you
going to use?
Mr. Freeh. Senator, I would probably need to just review
that quickly before I give you a specific answer. Generally,
however, the protocols and the techniques, as well as the
investigative guidelines which we have now used successfully
even after court challenges, are available and are distributed
whenever we can make them available to State and local
agencies. For instance, the Florida----
Senator Hollings. But they do not know how to ask the
questions. You make it available, but in a general sense, I
will bet my boots right now that if you go to these States and
everything else, they will say, well, yes, we understand it is
a problem; fine business on, you know, continue with respect to
kidnaping and the serious and the violent crimes and the serial
murders and crimes of that kind. But when it comes, just as
this hearing indicates, to child pornography, local law
enforcement will not even be asking you the question. They will
say, ``Well, I do not want to bother the FBI with child
pornography.'' And you have got to sort of bring them in and
train them and educate them, and then get rid of it. Then you
move on to some of the other more serious crimes.
Mr. Freeh. Right. Well, I agree. It is much like you
referred to the bank robbery crime.
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Mr. Freeh. What we have to do is ensure that the protocols
and the techniques are available to be franchised to the State
and locals where most of these offenses are being committed.
We have in our Quantico training provisions--and this I am
aware of--in the National Academy, classes which deal with
investigative computer sciences, the use of computers to commit
crimes. I will give you a specific answer in terms of how much
of our budget is devoted to training or propagation of those
particular techniques.
[The information follows:]
National Academy Investigative Computer Courses
Among the numerous courses available to the over one
thousand State, local, and international officers who annually
attend the National Academy are three instructional classes
that contain material directly applicable to the investigative
use of computers and computer crimes: Management Applications
of Computerized Law Enforcement Information Systems,
Contemporary Issues in White Collar Crime, and the Practice of
Crime Analysis. These courses present training on topics such
as obtaining search warrants for computers and computer
records; sources of information and electronic databases;
computer crimes (e.g., child pornography); use of computers as
investigative tools; computer forensics; and Internet access,
capabilities, and law enforcement on-line services.
The FBI's Training Division is also developing a three-
credit course, which will be accredited through the University
of Virginia, dedicated solely to the investigative use of
computers. In addition to the training that focuses directly on
the investigative use of computers, the FBI provides other
computer training within the National Academy program:
Introduction to Micro-Computers, Micro-Computers for Managers
and Management Planning and Budgeting. In fiscal year 1998, the
FBI also plans to address the need for cyber-crime training.
Senator Hollings. I am trying to get a figure, because you
take the Center for Exploited and Missing Children that Mr.
Allen has over here in Virginia, and he has got four offices
around the country. I bet you he would like to have 46 more.
Mr. Freeh. He sure would.
Senator Hollings. And he could use them effectively.
Mr. Freeh. Right.
Senator Hollings. Then how do we get that done and get
ahead of the curve before this thing just breaks out like the
drug problem. The volume will overwhelm you unless the State
and local people are astute to the techniques on how to handle
it and how to really nip it in the bud. That is what I have in
mind.
Mr. Freeh. As I said, the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement now uses all of our protocols to conduct on their
own these types of investigations.
Senator Hollings. That is Florida. How many other States?
Mr. Freeh. I do not have----
Senator Hollings. Ms. Hooper, how many other States? You
know, I just want good answers, but adequate answers are fine.
You have informed the Director and me now that it is Florida,
but how many other States?
Ms. Hooper. We provide demonstrations and training to every
National Academy class at Quantico before they graduate. We
travel throughout the country and provide training to State and
local law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges. We
present demonstrations. We have gone all over the country to do
this. I do not have an exact----
Senator Hollings. You have done it in every State already?
Ms. Hooper. Not every State, but we have traveled
throughout the country.
[The information follows:]
Innocent Images Training
Listed below is a sample of online child pornography
investigative training that was provided by FBI Baltimore to
other law enforcement personnel:
FBI National Academy--Law Enforcement Supervisors.
Albuquerque, New Mexico--Group of Women Judges.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin--State and Local Law Enforcement.
Alexandria, Virginia--Federal Prosecutors.
Richmond, Virginia--State and Local Law Enforcement.
Chesterfield, Virginia--Local Law Enforcement.
Ocean City, Maryland--Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.
On a daily basis, FBI Baltimore receives numerous telephone
inquiries from other Federal, State, local and county law
enforcement agencies concerning online child pornography
investigations.
