[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
APRIL 4, APRIL 6, AND MAY 3, 2006
Serial No. 109-126
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web:http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2006
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area
(202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
Joe Barton, Texas, Chairman
Ralph M. Hall, Texas John D. Dingell, Michigan
Michael Bilirakis, Florida Ranking Member
Vice Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California
Fred Upton, Michigan Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Cliff Stearns, Florida Rick Boucher, Virginia
Paul E. Gillmor, Ohio Edolphus Towns, New York
Nathan Deal, Georgia Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ed Whitfield, Kentucky Sherrod Brown, Ohio
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Bart Gordon, Tennessee
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Bobby L. Rush, Illinois
John Shimkus, Illinois Anna G. Eshoo, California
Heather Wilson, New Mexico Bart Stupak, Michigan
John B. Shadegg, Arizona Eliot L. Engel, New York
Charles W. "Chip" Pickering, Mississippi Albert R. Wynn, Maryland
Vice Chairman Gene Green, Texas
Vito Fossella, New York Ted Strickland, Ohio
Roy Blunt, Missouri Diana DeGette, Colorado
Steve Buyer, Indiana Lois Capps, California
George Radanovich, California Mike Doyle, Pennsylvania
Charles F. Bass, New Hampshire Tom Allen, Maine
Joseph R. Pitts, Pennsylvania Jim Davis, Florida
Mary Bono, California Jan Schakowsky, Illinois
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Lee Terry, Nebraska Charles A. Gonzalez, Texas
Mike Ferguson, New Jersey Jay Inslee, Washington
Mike Rogers, Michigan Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin
C.L. "Butch" Otter, Idaho Mike Ross, Arkansas
Sue Myrick, North Carolina
John Sullivan, Oklahoma
Tim Murphy, Pennsylvania
Michael C. Burgess, Texas
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Bud Albright, Staff Director
David Cavicke, General Counsel
Reid P. F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
Ed Whitfield, Kentucky, Chairman
Cliff Stearns, Florida Bart Stupak, Michigan
Charles W. "Chip" Pickering, Mississippi Ranking Member
Charles F. Bass, New Hampshire Diana DeGette, Colorado
Greg Walden, Oregon Jan Schakowsky, Illinois
Mike Ferguson, New Jersey Jay Inslee, Washington
Michael C. Burgess, Texas Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee Henry A. Waxman, California
Joe Barton, Texas John D. Dingell, Michigan
(Ex Officio) (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Hearings held:
April 4, 2006................................................. 1
April 6, 2006................................................. 238
May 3, 2006................................................... 423
Testimony of:
Cooper, Sharon W., Developmental and Forensic Pediatrics, PA,
Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill................................................ 17
Berry, Justin................................................. 75
Eichenwald, Kurt, Reporter, The New York Times................ 85
Allen, Ernie, President and Chief Executive Officer, National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children.................... 126
Aftab, Parry, Executive Director, WiredSafety................. 144
Schroeder, Teri L., President/Program Director, i-SAFE America 187
Sullivan, Shannon, Teen Angel, WiredSafety.................... 201
Mercer, William W., United States Attorney for the District
of Montana; Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General,
United States Department of Justice.......................... 256
Swecker, Chris, Acting Assistant Executive Director, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of
Justice...................................................... 268
Kardasz, Dr. Frank, Sergeant, Phoenix Police Department;
Project Director, Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Force, United States Department of Justice 275
Waters, Flint, Lead Special Agent, Wyoming Division of
Criminal Investigation, Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Force Technology Center, United States Department
of Justice................................................... 285
Clark, John P., Deputy Assistant Secretary, United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department
of Homeland Security......................................... 290
Kezer, William E., Deputy Chief Inspector, United States Postal
Inspection Service........................................... 295
Weeks, Grier, Executive Director, National Association to
Protect Children............................................. 347
Allen, Masha.................................................. 444
Grace, Nancy, CNN Nancy Grace................................. 449
Fisher, Hon. Alice S., Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, United States Department of Justice................ 470
Roldan, Raul, Section Chief, Cyber Crime Section, Cyber
Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States
Department of Justice........................................ 487
Additional material submitted for the record:
Kezer, William E., Deputy Chief Inspector, United States
Postal Inspection Service, response for the record........... 409
Waters, Flint, Lead Special Agent, Wyoming Division of
Criminal Investigation, Internet Crimes Against Children Task
Force Technology Center, United States Department of Justice,
response for the record..................................... 411
Swecker, Chris, Acting Assistant Executive Director, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice,
response for the record...................................... 412
Kardasz, Dr. Frank, Sergeant, Phoenix Police Department;
Project Director, Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Force, United States Department of Justice, response for
the record................................................... 417
Plitt, James, Director, Cyber Crimes Center, Office of
Investigations, United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security,
response for the record...................................... 421
Weeks, Grier, Executive Director, National Association to
Protect Children, response for the record.................... 422
Fisher, Hon. Alice S., Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, United States Department of Justice, response for
the record................................................... 582
Marsh, James R., Esq., response for the record................ 585
Allen, Faith, response for the record......................... 616
Roldan, Raul, Section Chief, Cyber Crime Section, Cyber
Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States
Department of Justice, response for the record............... 618
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET: WHAT PARENTS, KIDS
AND CONGRESS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CHILD PREDATORS
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 2123 of the
Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (Chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Walden, Ferguson, Burgess,
Blackburn, Barton (ex officio), Whitfield, and Stupak.
Staff present: Mark Paoletta, Chief Counsel for Oversight and
Investigations; Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel for Oversight
and Investigations; Kelli Andrews, Counsel; Karen Christian,
Counsel; Michael Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Edith Holleman,
Minority Counsel; and David Nelson, Minority Investigator/
Economist.
Mr. Whitfield. I would like to call this hearing to order. Today�s
subject of our hearing is "Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the
Internet: What Parents, Kids and Congress Need to Know About Child
Predators."
Today, we are going to have five panels of witnesses on this very
important subject matter. The first panel which we will
introduce a little bit later, will be Sharon Cooper who is with
the Developmental and Forensic Pediatrics for the Department of
Pediatrics at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
I welcome all of you here today and this will be the first of
several hearings on issues relating to the sexual exploitation of
children over the Internet. Today�s hearing aims to protect our
children�s--if you will excuse me one minute. May I have a glass
of water? Today�s hearing aims to protect our Nation�s children
by putting a spotlight on how parents and children can better
In the early 1990s, before the advent of the Internet, it seemed
in the United States that commercial child pornography was on the
decline. This was due to several factors, especially several
U.S. Supreme Court decisions that removed any first amendment
protection for the possession or distribution of child
pornography. These decisions were coupled with aggressive law
enforcement efforts primarily targeting the U.S. mail system,
which was the means of transporting these images. Unfortunately,
the Internet reversed this trend.
With the growing use of the Internet, the number of child
predators who seek to make, distribute, and view images of
children being sexually abused continues to skyrocket. This is
due to the anonymity, accessibility, and ease with which child
predators can operate on the Internet. The extent of the problem
is staggering. Some examples of statistics that our witnesses
today at the hearing will discuss more fully include: one in five
children report being sexually solicited over the Internet and
only 25 percent of those children that are sexually solicited
online tell their parents; 3.5 million images of child sexual
exploitation over the Internet have been identified in the
United States alone. The commercial enterprise of online child
pornography is estimated in 2005 to be approximately $20 billion,
and it is an industry on the rise. The National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children receives approximately 1,500 tips
a week on its cyber tip line about suspected online child
pornography. Child predators that are found in possession of
child pornography typically have thousands of images of sexual
abuse of children on their computers.
In my own State of Kentucky, a man was arrested last month and,
according to a press release, agents from the immigration and
customs enforcement reportedly discovered over 400,000 images
of child pornography on his computers. Thinking about the
number of children that were abused in order to create all of
those images is sickening and intolerable. We must do everything
possible to stop it.
I want to particularly thank all of our witnesses today for
appearing before the subcommittee. We appreciate your taking the
time to speak to us about an important issue concerning our most
vulnerable citizens, and that is our children. You will hear
today from a young man named Justin Berry and he will tell a
story about his experience in this horrible world of online
child exploitation. He will also talk to us about how he
received a free webcam and was preyed upon and exploited by
child predators. I believe Mr. Berry is brave to come forward
and speak publicly to this subcommittee about matters that are
very personal to him and painful for him to even talk about.
Justin, we appreciate your willingness to share your experiences
with us, as well as, with parents and children around the
country who may learn some valuable lessons from your story.
We will also hear from Mr. Kurt Eichenwald, who as a New York
Times reporter exposed this world that captures children like
Justin. Mr. Eichenwald feels so strongly about the dangers he
has uncovered that he has taken the extraordinary step to come
to testify about how readily available this material is over
the Internet. He will provide a firsthand account of how
predators lure and manipulate children over the Internet.
In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Sharon Cooper who as I
said, is on the first panel. She altered her travel plans for a
trip to Germany in order to be here and testify today. I believe
your testimony will be invaluable in helping us understand what
happens to children like Justin who fall victim to these
predators and what the modus operandi of these predators are so
parents and children can keep a watchful eye. We appreciate you
making a special effort to be here.
Today we will also here testimony from Mr. Ernie Allen from the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Mr. Allen
and his staff at the center have done a phenomenal job of working
to keep children safe. We look forward to hearing about the
Center�s role as a clearinghouse for tips regarding child
pornography over the Internet by way of their cyber tip line, as
well as future plans they have to help stem the tide of child
sexual exploitation over the Internet. I believe the one
valuable lesson that can come out of this hearing is that parents,
children, and of course Members of Congress become well versed in
what the cyber tip line is and how and when to use it.
On our last panel, I am very happy to say, we have representatives
from WiredSafety and i-SAFE America to tell us more about how
they promote safety over the Internet for children. We are also
interested in hearing first hand from your teenage witness, who is
a Teen Angel from WiredSafety and an I Mentor for i-SAFE America,
on how they communicate Internet safety to their peers.
I must note that we also have today a witness who was subpoenaed
by the full committee to appear to testify. His name is Ken
Gourlay from Michigan. We will hear more about why Mr. Gourlay is
here through Justin�s testimony. I have been advised that
Mr. Gourlay intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination and will decline to answer the subcommittee�s
questions, but we are hopeful maybe he will decide to speak,
because it is critical that we confront his explanation for his
actions.
At Thursday�s hearing, we are going to be focusing on the U.S. law
enforcement�s efforts devoted to eradicating the sexual
exploitation of children over the Internet and learn more about
the challenges facing law enforcement in this area.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Ed Whitfield, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations
GOOD MORNING.
TODAY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS HOLDS THE
FIRST OF SEVERAL HEARINGS ON ISSUES RELATING TO THE SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET. TODAY�S HEARING AIMS
TO PROTECT OUR NATION�S CHILDREN BY PUTTING A SPOTLIGHT ON HOW
PARENTS AND CHILDREN CAN BETTER EDUCATE THEMSELVES ABOUT THE
DANGERS OF CHILD PREDATORS ON THE INTERNET.
IN SO DOING, WE WILL HEAR THE STORY ABOUT ONE CHILD�S EXPERIENCE IN THIS
HORRIBLE WORLD OF ON-LINE CHILD EXPLOITATION. AND, WE WILL LEARN HOW THE
INTERNET HAS FUELED THE HIGHLY LUCRATIVE BUSINESS OF SELLING SEXUALLY
ABUSIVE IMAGES OF CHILDREN AROUND THE WORLD.
IN THE EARLY 1990�S, BEFORE THE ADVENT OF THE INTERNET, IT SEEMED IN THE
UNITED STATES, COMMERCIAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WAS ON THE DECLINE. THIS WAS
DUE TO SEVERAL FACTORS-ESPECIALLY SEVERAL U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
THAT REMOVED ANY FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR THE POSSESSION OR
DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. THESE DECISIONS WERE COUPLED WITH
AGGRESSIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS PRIMARILY TARGETING THE U.S. MAIL
SYSTEM, WHICH WAS THE MEANS OF TRANSPORTING THESE IMAGES. UNFORTUNATELY,
THE INTERNET REVERSED THIS TREND.
WITH THE GROWING USE OF THE INTERNET, THE NUMBER OF CHILD PREDATORS WHO
SEEK TO MAKE, DISTRIBUTE AND VIEW IMAGES OF CHILDREN BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED
CONTINUES TO SKYROCKET. THIS IS PRIMARILY DUE TO THE ANONYMITY,
ACCESSIBILITY AND EASE WITH WHICH THESE CHILD PREDATORS CAN OPERATE ON THE
INTERNET.
THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM IS STAGGERING. HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF
STATISTICS THAT OUR WITNESSES AT THE HEARING WILL DISCUSS MORE FULLY:
1 IN 5 CHILDREN REPORT BEING SEXUALLY SOLICITED OVER THE INTERNET.
AND ONLY 25% OF THOSE CHILDREN THAT ARE SEXUALLY SOLICITED ON-LINE TELL THEIR
PARENTS.
3.5 MILLION IMAGES OF CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OVER THE INTERNET HAVE
BEEN IDENTIFIED_IN THE UNITED STATES ALONE.
THE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE OF ON-LINE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS ESTIMATED,
IN 2005, TO BE APPROXIMATLEY $20 BILLION U.S. DOLLARS. IT IS AN
INDUSTRY ON THE RISE.
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN GETS
APPROXIMATELY 1,500 TIPS A WEEK ON ITS CYBERTIPLINE ABOUT SUSPECTED
ON-LINE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
CHILD PREDATORS THAT ARE FOUND IN POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
TYPICALLY HAVE THOUSANDS OF IMAGES OF SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN ON
THEIR COMPUTERS.
IN MY HOME STATE OF KENTUCKY, A MAN WAS ARRESTED LAST MONTH AND,
ACCORDING TO A PRESS RELEASE, AGENTS FROM THE IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT REPORTEDLY DISCOVERED OVER 400 THOUSAND
IMAGES OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN HIS COMPUTERS.
THINKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN THAT WERE ABUSED IN ORDER TO CREATE
ALL OF THOSE IMAGES IS SICKENING AND INTOLERABLE.
THIS MUST BE STOPPED.
TODAY WE WILL HEAR FROM SEVERAL PANELS OF WITNESSES WHO WILL HELP
US CONFRONT THESE UNSETTLING FACTS AND PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT
WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. I WANT TO THANK ALL OF THE WITNESSES
APPEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE TODAY. WE APPRECIATE YOUR
TAKING THE TIME TO SPEAK TO US ABOUT SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE
CONCERNING OUR MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS-OUR CHILDREN.
WE WILL HEAR TODAY FROM MR. JUSTIN BERRY. MR. BERRY WILL TELL US HIS
ALARMING STORY ABOUT HOW A 13 YEAR OLD GETS A FREE WEBCAM AND IS PREYED
UPON AND EXPLOITED BY CHILD PREDATORS. I BELIEVE MR. BERRY IS EXTREMELY
BRAVE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK PUBLICLY TO THIS SUBCOMMITTEE ABOUT
MATTERS THAT ARE VERY PERSONAL TO HIM AND PAINFUL FOR HIM TO TALK ABOUT.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS, JUSTIN, TO SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH
US-AS WELL AS WITH PARENTS AND KIDS AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO MAY LEARN
SOME LESSONS FROM YOUR STORY.
WE WILL ALSO HEAR FROM MR. KURT EICHENWALD, WHO, AS A NEW YORK TIMES
REPORTER, EXPOSED THIS WORLD THAT CAPTURES CHILDREN LIKE JUSTIN.
MR. EICHENWALD FEELS SO STRONGLY ABOUT THE DANGERS HE HAS UNCOVERED
THAT HE HAS TAKEN THE EXTRAORDINARY STEP TO COME TO TESTIFY ABOUT
HOW READILY AVAILABLE THIS DISGUSTING MATERIAL IS OVER THE INTERNET.
HE WILL PROVIDE A FIRST HAND ACCOUNT OF HOW THESE PREDATORS LURE
AND MANIPULATE CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET.
IN ADDITION, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK DR. SHARON COOPER, WHO WILL APPEAR
ON THE FIRST PANEL, FOR ALTERING HER TRAVEL PLANS TO GERMANY IN ORDER
TO BE ABLE TO TESTIFY TODAY. I BELIEVE YOUR TESTIMONY WILL BE
INVALUABLE IN HELPING US UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENS TO CHILDREN LIKE
JUSTIN WHO FALL VICTIM TO THESE PREDATORS AND WHAT THE MODUS OPERANDI
OF THESE PREDATORS ARE-SO PARENTS AND KIDS CAN KEEP A WATCHFUL EYE.
TODAY WE WILL ALSO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM MR. ERNIE ALLEN, FROM THE
NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN. MR. ALLEN AND HIS
STAFF AT THE CENTER HAVE DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB WORKING TO KEEP OUR
CHILDREN SAFE. THE CENTER HAS BEEN ENORMOUSLY HELPFUL TO COMMITTEE
STAFF ON MANY ISSUES RELATED TO THIS INVESTIGATION AND WE CAN�T THANK
THEM ENOUGH. I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT THE CENTER�S ROLE AS A
CLEARINGHOUSE FOR TIPS REGARDING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OVER THE INTERNET
VIA THEIR CYBERTIPLINE -- AS WELL AS FUTURE PLANS THEY HAVE TO HELP
STEM THE TIDE OF CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OVER THE INTERNET.
I BELIEVE ONE VALUABLE LESSON THAT CAN COME OUT OF THIS HEARING IS
THAT PARENTS, KIDS AND OF COURSE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BECOME WELL VERSED
IN WHAT THE CYBERTIPLINE IS - AND HOW AND WHEN TO USE IT.
ON OUR LAST PANEL, I AM VERY GLAD TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM WIRED
SAFETY AND I SAFE AMERICA TO TELL US MORE ABOUT HOW THEY PROMOTE SAFETY
OVER THE INTERNET FOR CHILDREN. WE ARE ALSO INTERESTED IN HEARING
FIRST HAND FROM YOUR TEENAGE WITNESSES "A TEEN ANGEL FROM WIRED SAFETY
AND AN I-MENTOR FROM I SAFE AMERICA" ON HOW THEY COMMUNICATE INTERNET
SAFETY TO THEIR PEERS.
I MUST NOTE THAT WE ALSO HAVE TODAY A WITNESS WHO WAS SUBPOENED BY THE
FULL COMMITTEE TO APPEAR TO TESTIFY. HIS NAME IS KEN GOURLAY FROM
MICHIGAN. WE WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT WHY MR. GOURLAY IS HERE THROUGH
JUSTIN�S TESTIMONY. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT MR. GOURLAY INTENDS TO
INVOKE HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND
WILL DECLINE TO ANSWER THE SUBCOMMITTEE�S QUESTIONS. YET I AM HOPEFUL
HE WILL DECIDE TO SPEAK, BECAUSE IT IS CRITICAL THAT WE CONFRONT HIS
EXPLANATION FOR HIS ACTIONS.
WE HAVE A LOT OF GROUND TO COVER. LET ME KNOTE THAT, AT THURSDAY�S
HEARING, WE WILL FOCUS ON THE U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS DEVOTED TO
ERADICATING THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET AND
LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CHALLENGES FACING OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORT IN
THIS AREA.
I NOW TURN TO THE RANKING MEMBER, MR. STUPAK FOR HIS OPENING STATEMENT.
Mr. Whitfield. I now turn to the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Stupak of Michigan, for his opening statement.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for holding
this hearing.
This investigation is certainly among the most important
conducted by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. I
feel most Americans have no idea of the dimension of the
problem. Because of the anonymity provided by the Internet and
because of the marketing potential of the Internet, children that
are being exploited, manipulated, and violated and whose lives
and images of the predatory practice are digitized, displayed,
and transmitted instantly around the world in astonishing
numbers.
The statistics as you said, Mr. Chairman, are shocking. One in
five children report receiving a sexual solicitation over the
Internet. Today there are over 3.5 pornographic images of
American children in circulation on the Internet. The sale of
these images over the Internet brought in $20 billion to
traffickers in 2004. To compare, music sales over the same
period were just $3 billion. This $20 billion was spent to
view photographs and videos of children being raped and
tortured. Since 2004, the child exploitation industry has only
grown. The images have become more graphic as video capabilities
have expanded and the content of those videos have become more
heinous.
Who are these children that are solicited and abused? It is the
little children who make up the vast majority of the victims of
child pornography. Over 90 percent of arrested children
pornographers possess images of children under age 12. Forty
percent have pictures or videos of children under the age of
six, and almost 20 percent possess images of children less than
three years of age. A couple of weeks ago, the Attorney General
announced a Customs bust that involved among other crimes the
portrayal of a rape of an 18 month old girl.
Who produced this most sickening material? The National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children will tell us that 80 percent
of all child pornography is produced by parents, other
relatives, or family members. Every American parent should
know what we will hear today. Parents need to learn and teach
their children tools to protect themselves against these
predators. Hopefully, today�s hearing will reduce the
unmonitored use of web cameras, picture phones, and other
equipment that enable these people to prey on and abuse our
children.
Today we will also hear the tragic story of Justin Berry. It
is a story of the seduction and sexual abuse of a 13-year-old
boy who was led on a pornographic exploitation, multiple
molestations, and drug use, all of which were a constant
reality in his life for 5 years. We will learn how adults, as
well as Justin himself made money from Justin�s online
performances. One of the accused molesters is under subpoena to
appear before us today and he will I understand he will evoke
his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Justin Berry could
have a very different life had there been no Internet connection
in his room. The chat rooms which are a magnet where these
twisted minds can congregate and exploit our children.
Unfortunately, just as the Internet has changed just about every
aspect of our lives, it has also virtually eliminated the
barriers that once discouraged child pornography.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and similar
crime operations at the International Customs Enforcement and the
FBI do wonderful work with a handful of agents and tech
specialists. We will hear about their efforts at a hearing we
have scheduled for Thursday. Still our law enforcement can do
better. Justin believes that there has been an ineffective
response by the Justice Department to prosecute the persons who
paid to watch his websites. Questions have been raised about
the low number of prosecutions in the United States. For
example, in one of the larger busts involving effective work
for law enforcement in the U.S., Australia, and other
countries, there is confirmed information that 21,000 Americans
had paid to subscribe to websites that saved images of the
sexual exploitation of children. Nine hundred Australians were
similarly identified. As of the end of this past year, some 338
convictions have been obtained in the U.S. while some 500
arrests or convictions or expected convictions have been made in
Australia, a country with a legal system as protective of
individual rights as ours. I want to know why we conduct less
than 2 percent of these voyeurs of child sexual violence while
the Australian authorities can put away 55 percent. What I do
know is that the lack of prosecution threatens all of our children
to have over 20,000 of these criminals walking free amongst us
with the knowledge that even when police identify them they are
unlikely to be prosecuted only encourages further actions of
exploitation.
I also know that as we reorganize our telecom industry which
transmits images and messages so efficiently over the Internet,
we should also hold those that make billions of dollars from the
data of image transmission accountable to eliminate those images
of sexually violated children; take the profit and communications
away and the problem will shrink proportionately.
The bottom line is that the darkest side of the Internet can
invade any American home. Given the shortage of resources for
law enforcement to adequately protect our children and the lack
of will by Internet providers to police themselves, parents and
children must be vigilant.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Stupak.
At this time, I recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee,
Mr. Barton of Texas, for his opening statement.
Chairman Barton. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, for holding
this hearing.
I have three grown children, two teenage stepchildren, three
grandchildren, and an infant son who is seven months old. Of
all the hearings that we have done in all the years that I have
been on this committee and this subcommittee, which is over
20 years, I have never been more revolted in preparing for a
hearing than in reading the materials I have had to read for
this one. My mind simply cannot conceive of a parent
exploiting their own children for profit for sexual purposes
and I cannot conceive of anyone in this universe wanting to
perform, or watch performed, sexual acts on an infant. I
simply cannot comprehend that. Yet that is what we are here
today to investigate.
Child pornography is apparently a multi-billion--my staff
analysis says $20 billion a year business. In spite of all
the rhetoric, I will not say we are doing nothing, as that is
not fair to our law enforcement agencies and all the groups
here that are trying to help, but we are doing very little to
counteract it and everyone agrees that it is a growing problem.
What kind of society do we have if we cannot protect infants
from sexual exploitation? One of the agency�s material shows
that almost half of the incidents of sexual exploitation of
children are by family members. What kind of family is that?
I just cannot understand it. So, I believe this is one that
you can expect the subcommittee and the full committee, if we
need to, to do everything possible, and I mean everything. Not
just hold hearings, but if we need legislation, if we need to
go to our Federal law enforcement agencies that have tended to
not treat this as seriously as they should; whatever we need to
do on a bipartisan basis, we are going to do. I think I am a
tolerant person and I am appalled, I mean absolutely appalled
at what is happening on the Internet with regards to sexual
exploitation of the children of the United States, and the
children of the world.