Senator Hollings. Well, good enough. You can see what I am
getting at.
Mr. Freeh. Yes.
Senator Hollings. Because the particular case you showed
me, we will all be dead and gone, you can put that on in 10
minutes and catch them. I mean, you are just going to have
those kinds of people in society. Unless you can sort of
develop that technique at the local level, we are gone. You
just do not have enough money at the Federal level.
Mr. Freeh. Senator, in partial response to your question, I
have something which I can certainly provide as an exhibit to
the committee. It is called the child abduction response plan.
This is now being printed in the FBI, and what this is is a
how-to-do handbook in child abduction cases. This will go out
to thousands of police departments around the country. We are
also preparing a floppy disk which will transmit this
information.
Our goal is, with respect to the protocols and the
techniques used in Innocent Images, to do the same thing, to at
least make available in a reference and operational form, how
to do steps 1 to 10 to investigate and prosecute those kinds of
cases. We will endeavor to continue that kind of law
enforcement assistance.
[The information follows:]
Child Abduction Response Plan
The FBI's Child Abduction Response Plan is a law
enforcement sensitive document not suitable for public
dissemination. The FBI will provide the Subcommittee a copy of
the plan under separate cover.
Senator Hollings. Very good. I think the record would
show--I do not know whether you were here at the time, but we
had a favorable word for the FBI from Mr. Allen and the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and also
the witness, Diane. This is the first favorable word I have
heard about the FBI since January, and we are glad to hear it.
We commend you both on the job being done.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
I think Senator Hollings has raised a good point. It is one
that I think the committee will want to pursue, which is how we
systematize and institutionalize the communication of your
expertise to the local and State law enforcement community? I
think you would see a lot of receptivity on this committee to
some sort of programmatic way of doing that. If you could put
some of your thinkers to work on coming up with some proposals
in that area, and maybe Mr. Allen could also give us some
ideas, that would be very helpful to us. I think what Senator
Hollings has pointed out is a very much needed effort.
Mr. Freeh. We will do that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you.
BUDGET AND LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
I was wondering, in the area of your budget and in the area
of additional legislative activity, are there any initiatives
in the budget area or in the legislative area that you feel you
need in order to continue an aggressive pursuit of the Innocent
Images initiatives?
Mr. Freeh. In the budget area for both 1997 and now
estimated for 1998, the crimes against children programs, which
include sexual exploitation of children, parental kidnaping,
child abduction, and serial killers, the Hardiman task force,
we estimate for 1998 we will expend about $15 million, which is
what we expended in 1997, 250 positions.
We had asked for in 1998 a significant enhancement to
pursue some of the propagation, which is what both Senators
just referred to--that is, moving these task forces and
resources around the country so they could be, one, more
operational and, two, more interactive with the State and local
officials. That particular request to OMB was not approved for
1998, and we intend to pursue it next year because we think it
is a very good investment of resources.
Senator Gregg. But you do not feel you need any additional
legislative language in this area?
Mr. Freeh. I think with respect to the legal requirements
for the possession of child pornography, which now require
three separate episodes or three separate items, it seems that
one would be legally sufficient, certainly on a constitutional
basis. That may be one technical area for change. Other than
that, I do not, at this time, have any sense that we would need
major legislative assistance. I think we have the tools there.
I just think we need more resources.
VICTIMS ASSISTANCE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
Senator Gregg. Mr. Allen made a point that the victim is
sort of left out of the equation when it comes to a potential
resource for identifying perpetrators, and he felt that there
should be some more formalized effort to talk to victims,
obviously try to help them out psychological, I presume, but,
in addition, determine how they can be useful in expanding the
universe of knowledge. Do you have a formal followup for the
victims?
Mr. Freeh. There is a departmental witness assistance
program and a victim assistance program. There is a special
unit in the Department for these programs. All the component
agencies, including the FBI, have resources in the field which
address these programs, and part of that is the safety and
informational disbursements to the witness during the process,
particularly the victim witnesses; also to make them aware of
their various rights, the right to have an input at sentencing,
the right for restitution under certain statutes.
That is an ongoing program. It certainly would apply in all
of the cases where you would have crimes against children.
Senator Gregg. I think his point was that some of these
victims could be great sources of information as to potential
other criminal activity. I presume your investigators pursue
that, but I did not--maybe you could give me some input on
that.
Mr. Freeh. We will get that for you.