So I am very appreciative of the staff�s work on both sides of
the aisle, and very appreciative of Mr. Stupak and
Mr. Whitfield�s personal involvement. I am very, very
supportive of doing whatever we can to really turn the tide on
this.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask that my formal statement be
considered in the record and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Commerce
Thank you, Chairman Whitfield for holding this hearing on the sexual
exploitation of children over the Internet. As Justice Brandeis wrote,
"sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant." If there was ever a
case for sunlight and disinfecting, it is the toxic world of online
child pornography.
Child porn is a $20 billion a year business, and it is growing daily on
the Internet. The more you know about it, the more revolted you become.
There are accounts of children "some as young as eighteen months old"
being raped on camera for profit. Less than a month ago, based on an
investigation by agents from United States Immigration and Custom
Enforcement and international law enforcement, 27 people in the United
States and abroad were charged with trafficking in pornography. Among
their alleged crimes were the production of live, pay-per-view
molestations of children which were carried over the Internet by
streaming video.
These are actions so repugnant that they are difficult for the mind to
even acknowledge, much less grasp and consider.
With the ability to post and trade images anonymously over the Internet,
current estimates indicate that there are three million images of child
pornography on the Internet today. While law enforcement is working
to tackle this epidemic of abuse, their resources are taxed as an
endless supply of child pornography is pumped into the Internet by
individuals around the globe.
No one wants to believe that predator�s abuse and torture children and
sell or swap the pictures of that abuse. We do not like to think that
even though our children have been warned by about strangers, children
are still logging onto the Internet and meeting strangers child
predators and pedophiles. But according to one estimate, one in five
children report that they have received a sexual solicitation over the
Internet.
It is because this problem is so horrific that we need to know more
about it. Our nation�s parents, children, and educators need to know
exactly what dangers are lurking on the Internet. They need to
appreciate how serious this problem is so that they can prepare their
children for what "or who" is waiting for them online.
One of our witnesses today, Justin Berry, will speak personally to the
horrors of child sexual exploitation on the Internet and its impact on
its victims. Justin�s life is a terrible lesson to every parent and
child in America. It began when Justin went online to meet and
communicate with other children his age. Instead, he was greeted
almost immediately by child predators who, by pretending to be his
friends, convinced him to engage in sexual acts. First it was through
a webcam, and then it was in person. Again, at the encouragement of
these predators, Justin turned these performances into an online
pornography business. Justin, I want to thank you for appearing here
today to tell your story. I know it must be painful to talk about
your involvement in the pornography industry and the abuse you
suffered. I hope that your story might prevent others from following
your path or convince a victim to seek help.
With Justin today is New York Times Reporter Kurt Eichenwald, who,
when researching an story on cyber fraud, found Justin�s websites and
eventually persuaded Justin to seek help. Justin credits Mr. Eichenwald
as being the person who rescued him from the world of child pornography.
Today�s testimony will shine a bright light on a business that has
flourished in the dark corners of the Internet. I hope that what the
public learns today will help children to recognize a child predator if
they meet one online. Finally, by speaking frankly about the impact of
child pornography on its victims, this hearing will make plain that
parents, educators, law enforcement, and lawmakers must make every
effort to protect our children and put an end to an industry that
profits from the abuse and degradation of children.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We
appreciate your being here and the leadership you continue to
provide on this issue and all of the opening statements will
be a part of the record without objection.
At this time, I would recognize Dr. Burgess for his opening
statement.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too will thank you and
Chairman Barton for having this hearing. I will submit my
formal remarks for the record.
I do not know that I have much to add to what has already been
spoken, but a newspaper, not from my district but from a county
just west of my district, Wise County, the Wise County
Messenger, has in its March 26 edition a story about yet another
case, a brother and sister linked in a child porn case and
apparently the data is in the process of being collected by the
Forth Worth Branch that investigates this type of crime. It
just underscores how it is pervasive in every community. This
is a very rural area that is being described here in this
newspaper article and it is as Chairman Barton points out just
absolutely unconscionable that this activity is taking place
literally right within our own communities.
And I also want to thank Mr. Chairman for bringing to light some
of the tools that are available for parents who do want to be
proactive and protect their children and I think that is an
invaluable part of the hearing and this service that we provide
today.
So with that, I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Dr. Burgess.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Walden for his opening statement.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I concur with the comments of my colleagues about how disturbing
this information is and about what is going on the Internet. As
a father of a 15-year-old, soon to be 16, I think I share the
concern that most parents across America indeed the world
probably have about how awful this is. And I appreciate,
Justin, your being here today and coming forward not only
before this committee but also for your diligence in trying to
work with the Department of Justice and all the frustration that
you expressed in your testimony in that process. And I think
for me as a member of this committee, how important it is to
get this information on our record. I want to know what is
going on at the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. And
why they conducted themselves the way they did as certainly it
has been alleged in your testimony and that of others.
I was just reading some remarks that Mr. Eichenwald gave at
Marquette University just a few days ago and his detailed
description about COS handled this case is extraordinarily
disturbing. And for me as a member of this oversight committee,
as Vice Chairman, I am going to be asking some tough questions
later in the week when we have the Justice Department here.
It strikes me as absolutely perverse in the justice system that
in effect the victim who comes forward to not only identify a
problem but help round up those who are perpetrating this
disgusting and terrible crime against humanity that somehow the
victim is treated as the perpetrator and the fact that there
are lots of other kids out there you are trying to save from
this problem on the Internet. They seem to be lost in time.
And for me COS has a lot of explaining to do and our Department
of Justice has a lot of explaining to do.
And I again, appreciate your courage in coming forward along
with the others and Dr. Cooper, thank you for rearranging your
schedule to be here, we are really looking forward to your
comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Walden, I am delighted that you focused your
opening statement on that point because all of us are a little
bit puzzled by what is going on over at the Child Exploitive and
Obscenity Section of the Justice Department. That is something
that we hope to get into today and certainly on Thursday as well.
At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee,
Mrs. Blackburn, for her opening statement.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to join my colleagues in thanking you for holding the
hearing today. I want to thank our witnesses also for making the
effort to be here. And I also want to thank our staffs and the
committee staff for their diligence and their work on this issue.
This is not an easy issue and it is a very unpleasant issue
digging through, reading the material, and we thank you all for
your cooperation in submitting that.
Online child pornography is something that is increasingly used
as an avenue by those that are child predators and that seek to
do our children harm and exploit innocent, precious, precious
children. Just the fact that there are millions of images that
are transmitted daily, videos that are transmitted daily, on
these acts that are being done to these children and transmitted
over the Internet. And as our Chairman said, the fee for that
is a $20 billion a year industry. That is sickening to my soul,
absolutely sickening. And parents and children do need to be
aware of the dangers that exist on the Internet and they do need
to be aware of the mechanisms that they can use to report these
instances where adults may be trying to seduce children and to
move these precious vulnerable children into dangerous
situations.
And I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that we are able to correct some of
the problems and look at some of the avenues of getting
information to parents. Law enforcement also has got to be
diligent and they have got to be prepared to shut down this
despicable industry because there is no justifiable reason for
this repulsive action of child pornography. It is horrible. It
is a detestable mark on our society. And it is with sadness that
we have to admit there are such sick and revolting people that
walk on the face of this earth that they would want to watch, to
copy, and to sell this type information to others.
I am looking forward to what we are going to hear today. Again,
I thank you all for taking your time to be here and to work with
us and work with families to be certain that law enforcement and
us, each of us that we are doing what we need to do to address
the issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mrs. Blackburn.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey,
Mr. Ferguson.
Mr. Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to echo your comments and that of Mr. Stupak and our other
colleagues up here. I particularly want to echo the comments of
Chairman Barton in his expressions just of being mystified and
revolted in our preparation for this hearing.
The questions that many of us ask and all of us probably ask of
ourselves is what does it say about those who have been involved
in this--as we are hearing this morning--industry? What does it
say about those who would exploit children, young kids for these
purposes? And I have, my wife and I are blessed to have four
little ones in our house. But I think that an important question
would be to ask ourselves this morning is what does it say about
us in this Congress if we do not act, if we do not conduct these
hearings, if we do not take our responsibility seriously to
ensure that these types of exploitations and problems and
challenges do not happen again? It is our responsibility,
certainly part of our responsibility to act.
I also want to thank our witnesses for being here today.
Justin, in particular, I appreciate you being here today. I
applaud the courage of those who are coming forth to educate
members of this subcommittee about this topic. It is not an
easy topic to deal with, it is graphic and it is gruesome, and
more often than not it is hard to hear about, but it is a topic
that cannot be ignored. Last year in New Jersey, in my home
State, police arrested 39 people across the State in connection
with a child Internet pornography ring that in one of the more
horrifying videos depicted the rape of a 5-year-old girl.
Today�s technology holds tremendous potential to enhance our
lives; however, this advancement of technology is opening the
door to a whole new generation of criminals, the child predator
who takes advantage of children in the worst way by using this
technology to prey upon children in the safety and the confines of
their own home. There is no question in anybody�s mind that we
must pay serious attention to this horrific industry and take
steps to stop it. We must let the children and the parents of
this country know that we will not allow this practice to
continue. We will not allow them to be exploited or harmed or
taken advantage of. People who are engaging in this type of
activity must face serious consequences and it is our
responsibility, as I said earlier, to let our children know that
we will protect them at all costs. And I think of our formative
ones in our house and am well aware of the dangers facing them
and all of our children in the world today. It is the
responsibility of parents to stop at nothing to protect our
children from those who prey upon their innocence by taking
advantage of them in ways that frankly many of us thought was
simply unimaginable.
Luckily, this industry is beginning to be brought into the
limelight. There are now groups and law enforcement
organizations that have made finding and punishing these
criminals a priority, but they cannot do it alone. We must
give them the tools to find these predators and bring them
to justice and we must let our children know that they are
not alone. Organizations like i-SAFE have made it their
mission to educate children about how to use the Internet
safely and what warning signs to look out for. This group
has educated over 43,000 students on Internet safety and
implemented 20 parent education organizations in New Jersey
alone. I commend them for their programs and I sincerely
hope that they and others continue this type of activity in
the future.
I hope that this hearing serves to draw further attention to
this terrible industry and I would like to thank you,
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Stupak, for holding this hearing and I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses both today and
later in this week.
I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferguson.
I guess that concludes the opening statements.
Mr. Stupak. Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Mr. Whitfield. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stupak. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the statement
of the Honorable John Dingell, the Ranking Member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, his opening statement for the
record, please.
Mr. Whitfield. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John D. Dingell follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for opening this important investigation and
convening the first hearing today. This hearing will examine one of
the most disturbing topics affecting the safety and health of our
youngest citizenry. Those who have found the Internet a most expedient
venue for peddling the worse kind of smut, not only profit from some of
the most heinous crimes imaginable, but also encourage its creation
around the world.
Let us be clear about this. This is not about pornographic images of
adults. What we are investigating today is the purveyance of live and
videotaped broadcasts, as well as photographs, of sexual and other
physical assaults on children -- many prepubescent but some as young
as toddlers and infants -- for the purpose of producing images for
sale or trade over the Internet. The Internet has regrettably provided
the medium for the exponential growth in these deplorable crimes.
The uses of the Internet by tech-savvy pedophiles are many. Among
their most common uses are pay-to-view Web sites and peer-to-peer chat
rooms. Some of these chat rooms provide opportunity to trade images.
Unfortunately, the price of admission is often new material; hence, the
ease of contact via the Internet has contributed to the incentives and
growth of the horrendous abuse endured by these young victims, usually
within their own home.
Other chat rooms contain the candid thoughts of millions of adolescent
and even preteen subscribers. Molesters, often initially posing as an
adolescent themselves, use these chat rooms to seduce unsuspecting
children into meetings for their heinous pleasure and/or profit.
I suspect we will learn more about the ways and means of the Intern
et perverts today and at future hearings. What is certain is that this
global problem has deep and dirty tentacles right here in the United
States.
Taking away the profit and anonymity from these criminals may not put
an end to these crimes. Reducing the convenience and incentives for
the depraved individuals who use the Internet for such activities,
however, will be an important start. As this Committee works on
increasing broadband competition and Internet use across the country,
we must also work toward eliminating the scourge of child pornography
from the Internet.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
At this time, we will call our fist witness, Dr. Sharon Cooper.
And as I had mentioned in my opening statement, Dr. Cooper was
scheduled to be in Germany today and postponed that trip, so
we generally appreciate that, Dr. Cooper, and if you would
come forward and sit here in the center would be great. Now,
Dr. Cooper is not only a physician, but she is involved in
forensic pediatrics. As I said, she is the head of the
Development and Forensic Pediatrics, I guess within the
Department of Pediatrics at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. We welcome you today and we look forward to your
testimony. As you may understand, this is a hearing of the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee and we generally take
testimony under oath. I would ask you; do you have any
objection to testifying under oath today?