[The information follows:]
Victim Input
The FBI frequently interviews child victims in missing and
exploited children cases. The interviews are conducted to
determine the facts of the child's victimization and develop
specific information that could lead to the identification and
prosecution of the offender. In addition to obtaining basic
investigative information, it has proven beneficial to also
obtain information about the offenders behavior. In cases
involving the sexual victimization of a child, it is very
important to obtain information about the offenders verbal,
physical, and sexual behavior. With that information, FBI
profilers can assist the investigators by providing information
about characteristics of the offender that can be helpful in
their search for the offender.
Senator Gregg. Again, the parents' role in this is
critical. I appreciate your reading one more time the things
that parents can do. We are all parents.
INCREASING SAFETY AWARENESS
Is there anything beyond that that we feel that we, as a
government, should be doing? The FBI brings to the table great
credibility in dealing with education. It is a unique
situation, I think. The FBI and the National Science Foundation
are two of the institutions which, when children are
communicated with by these organizations, they are given great
credibility. I was wondering if there was any thought given to
some sort of educational, promotional effort. I can understand
if there has not been because this is a new area. But I
remember when I was going to school, there was a lot of
information that came through the FBI that was promotional and
explained how to deal with criminal activity. And kids respond
to that.
I was wondering if you had any sort of FBI kids' packet--
elementary or secondary school packet--that involved quizzes or
some sort of creative, interactive effort that makes kids
sensitive to this problem, makes parents sensitive to this
problem, and has the FBI imprimatur of interest and obviously
expertise on it. Has that been given any thought?
Mr. Freeh. It is a very, very good point. I think it is
something we probably have not taken advantage of, and it is
certainly something we will look at.
We have various programs, the Junior FBI Special Agent
Program. We have agents and support employees around the
country who, on a daily basis are active in schools and
communities, particularly high-risk areas. And it seems like
with a little bit of work and not a lot of resources, but with
potentially a big impact, we could do something like that. And
I certainly will take that up after the hearing.
FBI TOUR
Senator Gregg. Just off the top of my head, I was thinking
I do not know how many millions of people go through the FBI,
but I know in my office it is the most popular tour. When kids
come to Washington, that is where they want to go. Possibly,
your tour guides could hand them the booklet put together by
Mr. Allen's group, or the booklet we are putting together, or a
booklet that you folks put together, to just give them some
awareness of the dangers, or maybe even make it part of the
tour such as a stop on the tour would be good.
Mr. Freeh. Yes; that is a great idea, Senator. We will
pursue that.
Senator Gregg. That is just a thought. In any event, I
congratulate your agency for a lot of things. I think your
agency does do excellent work. I think this country is very
indebted to what the FBI does. I am very supportive of your
efforts. I am very supportive of what you have done, Mr.
Director. And I think in this area you especially deserve to be
congratulated, your agency and your people. It is an initiative
that had to be undertaken, and you saw the problem and you
pursued it. Congress and everybody else is a little bit behind
you, but we are trying to catch up with you, and we want to
support you, so thank you very much.
Mr. Freeh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing. Senator Hollings, thank you.
1998 BUDGET REQUEST
Senator Hollings. Excuse me. What was the amount you
requested for the crimes against children section in your
budget this year that OMB did not approve?
Mr. Freeh. For the sexual exploitation of children task
forces, we asked for 94 positions, including 56 agents around
the country. That was $9.9 million.
Senator Hollings. $9.9 million?
Mr. Freeh. Yes, sir.
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Gregg. Thank you, Senator Hollings, for
participating so effectively in this and giving us some good
ideas.
Mr. Freeh. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I just make part of
the record the correspondence between us and Senator Grassley
so I can complete the answer that I gave before?
Senator Gregg. Absolutely.
Mr. Freeh. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, March 27, 1997.
The Honorable Louis Freeh,
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Room 7176, J. Edgar Hoover
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Director Freeh: As Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Administrative Oversight and the Courts, I am writing to verify certain
information regarding the FBI's commitment of resources to
investigating violations of federal child pornography laws. At a recent
briefing for Judiciary Committee staff, FBI presenters indicated that
the FBI has a database of approximately 4,000 names of persons who have
sent computerized child pornography to undercover agents. Despite
having sent sexually explicit images of children over a computer
network, FBI presenters also indicated that these individuals were not
being investigated. Please describe: the precise number of names in
this database; how those names came to be included in the database; why
the names included in the database are not being further investigated;
and any ``threshold'' requirements to launch an investigation for
sending computerized child pornography.