Dr. Cooper. No, I do not.
Mr. Whitfield. The rules of the House and rules of the
committee, you are entitled to be advised by counsel about your
constitutional rights. Do you desire to be advised by legal
counsel today?
Dr. Cooper. No, I do not.
[Witness sworn]
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Dr. Cooper, you are now sworn in and
you will be recognized for five minutes for your opening
statement.
TESTIMONY OF SHARON W. COOPER, M.D., FAAP, DEVELOPMENTAL AND FORENSIC
PEDIATRICS, PA, DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHAPEL HILL
Dr. Cooper. Thank you, sir.
My name is Sharon Cooper and I am an Adjunct Professor of
Pediatrics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I
have worked as a pediatrician for 30 years and in the area of
forensic pediatrics since 1980. As a doctor who works with
maltreated children, a forensic pediatrician has advanced
understanding of the nexus of medicine and the law and focuses on
assuring that children will have the correct diagnosis if they
are victims of child maltreatment.
Serving as a multidisciplinary child abuse team member for
27 years, I have examined thousands of children who have been
the victims of child sexual abuse, as well as other forms of
child maltreatment. I have lectured throughout the United
States and internationally providing more than 200 trainings in
the areas of child sexual exploitation, physical abuse, child
neglect, and child homicide. I spent 21 years as an active
duty Army officer providing general pediatric developmental and
behavioral pediatric, and forensic pediatric care for members
of the armed services. I continue as an instructor for the
Department of the Army Medical Education Center and School at
Fort Sam Houston, Texas, which provides the multidisciplinary
training to family advocacy program members in branches of the
services.
Since my retirement from the Army, with the rank of colonel
9 years ago, I focused my area of expertise on child sexual
exploitation, child and youth development, behavior, and all
aspects of child maltreatment. I have been an instructor for
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in
Alexandria, Virginia for nearly 6 years and have been provided
training on victim impact on children depicted in child sexual
abuse images and exploited through prostitution. In addition,
I teach prosecutors, law enforcement officers, judges, and
healthcare providers on how to medically analyze these
pornography images and facilitate the evaluations of such
images with the children�s agents. I have worked with the
Child Victim Identification Program and the National Center.
I have taught at the International Center for Missing and
Exploited Children and the Microsoft Corporation providing
similar training to law enforcement officers in the U.S.,
Canada, Europe, Russia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle
East.
As a forensic pediatrician, I have also provided medical
care directly to children who have been sexually abused
and pornographically photographed or videotaped. These
clinical evaluations have included family and investigator
interviews, review of the pornographic images, victim
medical interviews, full medical examination, and case
conferences. I have also evaluated children who have been
exploited through prostitution both from within their
families, as well as by acquaintances and intimate
partners.
In addition to having to evaluate children and youth
victimized in this manner, I have also analyzed thousands
of images of child pornography. These images were stored
as computer files, videotapes, DVDs, Polaroid�s, and other
images.
Child sexual exploitation is the most underreported form of
child abuse. Child pornography on the Internet, in
particular, has untold impact upon victims. The possession
and distribution of these images which are in fact digital
crime scenes, promote the need for more and more plentiful
and more graphic images. The two most commonly cited
reasons that individuals collect these images are for sexual
gratification through masturbation and as a plan for action.
Many criminology studies have been done to show the
motivation of individuals who would collect these images and
this research has revealed that there is a one and three
chance to as high as three out of four chances that an
individual with such images has already sexually abused a
child.
Child pornography constitutes insult to injury to a victim.
The injury is child sexual abuse. The insult is the
memorialization of that child sexual abuse from time
untold. It is very important for us to recognize that child
pornography is a phenomenon which we must pay close
attention to and seek to eradicate.
I am very pleased to be here before the committee today and
look forward to answering any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Sharon W. Cooper, M.D.,
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sharon W. Cooper, M.D., FAAP, Developmental
and Forensic Pediatrics, PA, Department of Pediatrics, University
of North Carolina Chapel Hill
SUMMARY
Child sexual exploitation is the most underreported form of child
abuse today. Boosted by the Internet, these sexual abuse images
constitute a digital crime scene, and a significant percent of
such images online are of children less than 5 years of age.
Driven by a offender pool which has anywhere from a one in three
chance to a three out of four chance of having already sexually
abused a minor, the supply and demand for this multibillion dollar
industry continues to grow. Initially, the National Center and
Missing and Exploited Children� monitored a database of 100,000
images. Today, this number of images has ballooned to more than
3 million. Children are often sexually abused and pornographically
photographed by family members and familiar acquaintances.
The presence of extremely graphic sadistic images of very young
toddlers reinforces the skill of offenders who choose the most
vulnerable of victims who are not only often preverbal, but who are
also most likely to have trouble qualifying as a competent witness
at a criminal trial.
The link of pornography to the other four types of sexual
exploitation: prostitution of children and youths, cyber-enticement,
child sex tourism and human trafficking is well described.
Professionals in the child abuse multidisciplinary teams must work
ardently to become educated regarding this form of abuse.
Recognizing the impact of child sexual abuse images on the Internet
and predator dynamics is essential to reversing this exploding and
extremely dangerous crime in America today.
My name is Sharon Cooper and I am an adjunct professor of Pediatrics
at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of
Medicine. I have worked as a Pediatrician for 30 years and in the
area of Forensic Pediatrics since 1980. As a doctor who works with
maltreated children, a Forensic Pediatrician has an advanced
understanding of the nexus of medicine and the law, and focuses on
assuring that children will be correctly diagnosed as victims of
child maltreatment when that diagnosis is considered. Serving as
a multidisciplinary child abuse team member for 27 years, I have
examined thousands of children who have been the victims of child
sexual abuse as well as other forms of child maltreatment. I have
lectured throughout the United States and internationally, providing
more than 200 trainings in the areas of child sexual exploitation,
child sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect and child homicide. I
spent 21 years as an active duty Army officer providing general
Pediatric, Developmental and Behavioral Pediatric and Forensic
Pediatric care for children of members of all branches of the armed
forces. I continue as an instructor for the Army Medical Education
Department Center and School at Fort Sam Houston, Texas which
provides multidisciplinary team training to Family Advocacy Program
members in all branches of the services. Since my retirement with
the rank of colonel from the United States Army 9 years ago, I have
focused my areas of expertise on child sexual exploitation, child
and youth development and behavior, and all aspects of child
maltreatment. I have been an instructor at the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, Virginia for nearly
six years, and have provided training on the victim impact on
children depicted in child sexual abuse images and exploited through
prostitution. In addition, I teach prosecutors, law enforcement
officers, judges and health care providers how to medically analyze
child pornography images. I have provided even more in depth
training regarding the determination of probable victim ages to the
analysts of the Child Victim Identification Program of the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children as well as similar
professionals of the Canadian Cybertipline. Working with the
International Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the
Microsoft Corporation, I have provided similar training to law
enforcement officers in the US, Canada, Europe, Russia, Southeast
Asia and the Middle East.
As a Forensic Pediatrician I have provided direct patient care to
several children who have been sexually abused and pornographically
photographed or videotaped. These clinical evaluations have included
family and investigator interviews, review of the pornographic images,
victim medical interviews, behavioral analyses, and full medical
examinations as well as case conferences after the medical assessment.
I have also evaluated children who have been exploited through
prostitution both from within their families as well as by acquaintances
and intimate partners. In addition to having evaluated children and
youths victimized in this manner, I have also analyzed thousands of
images of child pornography. These images were stored as computer
files, videotapes, DVDs, Polaroid pictures, and published images in
trade magazines. The overwhelming majority of this contraband was
computer stored images and videotapes, confiscated during
investigations by Internet Crimes against Children (ICAC) teams and
almost all federal criminal investigative agencies. I have published
in this area to include an article with Attorney Damon King of the
Child Sexual Exploitation and Obscenity Section. of the Department of
Justice. I have served as an expert witness in family court and
criminal prosecutions involving child pornography in state, federal
and court martial proceedings.
I have recently completed a textbook on the subject of child sexual
exploitation in 2005 which has been endorsed by the National District
Attorney�s Association. The text, entitled Medical, Legal, and Social
Science Aspects of Child Sexual Exploitation: A Comprehensive Review
of Pornography, Prostitution, and Internet Crimes has four other
co-authors: Richard Estes, DSW, ACSW, Angelo P. Giardino, MD, PhD,
FAAP, Nancy D. Kellogg, MD, and Victor I. Vieth, JD. This compendiu
of nearly 60 contributors from 8 different countries provides a
thorough background of the five types of child sexual exploitation:
child pornography, prostitution of children and youths,
cyber-enticement, child sex tourism, and the human trafficking of
children and youths, both domestically and internationally. The text
has a supplemental CD-ROM which includes further information in this
area with case reports, training modules, selected readings and in
particular an emphasis on the medical care of victims of these forms
of child abuse.
Child sexual exploitation is cited to be the most underreported form
of child abuse. Child pornography on the Internet in particular has
as yet untold impact upon victims. The possession and distribution
of these images, which are in fact, digital crime scenes, promotes a
need for newer, more plentiful and more graphic images. The two most
commonly cited reasons that individuals collect these images are for
sexual gratification through masturbation and as a plan for action.
Criminology studies to date from the US Postal Inspection Service,
the Toronto Child Sexual Exploitation Unit and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons here in the US reveal that those who possess these images
have a 1 in 3 chance to as high as 3 out of 4 chance of having
already sexually abused a child. Further research from the National
Juvenile Online Victimization (N-JOV) Study (Wolak, Mitchell &
Finkelhor, 2003) has revealed that from 2000-2001, offenders
primarily collected child pornography of children between the ages of
6 and 12 years. It is important to know, though those offenders are
often diverse in the content of their child pornography collections
and during that same period, nearly 50% of collected images were of
children less than 5 years old. Such young victims are prime targets
for sex offenders because of their preverbal nature and the fact that
they often unable to be made competent on a witness stand in criminal
proceedings.
Child pornography constitutes insult to injury for a victim: the
injury is child sexual abuse in all of its methods of victimization.
The insult is the memorialization of that exploitation for an untold
amount of time. Many of the images which I see on a regular basis
show severe vaginal and anal assault against toddlers, bondage of
these children with gags in their mouths, ligatures around their
necks, and on occasion, physical beatings in conjunction with video
clips of brutal oral, vaginal and anal penetration. In addition,
recent research has shown that 88% of girls who have been sexually
abused do not make a disclosure during childhood (Hansen, 1999).
Numerous case examples of victims of child sexual abuse and
pornography production, denial of the existence of photos or
videotapes etc. is also very common, even though children do
acknowledge the sexual abuse. Training for interviewing and
treating such children and youths as well as those who have been
groomed into compliant victimization is both essential and an
immediate priority. Programs such as Finding Words and other
forensic interviewing curricula must include the evaluation of
these types of victims.
It is very important to understand that child pornography is a
common thread in all forms of child sexual exploitation:
prostituted children and youths, cyber-enticement, child sex
tourism and human trafficking of children. The bottom line is
that children have become a commodity for a practice that seeks
to normalize sexual harm. Preferential sex offenders who produce
these images have been reported to be responding to special
requests from like minded online offenders, or strictly as a means
of financial gain. Infant and toddler sexual abuse is a frightening
and sobering reality particularly in light of the National Institute
of Justice report in 1994 which cited that victims of child sexual
abuse were twenty-eight times more likely to be arrested in their
lives for prostitution, than children who had never been sexually
abused. Recent high profile multiple victim and multiple offender
sex rings have alerted those of us who work in this area to the fact
that immense technology exists in support of these types of heinous
crimes against our most important national treasure, our country�s
future, our children. I urge you to read the attached document, "Unto
the Third Generation" written by one of our co-authors, Attorney Victor
Vieth, Director of the American Prosecutor�s Research Institute�s
National Child Protection Training Center. I look forward to providing
whatever information that I can to the members of this committee and
express my appreciation for the opportunity to answer any of your
questions.
Mr. Whitfield. Dr. Cooper, thank you. Thanks so much for your
testimony.
Did you read the December 19, 2005 story in the New York Times
about Justin Berry?
Dr. Cooper. Yes, I did.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, could you explain how an online predator
is able to actually convince a child to do some of the things
that Justin did, like perform sexual acts on a webcam for money?
How can they actually do that?
Dr. Cooper. I think that the important phenomenon for us to
understand is that online predators befriend adolescents. They
become closer to them than many times their family members are.