Please deliver your response to these questions to 308 Senate Hart
Office Building not later than the close of business on April 3, 1997.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions
regarding this request, please call John McMickle of my Subcommittee
staff at 224-6736.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts.
______
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, DC, April 4, 1997.
Honorable Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts,
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of March 27, 1997. I
greatly appreciate your interest in the FBI's investigative programs
designed to identify and prosecute criminals who deal in child
pornography or otherwise exploit or harm children in violation of
federal law.
As you know, I will be testifying in front of Chairman Gregg on
Tuesday about the full range of the FBI's programs in this area:
``Innocent Images'' is but one aspect of a larger investigative effort
designed to capitalize on the FBI's substantial experience dealing with
computer-aided crimes, kidnappings, pornography, and the other types of
crimes committed by those intent on bringing harm to children. We are
very grateful for the support Chairman Gregg, his Committee, and
Congress have given the FBI.
Regarding ``Innocent Images,'' please be assured that in all cases
where the subject has been identified by an apparent true name, the FBI
is conducting an investigation. At any given time, the number of
persons under investigation is changing. Subjects are added if they
originate and disseminate what appears to be child pornography to an
undercover agent, or if they are the subject of a complaint by a
citizen or Internet service provider. The federal grand jury process is
utilized to discover the true identities of the originators of the
child pornography. Thus, the true names in the file to which you refer
are covered by Rule 6e of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
We do apply investigative guidelines. They were designed in
conjunction with the Department of Justice to ensure that in any
instance where it appears there is physical harm to a child being
committed, it is instantly and vigorously investigated; that the cases
investigated have prosecutive merit; and, that an intent to distribute
pornography is apparent from the transmission. No single factor is
determinative; instead, all of the known facts are taken into account.
I hope this is helpful. We would be pleased to provide you a full
briefing on this case as well as on our entire investigative program
aimed at protecting children by enforcing the applicable federal laws.
Sincerely yours,
Louis J. Freeh,
Director.
______
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, April 7, 1997.
The Honorable Louis Freeh,
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Director Freeh: Having received your letter of April 4, 1997,
I am writing to express my disappointment with the non-responsive
nature of your reply to my questions. As I stated in my earlier letter,
I had asked whether, as FBI presenters told Judiciary Committee staff
at a recent briefing, the FBI currently has a database of approximately
4,000 names of known child pornographers who sent child pornography to
undercover FBI agents over computer networks. This is a cause for
serious concern since child pornography is such a vicious and
horrendous crime. Unfortunately, you did not forthrightly address this
issue in your letter.
I believe this information will be very helpful to Congress in
determining whether law enforcement resources dedicated to fighting
child pornography should be re-directed. Obviously, if the FBI and
Justice Department have not properly allocated enough resources to
prosecute all known child pornographers, Congress should consider
earmarking funds for the specific purpose of investigating and
prosecuting child pornographers. It is my understanding that there are
at most three agents assigned specifically to work on child pornography
cases. By contrast, under last year's funding resolution, the FBI's
Office of Congressional and Public Affairs has an authorized complement
of 81 employees with a budget of nearly $6 million. This allocation of
resources seems to indicate that the FBI considers lobbying Congress
and issuing press releases to be many times more important than
fighting child pornography. I believe that the American people would be
well-served if Congress were to consider re-allocating a portion of
these agents to fight child pornography. The Weekly Standard this week
has struck a chord by suggesting that the real problem is ``a lack of
resolve at the highest levels of law enforcement.''
While I await an appropriate response to my inquiry, I will be
sending a letter to Chairman Gregg communicating my concerns and asking
him to pursue this matter during his Appropriations Subcommittee
hearing on April 8, 1997.
Sincerely,
Charles A. Grassley,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts.
______
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, DC, April 17, 1997.
Honorable Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts,
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of April 7th. I
greatly appreciate your interest in insuring that the FBI has
sufficient resources to identify and investigate criminals who
distribute child pornography or otherwise exploit or harm children in
violation of federal law.
As you know, Senator Gregg held a hearing in support of the FBI's
comprehensive program designed to capitalize on the FBI's substantial
experience in the types of crime involving harm or exploitation of
children. We greatly appreciate the support Congress is giving the FBI
in that regard.
I can assure you that there is an absolute resolve at every level
in the FBI and the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute
criminals who transmit child pornography or otherwise harm children.
The FBI has a much greater commitment of resources dedicated to
this problem than you have been told. In addition to the Agents and
professional support assigned to the Baltimore FBI office, the central
point for the Innocent Images investigation, there are Agents in nearly
every FBI field office around the country dedicated to, and in direct
support of, this effort.
Because this program is so important to the safety of our children,
these numbers are supplemented whenever investigative needs dictate. We
will not leave unaddressed a situation that we have identified as
potentially harmful.
In answer to your specific questions:
--There are 3,978 names of individuals in the Innocent Images case
management file, all obtained in response to grand jury
subpoenas. Please understand, this number is cumulative and
fluctuates constantly. It does not represent a holding place
for unaddressed work.
--Individuals are added to the case management file if they have
disseminated what appears to be child pornography to an
undercover Agent, or if they have been the subject of a
complaint by a citizen or Internet service provider.
--There is an ongoing case-by-case review in which immediate action
is taken where the circumstances dictate. Included in these
circumstances are details of transmission itself, and/or facts
which raise a concern for the safety of a child.
--Names included in the case management file are being investigated
consistent with the law and established prosecutorial
guidelines.
--There are specific investigative guidelines developed with the
Department of Justice. They are not a ``requirement'' per se.
As was explained at the hearing, any number of factors are
considered. For example, investigation is immediately conducted
when a child appears to be in any danger. Other factors include
the egregious nature of the material, whether the images are
new or ones that have been circulated for years out of
published sources, whether the true identity of the sender is
known, past experience or record of the sender, analysis of
accompanying written material, the apparent age of the persons
in the images, the age of the sender, etc. One transmission can
and has resulted in an immediate investigation.
We believe there is a valid reason for guidelines. Our goal is to
have a prosecutable case. To do that, we must establish a true
identity, knowledge, intent and the other requirements for a successful
prosecution. In addition, we always need sufficient information to
establish probable cause to obtain search warrants. Frequently, a
single transmission is insufficient for these purposes, particularly if
the people in the images are not clearly and unequivocally juveniles as
defined in the statute. Three instances are usually sufficient to meet
these legal requirements. We present for prosecution every case that we
are able to make prosecutable.
I hope this information answers your questions. Please be advised
that in an effort to be responsive we included information the public
disclosure of which will harm our investigation. I respectfully ask
that you treat it accordingly.
Again, thank you for your interest. I would be pleased to arrange a
full briefing for you if you believe that would be helpful.
Sincerely yours,
Louis J. Freeh,
Director.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Gregg. I ask that the record remain open for
Senators to submit additional questions, and I appreciate
everybody being here.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the agency for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Judd Gregg
Question. The Senate Judiciary Committee notified us that they were
briefed that the FBI had a database with some four thousand names of
people who have actually sent computerized child pornography to
undercover FBI agents.
How many names are in this database?
Answer. There are 3,978 names of individuals in the Innocent Images
case management file, all obtained in response to Federal Grand Jury
subpoenas. This number is cumulative and fluctuates constantly. It does
not represent a holding place for unaddressed work. Names included in
the case management file are being investigated consistent with the law
and established prosecutorial guidelines.
Question. What criteria are used for adding a name to the database?
Answer. Individuals are added to the case management file if they
have disseminated what appears to be child pornography to an undercover
agent, or if they have been the subject of a complaint by a citizen or
Internet Service Provider.
Question. What are the ``investigative guidelines'' governing
investigations where computerized-child pornography is sent?
Answer. There are specific investigative guidelines developed with
the Department of Justice. They are not a ``requirement'' per se. A
number of factors are considered in these guidelines. For example, an
investigation is immediately conducted when a child appears to be in
any danger. Other factors include the egregious nature of the material,
whether the images are new or ones that have been circulated for years
out of published sources, past experience or criminal record of the
sender, analysis of accompanying written material, the apparent age of
the persons in the images, the age of the sender, etc. One transmission
can result in an immediate investigation. There is an ongoing case-by-
case review in which immediate action is taken where the circumstances
dictate.
Question. What plans, if any, does the FBI have for transferring
resources to deal specifically with investigating child pornography?
Answer. It is the FBI's intention to create a Bureau wide Crimes
Against Children (CAC) initiative, both at FBIHQ and in each field
office, which will consolidate FBI investigative operations and
administrative matters involving child-victimization. It is the FBI's
intention to pursue funding through the budget process to establish 56
FBI-sponsored CAC interagency task forces, one in each field office.