They are frequently in touch with them several times a day. In
addition to giving them numerous awards and rewards for their
discussion online, they become their closest friends. And
because of that, and because of the adolescent�s mind which is
very much in the sexually explorative phase in child
development, it is not unusual for sexual exploration to be part
of that relationship. So we find that many adolescents who
become exhibitionistic on the Internet are doing so partly
because of sexual exploration and sexual development, and also
because of a normalization of sexual harm that is very prevalent
in our society today. Sexualized images are everywhere to be
found on the television, in their music, in music videos, in
magazines, it is very, very common and so consequently it is
easy for me to understand how an adolescent who is reaching out
for some type of companionship online could fall prey and become
a compliant victim.
Mr. Whitfield. So these so-called predators, they actually form
a close friendship with the child by way of the Internet
initially and then maybe start talking to them on the phone or
meet them somewhere.
Dr. Cooper. That is correct, sir. I have taken care of several
adolescent victims who have had their first relationships via an
online partnership. And first of all, it is odd that we would
think this is hard for teenagers because adults do the same
thing. We have lots of online dating today. Lots of Internet
chat rooms between adults and kids are very much the same way.
I think what is more important is that predators recognize the
vulnerability of children and they frequently will be there at
all times of the night, frequently contacting the children after
their parents have gone to bed, giving them cell phones so that
they can have direct contact and the parents will not know. And
this secrecy, as well as attention that is provided to teenagers
is very, very convincing to young children.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, we all know what the word predator means,
but looking at that term as it relates to sexual exploitation of
children on the Internet, how would you actually define the term
predator?
Dr. Cooper. I would say that a person who is a predator on the
Internet is a person who commodifies children. They do not see
children as beings, but as a commodity and what purpose and
function do they serve for that person�s sexual gratification or
monetary benefits. So they are a predator from the standpoint of
certainly presenting themselves as harmful to a child, but the
most important thing is that they will look upon this child as a
checkmark if you will among the whole group of children that they
are seeking to exploit in this manner.
Mr. Whitfield. And so it starts out as a friendship that
eventually ends up with the predator providing gifts and/or money
or some other inducement. Is that correct?
Dr. Cooper. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, could you explain from your professional
experience how say Justin�s experiences, what kind of impact does
that have on a child over time?
Dr. Cooper. If I were to use an example such as the case of
Mr. Berry, I would have to say that this is a life changing event.
Child sexual abuse in and of itself is the beginning of this
process for him. And much of the research tells us that 86 percent
of children who are sexually abused, whether that occurs in early
childhood or in adolescent years, will have long-term
consequences. Typically the most common problems that we will
see are going to be depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic
stress disorder. But we also think that kids who are exploited
online have an additional phenomenon and that is the paranoia
that other people will be able to know what has happened to them
and the fact that other people may discover those images at any
time in the future. This causes a degree of computer absorption,
a paranoia regarding peer groups that children who have been
sexually abused and others do not know or may be able to hide
better.
Mr. Whitfield. Now I have read Justin�s testimony and I have
also read stories about other young people who have been
solicited over the Internet. One of the things that is kind of
puzzling about this is once they actually meet the predator and
they are sexually exploited or molested, there seems to be a
tendency to continue to meet with the predator even after that.
How does that happen and why does that happen?
Dr. Cooper. What frequently occurs is that that initial meeting
on the part of the child and the predator is one of explanation.
Initially the child sees themselves as an equal to that predator.
What they do not recognize and as time goes on, they are not in
control of that relationship. They would like to be in control
of that relationship, but this other person continues to, I would
say, digitally stalk them, to being in touch with them all the
time, to encourage them to continue to meet, that they cannot
live without them. This type of attention and inducement is
very difficult for anybody, including an adolescent to resist.
It causes them to feel better about themselves initially, until
they discover that they are being exploited and it is not their
choice to continue in those relationships.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, in your testimony, you described child
pornography as a digital crime scene.
Dr. Cooper. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. When you said those three words, would you
elaborate on that just for a few minutes?
Dr. Cooper. Yes, I would be happy to. For a long time,
healthcare professionals and others in the field of child abuse
had a hard time acknowledging that child pornography was real.
They thought perhaps these images were morphed and thought that
these were not truly children, they were adults made to look
like children. It took a lot for individuals to finally come
to recognize that these are actually children. What we are
seeing is very similar to a video camera in a convenience store.
You are seeing the actual real time sexual abuse of a child.
When we see online images or if we see videotapes that have
been made of children, by sex tourists who have gone outside
the country and made their own videotapes, we are looking at
a crime scene. The fact that it is online makes it a digital
crime scene. And it is very important for us to recognize that
in the United States, we call this child pornography, but in
Europe, in many of the other countries outside of this country,
these are referred to as child sexual abuse images. So that
the public will not be confused if this is a voluntary modeling,
it is not voluntary modeling, it is in fact a crime.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, in your professional capacity have you had
the opportunity to interview or study or meet with the so-called
predators at all?
Dr. Cooper. I have had the opportunity to testify in court
cases in fact of individuals who have exploited children through
either pornography and many times pornography and prostitution
together because that is a very common connection.
Mr. Whitfield. And that motivates a predator?
Dr. Cooper. I would say that there are three common reasons,
although the researchers, the best researchers for this have been
in Ireland who have gone into the prison system and interviewed
collectors of child pornography. The three most common reasons
that are cited are, number one for sexual gratification. These
individuals will look at images in order to fantasize about their
own relationship with that child. A second reason that they will
collect images or seek to make images is because it is a plan
for action. That is the most important one that I think we will
need to be aware of. When an individual is looking at child
pornography online, many of these individuals are planning how
they are going to commit a contact offense with another child.
They are using what they are seeing online, both to normalize and
justify their behaviors. Particularly if they see hundreds and
hundreds of images online, they come to the belief that this is
common, everyone is doing it, and so, therefore, I am going to
do it too. They will use what they see as a plan for action. The
third reason is because it allows them to be a collector, in fact
and with their likeminded friends, they can speak of the fact
that they have numerous images within their collection.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, would you say that, and I know it is
difficult to generalize, but predators who are engaged in this
activity, I am assuming most of them have full-time jobs. They
may be a professional, they may come from any walk of life. Is
that correct?
Dr. Cooper. There is a very interesting phenomenon about child
pornography, that is correct, that they do come from all walks of
life. There may very well be small town individuals who have very
minimal resources, who still are downloading child pornography. In
one particular case that I am familiar with in my State, an
individual was marketing his seven-year-old daughter by sending
pictures of her on the Internet and he did not even have his own
computer, he was using the county library computer to do this. So
you can have individuals who are not wealthy well-to-do
individuals, are still very much involved in this practice.
Mr. Whitfield. It would not be unusual for them to send over the
Internet, a webcam of them actually molesting the child on, I
mean, televised while they are doing it, right?
Dr. Cooper. They would have live webcam situations. You have
almost all of those, a receiver of that information so you
usually have at least two individuals who are intentionally
communicating with images. As you are aware, the most recent and
high profile case that occurred two weeks ago is associated with
27 individuals who were live web casting to each other and
talking so that they could ask for certain sexual acts to be
performed on a given child so that they would have the
opportunity to watch this.
Mr. Whitfield. Well thanks, Dr. Cooper, my time is expired and
I recognize Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Stupak. Well thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Cooper, for rearranging your travel schedule to
be with us here today on this important issue.
Dr. Cooper. Thank you.
Mr. Stupak. You mentioned a small town and actually my staff
being well prepared went to the Michigan site for a public sex
offender registry and this was just from my small town, I come
from a very small town but it is seven pages, there are 39 people
there. And I will quite tell you as I just thumbed through it
here quickly I was quite surprised. These public sex offender
registries we hear a lot about, are they any kind of a deterrent?
It seems they catch a lot of attention but is it some kind of
deterrent to a kind of sexual abuse we are seeing on the
Internet?
Dr. Cooper. Sir, I would say that the presence of being a
registered sex offender may deter a person from having a contact
offense with a child in their neighborhood; however, I believe
that it does contribute to individuals going online more, because
unless their sex offense results in a parole or a probation, or
that they cannot access or use a computer, individuals are more
likely to go online to access images of children for the purpose of
sexual gratification through masturbation because they are fearful
to actually have contact offenses. What we also know is that sex
offender registries have a higher association of spawning child
sex tourists. Americans are the most common child sex tourists
and one of the main reasons they leave the United States to
travel to third tier countries in order to have sex with children
is because they are registered sex offenders. And so it sort of
switches or transitions the victims from American children to
foreign national children.
Mr. Stupak. I see. In this and I just read that, I was just
looking at again just very quickly. Are you surprised that the
number of people registered here who are only 20, 21, 22. Is there
any kind of, in your research or studies, is there any kind of
profile of the person who is trying to obtain this information over
the Internet? I mean, I got all ages on this list and I do not
know what the offenses are for but is there any kind of profile
that has developed through your work?
Dr. Cooper. We know that the majority of individuals who are
seeking either to contact children or who are collecting images
are male, almost 99 percent are male. They tend to be
non-Hispanic white males. We also know that they have the highest
incidents of committing this crime between the ages of 26 and 35.
That is your most common age, however, we are beginning to see
younger and younger offenders if you will, to include youth
offenders because of the availability of child pornography on the
Internet. I believe that we are in a bit of a quandary to decide
what to do about teenagers, for example, who are downloading
images because we are not sure if the images titled 13-year-old
daughter, for example, and a 15-year-old is accessing that image,
we would be a little confused as to whether or not that actually
would constitute child abuse or sexual exploration. So you can
see that while we have the young offenders, they are breaking a low
but we are not positive about the positive there. On the other
hand, we have definitely older people who are clearly accessing
images of very young children. There is no doubt that they are
doing that with informed consent so to speak.
Mr. Stupak. Let me ask you this in your research and I see you
have a couple of your books there. One part was, in your
research is about the law but just the public sex offender
registry, each State has them, would those convictions for a
sexual possession of pornography, children, would that
necessarily be on these offenders if the list teaches things a
little different as to what offenses make up to find yourself
on a public sex offender registry? It is my understanding some
States even if you are convicted of the crimes we are talking
about today you do not appear on the sexual offender list.
Dr. Cooper. That is correct, sir. It really depends upon the
State and the judge, how that final sentencing is going to be.
Our goal is to educate prosecutors, juries, and judges that
if you are going to not have any type of incarceration as the
sentence for this kind of crime, the least that should happen
is that a person should become a registered sex offender.
Mr. Stupak. So that would be one area where Congress probably
would have an opportunity to act on since the Internet is
interstate commerce and no doubt about that.
Do you think child pornography is becoming more acceptable in
our society? You mentioned that if I am convicted here in the
United States, then I will just go elsewhere to get around the
limitations that may be placed upon me here in the United
States.
Dr. Cooper. I believe that child pornography in our society,
no, I do not think it is becoming more acceptable, although it
is becoming more common. What I do believe is that people
who are sexually abusing their children are changing. They
are becoming more exhibitionistic with respect to how they
sexually abuse their children. Ten years ago, before we had
public access to the Internet so readily, parents were sexually
abusing their children but they were not taking videotapes and
making pictures and putting them on the Internet. Now that is
what we are beginning to see, which means that they see their
children not only as their victims but as a commodity for money
to the public and those who are likeminded and would like to
have access to their children in that sense. So I see the
commodification of children as a bigger problem in our society
and the fact that we fail to see them as individuals who will
be highly harmed by knowing that their images are on the
Internet.
Mr. Stupak. You indicated in your answer that while it is not
more acceptable, it is more common in children in the ways they
become more of a commodity, a commercial enterprise.
Dr. Cooper. This is correct.
Mr. Stupak. Because of the growing use of the Internet, are
consumers then often required not only to purchase images but
also to provide their own unique picture, I do not want to say
unique but provide something which will not only be it for
purchase for the personal satisfaction but also then are they
required then to provide pictures or to put the pressure upon
them to access?
Dr. Cooper. Yeah, absolutely, correct. There are several
episodes of discussions on the Internet between individuals who
want new images. They may want, for example, the reset of a
known series that they have. A series may have 30 or 40 images,
and they only have 15 so they want the rest. The key thing
though, is that they will usually be required to provide their
own images in order to, as a trading in order to do that. There
are certain situations where they are asked to provide new images
that have never been on the Internet before, and this is what
encourages individuals to sexually abuse their own children in
order to make those images available. Those have a higher
desirability because more people already have many of the hundreds
of thousands of images that are already on the Internet.
Mr. Stupak. Let me ask you this. And I do not mean this in any
way a reflection upon baseball. What I am going to say is are
they trading them--like when I was growing up we traded baseball
card and certain things, certain cards you wanted, certain stars.
Is it like that on the Internet?
Dr. Cooper. Very much it is that way, particularly when you have
collectors who want to complete their series, or if you have
individuals who have a certain fetish. For example, one case that
I worked in, the individual had a child smoking fetish and he
wanted pornographic images of children, all of whom were smoking.