Special Agents in each field office would be designated and specially
trained to conduct CAC investigations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ernest F. Hollings
crimes against children initiative
Question. Your prepared statement describes the FBI's Crimes
Against Children initiative, of which child pornography on the Internet
is a major focus of crimes involving the sexual exploitation of
children. In looking over the FBI's 1998 budget request, I did not find
the Crimes Against Children initiative listed among the FBI's seven
budget initiatives for 1998.
Within the FBI's budget, where does funding for the ``Innocent
Images'' and Crimes Against Children initiative currently fall?
Answer. Funding for Innocent Images and the Crimes Against Children
initiative is provided in the Violent Crimes and Major Offenders
Program, which is part of the Violent Crimes Decision Unit.
Question. What is the funding for fiscal year 1998?
Answer. For fiscal year 1998, the requested funding for the Violent
Crimes and Major Offenders Program is 3,939 positions (2,248 agents),
3,851 FTE and $376,994,000. Of this amount, the FBI estimates it will
utilize 250 positions (157 agents) and $18,892,000 combating crimes
against children.
INDUSTRY COOPERATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
Question. In tracking down pedophiles and sexual predators using
the Internet and commercial on-line chat rooms, I am told that the FBI
must go back to service providers in order to obtain the names and
address of subscribers who are involved in transmitting pornographic
materials or soliciting minors. There are thousands of these service
providers, ranging in size from industry giants, such as America On-
Line and Prodigy, to ``Mom and Pop'' outfits in smaller cities and
towns.
Are you satisfied with the cooperation the FBI is getting from
service providers?
Answer. The FBI is developing working relationships with service
providers that will acquaint them with FBI investigative jurisdiction
and needs. Some providers have referred child pornography cases to the
FBI as a result of these efforts. The FBI is hopeful that cooperation
will continue to build as a result of these efforts.
Question. Are they fully complying with your search warrants or
court orders?
Answer. The online service providers have, to a large extent,
demonstrated their ``good faith'' in complying with subpoenas and court
orders. Through our experience, the FBI has found that some service
providers do not maintain subscriber information to the same detail or
availability that other businesses do, i.e., banks and telephone
companies. In some instances, service providers have been unsure of
what information can be provided due to lack of legal precedent, fear
of civil liability, and applicability of Federal statutes.
Question. Is there a need for legislation to ensure the full
cooperation of service providers to lawful requests for subscribers
information?
Answer. For both the FBI and industry, this is an emerging area
where case precedents are still being developed. At the present time,
the FBI does not foresee a need for legislation and is continuing to
work with industry to develop cooperative relationships under existing
law.
FBI ROLE IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON THE INTERNET
Question. What is the FBI's role in child pornography on the
Internet?
Answer. The FBI focuses on those individuals who are producers of
child pornography; those who actually upload illegal images onto the
online services; those who are major distributors of child pornography;
and those who indicate a willingness to travel for the purpose of
engaging in sexual activity with a juvenile. A major distributor is
defined as one who appears to have transmitted a large volume of child
pornography via computer on numerous occasions to numerous other
subscribers.
Question. How does it differ from what other Federal agencies do?
Answer. The U.S. Postal Service investigates violations of Title
18, USC, Sections 1461 and 1463, which deal with the transmission of
obscene matter through the mail.
Title 19, USC, Section 1305, which is included in the Tariff Act of
1930, prohibits the importation of obscene matter into the United
States. Violations of Section 1305 are within the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Customs Service.
Question. How does the FBI interact with the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and local law enforcement?
Answer. The FBI enjoys an outstanding working relationship with
NCMEC. The NCMEC continues to forward all complaints received from
their child abuse toll-free hotline to the FBI. The Child Abduction and
Serial Killer Unit (CASKU) maintains a close working relationship with
the NCMEC, and assists in coordinating a field office's need to utilize
NCMEC resources such as age enhancement of photographs, and the
distribution of missing child posters.
The FBI's relationship with local law enforcement agencies
continues to be extremely effective. Child abductions are routinely
handled expeditiously and prudently across the country as the FBI works
with local law enforcement agencies to solve these random crimes. There
are currently five formalized Crimes Against Children interagency task
forces operating in the United States. FBI Baltimore has formally
trained different law enforcement agencies across the country on the
protocols and guidelines utilized in the Innocent Images investigation.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Gregg. The hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., Tuesday, April 8, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-