So they work very hard to find other people who have those kind
of images and frequently those are homemade images.
Mr. Stupak. Let me ask this question because I mentioned in my
opening and in my research and someone mentioned, our staffs have
really done a good job in helping us prepare for this but in our
research in everything we have done here, it appears that about
60 percent of these victims are under the age of 12. So did you
and you mentioned it earlier, could you explain what you mean by
grooming children into compliant victimization?
Dr. Cooper. Yes, I will. And if I could make a comment--
Mr. Stupak. Sure.
Dr. Cooper. --of the 60 percent who are under 12, the reason
that 60 percent are under 12, is because it is easier to charge
when children are pre-pubescent appearing. You will have plenty
of adolescent victims whose images are also on the Internet. But
because they are adolescents, it is more difficult to tell that
they are less than 18, which is the standard of the law. You will
have adolescent victims and they would be marketed under gold
banners, and others with still underage minors, but it is much
easier to charge and successfully prosecute children who do not
appear to have any sexual maturation which classically is children
under 12. Now in answer to your question regarding complaint
victimization, when children see or are shown images of other
children who are being sexually abused and this is a common
behavior of cyber enticers who will send pornographic images to
children in order to help them understand that everybody does
this, it is okay. When that happens, children will come to
believe that this is something that lots of other kids do so
maybe it is not that bad and they become a compliant victim in
that situation and can actually recruit other victims.
Mr. Stupak. Now then what happens to the very young victim after
they are rescued from their abusers after years of grooming and
being used in child pornography images? What kind of a child is
left us?
Dr. Cooper. A very damaged child. The National Institute of
Justice tells us that they are 28 times more likely to be arrested
for prostitution in their lives than other children.
Mr. Stupak. It looks like my time has expired. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman and thank you again for your testimony and being
here today.
Dr. Cooper. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
At this time, I will recognize the Chairman for his 10 minutes of
questions.
Chairman Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been in my
office watching the hearing on television.
Dr. Cooper, let us set aside the tragedy of this for a moment;
what is the societal poison or wrong that happens as a result
of child pornography? What happens to us as a society because of
this?
Dr. Cooper. Sir, I would say that our society responds as it
did to violence on television. We become tolerant to the
presence of really significant violence and we fail to recognize
after a while that it is indeed violence. The same is true with
child pornography. If we do not respond with an absolute zero
tolerance type of response, we will begin to accept the form of
child abuse. I think the other important point is that because
this is a technology driven type of crime, many people fail to
recognize that we are talking about child sexual abuse. In fact,
I sit on several committees, national committees, that have had a
hard time grasping that we are really talking about child sexual
abuse with the digital moralization. So we have had a tough time
getting our child protection services workers to the table for
example because it has been hard for them to understand that this
is not a victimless crime. Five years ago, that was the most
common statement, this is a victimless crime.
Chairman Barton. Well do the children that are molested, as
adults, do they manifest any social behavioral problems, law
enforcement run-ins on a higher level of incidents than children
that are not exploited as children sexually?
Dr. Cooper. Yes, they do, sir. When they have been exploited
especially visually, you are much more likely to accept yourself
that way. To become a marketer or to be easily marketed by others
is the next that follow to this type of exploitation so many that
prostitution has a much higher occurrence in individuals who are
exploited in this manner. And in fact, Dr. Richard Estes research
from the University of Pennsylvania, revealed when he went to
codify the cities he went out of State to juvenile detention
centers talking to kids who had been arrested for prostitution.
There was an overwhelmingly large number of these children who
had been already prostituted and pornographically photographed
from within their families before they ran away and ultimately
were being prostituted on the streets.
Chairman Barton. And when you talk about, excuse me, digital
molestation what is the minimum standard that would be considered
to be sexually exploitive?
Dr. Cooper. In the United States, images revealed new lascivious,
if you will, visualization of the genitals of a child. The child
may be dressed but their clothes, their position, the way that the
individual closeness from inside of camera is focusing typically
on the genital area. That is the beginning of an exploitive image
for the U.S.
Chairman Barton. Now is that under current law, is that illegal?
Dr. Cooper. That is illegal under the Protect Acts; however, many
images of nude children who are then shown in various sexually
explicit poses without any evidence of actual sexual assault are
considered erotica in the United States, although they are
considered pornography in Canada just across the border.
Chairman Barton. So if a parent were to take his or her child and
pose them without their clothes on and send that over the Internet
that would be illegal today?
Dr. Cooper. It would depend upon how they are posed. And let me
give you an example. One of my patient�s in my child abuse clinic
stepfather posed her, 11-year-old, posed her at a table with her
breasts lying on grass and put little bunny ears above her breasts
and took pictures of this. This is not considered to be
pornographic because it was not genital. The effect on the child
as you can imagine was significant. The Walgreen Department
Store that made these pictures out of the film called law
enforcement right away because they thought this was child
pornography but it did not meet the letter of the law under that
circumstance because it was not genital exposure.
Chairman Barton. Is there any indication that because of the
Internet, parents that exploit their children is growing as a
percent of the population?
Dr. Cooper. I think so because I have been seeing child sexual
abuse cases since 1980 and I cannot recall seeing as many parents
who have taken pictures of their children like they are now and
beginning to put them on the Internet, to exchange them with each
other. This is very much a concerning trend.
Chairman Barton. Now under current law, a parent that does
that, if caught and convicted, does the parent lose custody of
the child?
Dr. Cooper. Almost always that would be the case, yes.
Chairman Barton. What about the amounts of money? We were
briefed that in one of the cases they were taking in several
million dollars a month.
Dr. Cooper. That is correct. The Avalanche case is a good
example.
Chairman Barton. Under current law, does that, can that money
be forfeited like in a drug case or does it stay in the account
of the exploiter and they do their time and it is their money?
Dr. Cooper. Recently, sir, in Kentucky, I testified in a
deposition for that purpose so that money that was obtained by
in this particular case from an individual who was making child
pornography, and as a Federal employee had his own money from
his retirement. That particular U.S. Attorney made the
appropriate motions to have his retirement pay closed in a fund
for the child victims for their mental health services for
several years to come. So that degree of restorative justice
is definitely available and it is something that I have only
seen once, but would really like to see happen more.
Chairman Barton. Well, is that something that we need to look
at, at the Federal level, a special statute of enforcement and
penalties for parental molestation and asset forfeiture is that
something that would be helpful?
Dr. Cooper. Definitely, sir. This was a stepfather to this
child. There were several victims, but the primary victim was
this child. I think that would be a very good idea.
Chairman Barton. Is most of the money that changes hands done
by credit card?
Dr. Cooper. And PayPal accounts, yes, usually through credit
accounts and PayPal.
Chairman Barton. Is that something that we need to look at?
Are there any under current law, penalties towards a credit
card company that knowingly and willfully accepts funds,
transfers funds of a child pornographic nature?
Dr. Cooper. I definitely believe that is something that the
Congress should consider, sir, because we are doing the best
we can do from the victim level, but when we have this much
money driving the train, it is very hard to interrupt that
kind of process without some type of very high level
regulation or mandatory perusal.
Chairman Barton. Okay. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is enough
questions for this witness.
Thank you for your work in this effort area and thank you for
testifying today.
Dr. Cooper. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I might mention that on Thursday we are going to have another
hearing on this issue relating to law enforcement and we are
going to get into more detail about the methods of payment.
And at this time, I recognize Dr. Burgess for his 10 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Dr. Cooper for being here and being so generous
with your time this morning.
Dr. Cooper. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burgess. You probably already answered this but let me
ask it again just so I am sure that I understand it. I get
the impression that of course child exploitation and child
sexual abuse has been with us for a long, long time
unfortunately.
Dr. Cooper. That is correct.
Mr. Burgess. But get the impression that the Internet has
caused a change in this. Is that a correct assumption?
Dr. Cooper. That is true. I would agree. The Internet has
made it all different. There are five different types of
child sexual exploitation, but the Internet facilitates
every single one of those types of child sexual exploitation.
Mr. Burgess. And you alluded a minute ago to somebody who
took their pictures to Walgreen�s to be developed and the
developers obviously alerted someone if there was a problem
or there may be a problem here, but the Internet and digital
photography is where they cut out the middleman in many
respects so that now the availability of creating images is
can be done within the privacy of one�s own home without
involving a third party such as Walgreen�s. Do you think
that has had an effect?
Dr. Cooper. Very much so, sir. I think the ability for
collectors to be anonymous and for producers to be anonymous
has made this a much more difficult crime for all of us to
be able to attack. The greatest individuals who suffer are
the victims, because we see the images but we do not know
who these children are. It is very challenging to try to
track down where these images may have come from and who
these children might be. It has been very challenging to
do that.
Mr. Burgess. You used a word that I guess didn�t even know
was a verb but the word commodification of children and I
guess just coming from a perspective where we have to be
protective with the most vulnerable members of society, the
fact that we are turning them into a commodity is a
disturbing, a very disturbing concept for most of us up here.
But, and the Chairman has asked this, but are there ways,
other specific steps that you think we could take or that
could be taken by legislative bodies to make it more difficult
to commodify our children and to provide more protection to
the most vulnerable members?
Dr. Cooper. Yes, sir, I think that there are some steps that
can be taken. One of the most important is to try to go back
to our media the value of children, and to not allow children
to be depicted in the media as a commodity, as we are beginning
to see very, very commonly. This is one of the things that
really contributes. In my discussions with outreach programs
in various parts of the United States, this is one of the
phenomena that is contributing to the compliant victim. When
children see other kids on TV, especially teenagers on TV who
are being treated in very sexually exploitive ways either
through music videos, on videogames, et cetera, it causes
children to believe themselves to be available in that manner.
And that is the entertainment media and it is very
challenging. I think we all have to pay attention to the huge
messages that are being promoted every day, with respect to
the whole commodification of children in the media. There
is one thing, this is not obscenity per say, but it certainly
is a message that all parents need to be more aware of when
they see music videos with young teenagers who are being
presented as if they were being prostituted, or as if they
were being exploited and this is 24 hours a day on cable
TV. It is really easy to see how kids will think this is
okay for them.
Mr. Burgess. Or in fact during the presentation of the
Oscars but let us--
Dr. Cooper. Exactly right.
Mr. Burgess. Let us stay on this for a minute because this
too predates the Internet. And I guess the question I would
have is is the Internet a causer and effect here or is it
merely a facilitator and now changes this behavior to one that
can be accomplished at warp speed if you will?
Dr. Cooper. It really does, sir. In fact, you can usually
see some imagery on television and the next day it will be on
the Internet and it will be the same imagery which will be on
the Internet for the next 6 weeks. It may not be on TV anymore,
but it will be on the Internet for the next six weeks and
children can finally download that information or they can just
look at it on their computers in their home and then as they
get their cell phones with cameras and start to take pictures
and transmit to each other. You can really understand how this
would not be seen as terribly abnormal because they see it on
the Internet every day in their bedrooms.
Mr. Burgess. So to some degree the Internet may be an accelerant
for this fire and not in fact the cause of this?
Dr. Cooper. That is correct.
Mr. Burgess. That is what this Chairman has done but that is
what is going to make it so difficult for us legislatively to
deal with this and we feel it is important work that we do
need to take on. But for people who are parents who are
concerned about their children, is there a particular type of
profile that the parents ought to be aware of or particular
types of behavior that they have to be aware of in their
children that should cause some alarm bells to go off?
Dr. Cooper. Well the first thing that I think is important
for parents to understand, there used to be like the i-SAFEty
Program is one but there are several programs. The National
Center has one called Net Smarts as well. Parents really
need to be educated from the preschool time period about the
risks for child pornography and child sexual abuse because,
remember that we have very young children who have been
sexually abused these days and it is important for parents
to understand how that can happen, and how to protect their
children. I think the hardest part is for us to help parents
recognize that these children are being abused within their
own homes. There is almost always a non-absenting parent in
that home, so we need to empower parents. Healthcare
providers need to be talking to parents when children are
infants about the importance of protecting their children,
not just from the normal constant safety that we speak of,
but the issues of sexual exploitation, sexual abuse which
many parents would never think would be relevant information
for an infant who is less than 12 months of age. However,
the Internet is showing us that this is an important
phenomenon that we need to be discussing with parents across
the board. The majority of offenders are indeed men. So
it is important for us to help parents understand that.
Mr. Burgess. What type of outreach program do you have for
healthcare providers? Because that is, I have got to tell
you as someone who just recently left the healthcare
providing field, I do not know that this would have crossed
my radar screen in dealing with a patient with a problem.
Dr. Cooper. You are absolutely right. For those of us
who work in child abuse, we are more tunnel-visioned with
respect to child safety from abuse. General healthcare
providers, family medicine, and pediatrics need to be
much more aware of the fact that child pornography exists,
that these are little children, they are not victimless
and it is not a virtual crime, it is a real crime. We
need to add to our ancillary guidance, in our well child
checks, et cetera, sports physicals, questions to the
children and also advice to parents about how to keep
children safe but also how to make sure that they are not
exposed every day to those mind changing media driven
messages that can cause their pre-teens and teenagers to
become compliant victims.
Mr. Burgess. That is an enormous task of education,
re-education of healthcare professionals. Do you have some
programs currently that are ongoing to do that, to accomplish
that?
Dr. Cooper. There are some online programs but I am a member
of the American Academy of Pediatrics and it is my goal to
try to bring this into our well child checks.
Mr. Burgess. Well, again, for parents who are watching this
hearing today and I hope that some are, what are some of the
things that they can themselves do to increase their
involvement in their children�s lives to put another barrier
between their child and the potential for abuse?
Dr. Cooper. The most important thing that I think parents
should do is first of all communicate with their children from
the time they are very young. Do not wait until they are 13
and 14 to start talking to them. The second point is to be
aware of social networking sites such sites as MySpace, the
FaceBook, Zanga.com, where children are beginning to do online
diaries and put their own pictures of themselves which is a
risk. That is a bit of a risk in particular because many
children when they are 13 and 14 years of age will be a little
exhibitionistic. That is just a part of being an adolescent
but it is a little dangerous to be that way online as we have
seen from the case of Justin Berry. He was only 13 and all he
had to do was take his shirt off and all of a sudden men were
responding to him in that situation. So I think talking to
children from the very beginning, from the time they are very
young, helping them to recognize and helping parents to
recognize that the majority of offenders are not strangers.
That is the other important point. Many parents speak to
their children about being aware of strangers but the majority
of sex offenders are acquaintances and/or relatives. The
third point is to be careful not to let children have Internet
access in their bedroom. They can have a computer in their
bedroom, but not Internet access in their bedroom. That
should be where parents can monitor their usage.
Mr. Burgess. Thanks again, Dr. Cooper. You have been very
generous of your time and we really appreciate your rearranging
your schedule to be with us today.
Dr. Cooper. Thank you.
Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Dr. Burgess.
And I recognize Mr. Walden for 10 minutes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do not know that I have got that many additional questions.
You have done a marvelous job and my colleagues have asked all
the questions I was thinking of as well.
Dr. Cooper. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Walden. As I listened to Dr. Burgess the things what can
parents do, you certainly addressed those issues and
enlightened us about how severe this problem is, so I appreciate
your testimony today and the questions and unless you have
anything else to add.
Dr. Cooper. I remember that Mr. Barton had asked how could
have individual have an interest in an 18-month-old and I
wanted to respond to that question.
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Dr. Cooper. What we do know about individuals who sexually
abuse infants and toddlers is that their sexual abuse is not
really sexually driven from the standpoint of sexual desire
for such a young child as a sexual partner, but the more
common driving force with that young of a victim is the power
and control motivation. And in fact interviews with convicted
predators who have sexually abused children as young as
18 months have spoken of that fact. The cognitive distortion
that we see in sex offenders is that their power and control
is for the purpose of making that toddler a perfect sexual
partner by the time they become an adolescent. So it is very
important for us to recognize that cognitive distortions
clearly already exist in sex offenders and the Internet can
promote more of those cognitive distortions.
Mr. Walden. Let me just ask one question as I have read
through the testimony and heard about how the Federal
agencies have responded in this case and we will hear more
directly from them. What is your experience in terms of
agency response--State, local, and Federal in these cases?
Dr. Cooper. And that is a very good question. I will tell
you that I began my work in child sexual exploitation with
the U.S. Postal Inspection Service who has been incredibly
excellent with respect to their recognition of child
pornography as it is ordered online and delivered through
the mail. They are very, very proactive and very
hardworking group of people. The Internet Crimes Against
Children�s Task Forces which are present in almost every
State now usually will have a local law enforcement officer
representative. For example, in my county in North Carolina,
we have one person in our sheriff�s department who sits on
that team and then we have a State-level investigator who
sits on that team, and then a fellow FBI-type investigator
and then a customs individual. So I interact pretty
regularly with each one of these individuals in a team
standpoint whenever there is a new case. My role is to
analyze the images and to make sure that they meet the
definition of the law. I would say that they work very
well together but they are not enough, clearly not enough
individuals. Law enforcement training needs to be a
continuously funded phenomenon. I speak in probably 10,
at least 10 to 12 trainings a year in the United States
that are all law enforcement trainings all about sexual
exploitation online predators. So I think that funding
for that continued education is going to be very important.
Mr. Walden. All right, thank you very much. I would
yield back.
We again appreciate your rescheduling and your testimony
and the good work you do around the country.
Dr. Cooper. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Walden.
And I will recognize the gentleman from New Jersey for
10 minutes. Mr. Ferguson.
Mr. Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Cooper is there a link between being in possession of
child pornography and actually assaulting a child?
Dr. Cooper. Yes, sir, there is. That has been studied now
in three different venues. The U.S. Postal Inspection
Service first looked at that and found that in 35 percent of
the cases that they had investigated there was also evidence
of a contact offense having already occurred. The Toronto
Child Sexual Exploitation Police Unit also looked at this
question and nearly one out of two, 35 percent of their
cases were also minimum contact offenses. Then of course
the Federal Bureau of Prisons has looked at it from a
different perspective. These are already incarcerated child
pornographers who are in sexual treatment programs. In that
particular situation where individuals are in therapy and
will acknowledge under that umbrella whether or not they have
or have not sexually abused children. Close to 76 percent of
those individuals acknowledged that they had already sexually
abused children at the time, by the time they were collecting
child pornography. So we feel that there is definitely a link
between collecting child pornography and offending against
children. Sadly for me as a forensic pediatrician, now that I
see younger children in my clinic, I am beginning to see
children who are telling me about their victimization and I
have seen what they are telling me on the Internet. So I know
that the aspect of a plan of action, the Internet providing a
plan of action for offenders is clearly becoming evident.
Mr. Ferguson. So the evidence suggests that there is a link.
Do we have an idea of that causality?
Dr. Cooper. Yes. That we believe and what the research out
of Ireland showed when the applied psychologist went into the
prison system and this would be Taylor and Quail who go in
the prison system to talk to convicted pornographers. The
most important causality is that seeing child pornography
makes would be offenders believe that this is acceptable
behavior, that it is normal and that normal people do it. So,
therefore, the normalization of sexual harm is what encourages
them to proceed.
Mr. Ferguson. So with all of the images that are available
online, with all of the material that is out there, I mean, are
we creating child predators with the availability and the ease
with which one can access child pornography, these exploitative
images, this material? Are we, because that is so easily
available, are we creating people who exploit and abuse
children?
Dr. Cooper. That is a very good question and I will tell you
that there are reports of individuals who have nearly sexually
offended against a child, who after beginning to see many of
these images on the Internet, develop that kind of distortion
that this is a common practice, and who may have fantasized,
but never acted on a child and now are beginning to because
of what the have seen on the Internet.
Mr. Ferguson. Those are all the questions I have. Thank you,
Dr. Cooper, I yield back.
Dr. Cooper. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferguson.
And Dr. Cooper, we generally appreciate your being here today
and as we said a couple times before rearranging your schedule,
your testimony is certainly very important and your
professional insights will be quite helpful to us.
Dr. Cooper. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. And we hope that we can stay in touch with you
as we move forward on this issue.
Dr. Cooper. And sir, if I may, I would like to be sure to leave
a copy of our textbook and our CD-ROM with you for your use if
it can be of any benefit.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much and we appreciate your being
here.
At this time, I would like to call the second panel of witnesses.
First, we have Mr. Justin Berry who is with us today. He was
the topic of a number of articles in the New York Times about
how a 13-year-old young man becomes involved in this sordid
online world. Justin, if you would have a seat. And then also
we have Mr. Kurt Eichenwald who is a reporter with the New York
Times. I am going to ask unanimous consent that we enter into
the record five articles in the New York Times that
Mr. Eichenwald wrote on this subject, as well as a speech that
he gave at Marquette University. The title of the first article
is "Through His Webcam a Boy Joins a Sordid Online World." The
second one was "Where the Credit Card Trail leads." The third,
"A Shadowy Trade Migrates Through the Web." Fourth, "Documenting
a Crime That Thrives on Anonymity." Fifth, "Making a Connection
with Justin," and then the speech at Marquette University.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Whitfield. I might also add that in my opening statement, I talked
about Mr. Eichenwald being so disturbed and interested in this issue that
he came to testify, but I would like to set the record straight that we
did subpoena Mr. Eichenwald because he is a reporter and so we appreciate
him complying with our subpoena and being here in response to that. We
also have Mr. Steve Ryan with us today who is an attorney with Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips, and it is my understanding, Mr. Berry, that he,
Mr. Ryan, is representing you and acting as your legal counsel. Is that
correct?
Mr. Berry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. And as you all know, this is an Oversight
and Investigations hearing and we do take testimony under oath.
Do either of you have any difficulty or object to testifying
under oath? Now, Mr. Eichenwald, do you have legal counsel
with you today?
Mr. Eichenwald. I do, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. And would you identify him?
Mr. Eichenwald. He is David McCall, the gentleman behind me who
is the counsel for the New York Times.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay, and Mr. David McCall who is the legal
counsel with the New York Times, we appreciate your being here,
Mr. McCall. Now, I understand you are not going to be testifying.
Mr. Ryan may actually testify depending on how the questions go.
[Witnesses sworn]
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, all of you are sworn in now and I will
recognize Mr. Justin Berry for his opening statement. And
Justin, we do appreciate your being here today. We know it has
been a difficult road for you and your being willing to testify
can be a tremendous help to many young people throughout the
country and also to the committee as we search for ways to deal
with this issue so thank you.
TESTIMONY OF JUSTIN BERRY, C/O STEPHEN M. RYAN, ESQ., MANATT, PHELPS &
PHILLIPS LLP; AND KURT EICHENWALD, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES
Mr. Berry. Thank you. Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member
Mr. Stupak, and other members of the committee, my name is
Justin Berry and I am 19 years old. I am here to speak upon
the danger facing this Nation�s children, one that threatens
not only their emotional health, but their physical safety.
This danger is Internet child pornography, particularly
involving the use of inexpensive web cameras which are used by
adult predators to exploit children.
I speak from experience. For 5 years, beginning when I was 13
years old, I operated a pornographic website featuring images
of myself fluttered on the Internet by webcams. I was paid by
more than 1,000 men to strip naked, masturbate, and even have
sex with female prostitutes while on camera. My business was
assisted by adult criminals, including companies that process
credit card payments.
I am not proud of the things I have done nor will I personally
attempt to avoid responsibility for those decisions. While I
did not comprehend the magnitude of what was happening when I
was 13, as I grew older, I progressively became corrupted and
acted in shameful ways. Still, I repeatedly attempted to pull
away from this sick business, but each time I fell back into
this criminal world that had first seduced me and eventually
controlled me.
My experience is not as isolated as you may hope. This is not
the story of a few bad kids whose parents paid no attention.
There are hundreds of kids in the United States alone who are
right now wrapped up in this horror. Within each of your
congressional districts, I guarantee there are children who
have used their webcams to appear naked online, and I guarantee
you there are also children in your district on the Internet
right now being contacted and seduced by online sexual predators.
I was an honor student and I was class president. My mom had
used all the latest child protective software. She checked
what was happening in my room. She occasionally took away my
computer keyboard but she was no match for the child predators
who worked hard to make sure my child porn shows continued.
In my personal opinion, the law enforcement effort is no match
for them either. Until recently, I never understood why these
child predators always laughed about the Government. Now, I
know that the child predators are at least partially right.
They have little to fear from law enforcement. Based on my
case, efforts to prosecute these people are riddled with
mistakes and bureaucracy. Unless something changes, hundreds
or even thousands of children will be lost forever.
I obtained a webcam at 13 after signing up for an account with
earthlink.net. The company, as a promotion, sent me a free
Logitech webcam. As a child drawn to computers, I was
enthralled. I plugged the device into my computer and then
followed the instructions on the software. Within minutes my
webcam image was loaded onto a website called spotlife.com.
Like many young teenagers, I hoped my webcam would improve my
social life. I did not have a lot of friends and I was very
lonely. I hoped the webcam would help me meet other teenagers
online and hopefully a few girls my age. That never happened.
No teenager out of the webcam pornography business ever
contacted me but I did hear from my child predators. Within
minutes of appearing on spotlife, I received an instant message
from an adult male. This man I now know was a child predator.
I did not understand at that time.
More child predators followed. Looking back today, my thoughts
seem foolish but at 13, I believed these people were my friends.
They were kind. They complimented me. They wanted to know
about my day, and they were endlessly patient in listening to
me, and they were generous. In no time, one of these men told
me he wanted to send me a gift. He showed me how to set up a
wish list on Amazon.com which allowed everyone who knew my code
name to send me a present without requiring me to disclose my
address. Soon I was swamped with videos, CDs, and computer
equipment including better webcams all free from my new friends.
I always rushed back from school to scoop of the packages that
were on my doorstep before my mother got home from work.
My new friends were kinder and more generous to me than anyone
I had ever known. I trusted them, and that is when everything
changed. One afternoon, a few weeks after setting up my webcam,
one of these men approached me online with a proposal. He
would pay me $50 if I took off my shirt for a few minutes while
sitting in front of my webcam. He explained to me how to set
up an account on Paypal.com, an instant online money payment
system. I was excited about the $50, an amount that struck me
at the time was a huge sum of money. Taking off my shirt seemed
harmless, I did it at the pool. The money arrived and I took
off my shirt. My viewers complimented me and it felt good.
The weeks that followed are a blur, but I now understand that by
removing my shirt, I had signaled that I could be manipulated.
More gifts and money arrived along with increasingly explicit
requests. They wanted me to take off my pants, remove my
underwear, and eventually masturbate on camera. The seduction
was slow. Each request only went a bit further than the last
and the horror of what was happening did not strike me at that
time.
I wish I could say I hated what was happening. Perhaps that
would absolve some of my sense of guilt. But the truth is I
did not. As more clothes came off, more people contacted me.
The compliments were endless, the gifts and payments terrific.
I thought I had achieved online what eluded me in real life.
I was popular. Everyone wanted to know my thoughts.
Everyone wanted to give me things. I was the king of my own
universe. All I had to do in exchange was strip and masturbate
while alone in my room.
Men began to reach out to me. One man, Ken Gourlay approached
me online to discuss my interest in computers. He operated
his own web hosting company called Chain Communications. I was
awed. Here was someone running a real Internet business,
talking to me, a 13-year-old kid and treating me as an equal.
In the months that followed, Ken raised the possibility of
hiring me at Chain as an executive director of sales and
marketing. It seemed like a dream come true.
As I was working for him, Ken recommended that I attend elite
computer camp at the University of Michigan where I could
obtain advance certifications. My mother agreed to send me
there that summer while I was still 13. At that time, I
thought it was just luck that Ken and Chain were both based in
Ann Arbor, Michigan. I now know that I had been set up.
Ken picked me up at camp one day to show me Chain and he took
me to his home where I was sexually molested by Ken for what
proved to be first and many times by him and other adult men.
With the help of my family and my psychologist, I know
understand that my molestation by Ken was the turning point
that sent me on a path to self-destruction. Afterwards, Ken
apologized, promising me it would never happen again, but it
did.
By this time, I had formalized my webcam business. I had
opened a site called justinscam.com, where child predators could
come and watch, and offer me money and gifts to do what they
wanted. After my first molestation, I began to act out
sexually. I was reckless. Part of me wanted to die. And
every day on camera, part of me did.
The next stage emerged with the help once again of Ken
Gourlay. I decided I should sell monthly memberships for a
new site jfwy.com. Ken offered to set up the membership
section and host the business at Chain. People could now,
using the site programmed by Ken, pay me a monthly membership
fee through Paypal and watch all they wanted.
Another computer executive, Gilo Tunno, was one of my members.
He had been an engineer at Intel and a principal designer of
the Pentium 4 processor. I was so impressed. So when Gilo
Tunno told me he wanted to hang out with me in Bakersfield,
California where I lived and bring me presents, I agreed. I
met him and we went to his hotel. At some point, he gave me
a $1,500 projector and other gifts. We talked about Intel
and computers. And then he molested me.
I look back on those events with Gourlay and Tunno and feel
ashamed. All of my explanations seem inadequate. How could
I get myself into that situation? How could I not see it?
But this is one of the issues I wish to stress. Webcams and
instant messaging give predators power over children. The
predators become part of that child�s life. Whatever warnings
the child may have heard about meeting strangers, these people
are no longer strangers. They have every advantage. It is the
standard seduction of child predators multiplied on a geometric
scale.
I no longer cared about anything other than getting as much
money as possible. When another teenager in my town found the
videos from my website and distributed them to my classmates,
I felt compelled to leave. My father lived in Mexico. I
wanted to establish a relationship with him. My mother said I
could visit him for a week.
My week-long visit to Mexico was extended again and again. At
one point, my father asked where all my money was coming from.
I told him about my business and he offered in his words to
help maximize the earning potential. I had already established
a new site called mexicofriends.com which featured me engaging
in sex with Mexican women. My father helped by hiring
prostitutes for me to have sex with on camera. The number of
members, of paid members skyrocketed. I was 16 years old.
I became even more self-destructive. I abused marijuana
terribly and consumed so much cocaine that I am amazed I
survived. My life was a swirl of drugs, money, and sex. When
a paying member of my site, Greg Mitchel, offered to come to
Mexico and pay me gifts, I accepted. He, too, sexually
molested me. But I no longer cared, I just wanted his money.
I had become exactly what my members viewed me to be, what their
degrading conversations convinced me I was: a piece of meat
for sale to the highest bidder.
Just after my 18th birthday I tried to leave the business.
Money was still coming in from mexicofriends but I wanted
nothing to do with it. I used it to purchase clothes and
other items for homeless people in California. I rented a
truck and delivered the materials myself. I was looking for
my own redemption but I failed. I was still addicted to drugs
and Greg Mitchel urged me to return to the business as his
partner. Together, he said, we could set up a new website,
justinsfriends.com. I resisted for months, but I could not find
my way in the real world anymore. Depressed and high on drugs
every day, I agreed to return to porn. The site was fully
operational in June of 2005.
That same month, I met Kurt Eichenwald, a New York Times
reporter who was working on a story about webcam pornography.
He urged me to quit drugs and get out of the business and I
did. He asked for my help in exposing this world and I agreed.
When I told him of the other children who were being exploited a
nd molested by adult men, he convinced me it was important to
tell law enforcement what I knew. I agreed even though I feared
this meant that I could be sent to prison. I believed that
the Government would protect the children being abused. I
believed they would act quickly. I was wrong.
My lawyer, Stephen Ryan of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a former
Federal prosecutor, contacted prosecutors of the Department of
Justice and was put in touch with the Child Exploitation and
Obscenity Section on July 14, 2005. He informed them that the
adults I had worked with suspected I was seeking out law
enforcement. He told them my life was potentially in danger and
that evidence was being destroyed. He provided the DOJ with a
written proffer of my testimony and described the physical
evidence of IP addresses, credit card information, and other
proof I could make available. Mr. Ryan insisted that DOJ
provide me with immunity for the testimony to protect me. He
was confident they would respond promptly. Mr. Ryan was wrong
also.
Almost 2 weeks passed. Finally, we informed the Child
Exploitation and Obscenity Section that I was flying to
Washington, not at government expense, and would be available to
meet with them for 2 days, July 25 and July 26. At almost the
last minute, CEOS scheduled the meeting.
In our meetings, I identified children who were currently
being exploited and molested, as well as other men who were
committing the crimes. I identified the adult child molesters
such as Mr. Mitchel, Mr. Tunno, and others. I told of the
Internet locations where evidence of these crimes could be found.
I informed them that I had names, credit card numbers, IP
addresses of approximately 1,500 people who paid to watch child
pornography from my websites and identified the businessmen,
the adult businessmen who facilitated the credit card payments
necessary for these business. The FBI case agents I spoke with
were very professional and of the highest integrity. I cannot
say enough good things about them. The Child Exploitation and
Obscenity Section did not make me confident.
Weeks passed seemingly without progress. I cannot describe the
agony of that time. Each night I wondered were the children I
knew being molested that night? Were they being filmed? Why
was no one stopping this? I understood it would take time to
decide whether I should have immunity or not, but why couldn�t
they rescue the children in danger?
In late August, my lawyer informed CEOS in writing that if they
did not act, he would take me elsewhere to get State law
enforcement officials to begin the work on the matter. Mr. Ryan
began discussions with the California Attorney General Lockyer,
whose staff agreed to consider taking the case. Also at that
time, I believe the New York Times was preparing a story about
the Government�s failure to do anything about my case. I
remember Kurt asking me what I would tell other cam kids who
wanted to disclose their ring of predators to law enforcement.
I told Kurt knowing my message would be heard by other kids that
no one should ever step forward again. I got the distinct
feeling that the CEOS prosecutors did not know what to do with
me or my information.
Then, everything changed. It was so sudden that I have come to
believe the CEOS feared the New York Times was going to report
the delay. Whatever the cause, I was granted immunity. My
lawyer turned over the physical evidence. The following week
on September 12, 2005, Greg Mitchel was arrested. I expected
this to be the first of many prosecutions. Again, I was
wrong.
I wish I could say the prosecution story had a happy ending.
It did not. At that time, I was concerned I would be killed
by the adults who would be harmed by my testimony and were
frantically searching for me. After the Mitchel arrest, a
sensitive government document was deliberately unsealed from
court records. It is my understanding that this was done by
the U.S. Department of Justice. While the names were blacked
out, the document clearly identified potential defendants
under investigation, as well as the fact that I was a witness
against them. Worse, it warned all the adult perpetrators
across the country that I was cooperating with law enforcement.
The local U.S. Attorney quoted in the newspapers based on the
release of the document. All of it appeared on the Internet
where the adult perpetrators looking for me could read it.
I feared for my life. CEOS then offered me government
protection which I need in part because CEOS or the U.S.
Attorney�s office had deliberately stopped the release of
the affidavit. I declined the offer. I did not trust CEOS
to protect me. I feared the actions of CEOS from that day
forward although not nearly as much as I feared the anger
of the predators.
Today, I have been off drugs for 9 months and just finished
my first quarter at college. My grades are good and I have
friends.
Had I not met Kurt Eichenwald, I would have never had this
chance at a new life. I will never be able to repay what he
has done for me. In a profession which is taught to get the
story, he did that, but he treated me with the compassion of
a Good Samaritan. I have my life back.
Every day, I have regrets, not just for the dreadful
decisions I made in the past years but for failing to have
the impact that I had hoped on this illegal trade.
I have never been asked by law enforcement about any of
the 1,500 names I provided them. Some of those who molested
me, like Mr. Gourlay, and who made all of this possible,
are continuing to live their lives, unaware or uncaring about
any government inquiry. People like Mr. Brown who operate
the credit card infrastructure of web cam child pornography
have been permitted to continue their work, seemingly
undisturbed by any law enforcement effort. I have watched
as my former members go online to attack me, boldly
proclaiming themselves as my former customers and having no
fear that their self-disclosure could result in their arrest.
Events have proved them right.
Since I left the child pornography business last summer, I
have risked everything to tell these facts to persons who
care, like this committee. It is my hope that Congress will
do everything it can to see to it that children are protected
and that our law enforcement effort is competent to combat
this evil. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Justin Berry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Justin Berry, c/o Stephen M. Ryan, Esq., Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips LLP
Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Mr. Stupak, and other Members of
the Committee.
My name is Justin Berry and I am 19 years old. I am here to speak about
a danger facing this nation�s children, one that threatens not only
their emotional health, but their physical safety. This danger is
internet child pornography, particularly involving the use of inexpensive
web cameras which are used by adult predators to exploit children.
I speak from experience. For five years, beginning when I was 13 years
old, I operated a pornographic website, featuring images of myself loaded
onto the internet by webcams. I was paid by more than 1,000 men to strip
naked, masturbate and even have sex with female prostitutes while on
camera. My business was assisted by adult criminals, including companies
that process credit card payments.
I am not proud of the things I have done. Nor will I personally attempt
to avoid responsibility for those decisions. While I did not comprehend
the magnitude of what was happening when I was 13, as I grew older, I
progressively became corrupted and acted in shameful ways. Still, I
repeatedly attempted to pull away from this sick business. But, each
time, I fell back into this criminal world that had first seduced me,
and eventually controlled me.
My experience is not as isolated as you might hope. This is not the
story of a few bad kids whose parents paid no attention. There are
hundreds of kids in the United States alone who are right now wrapped up
in this horror. Within each of your Congressional districts I guarantee
there are children who have used their webcams to appear naked online,
and I guarantee you there are also children in your district on the
Internet right now being contacted and seduced online by sexual predators.
I was an honor student, I was class president. My mom used all the
latest child protective software. She checked what was happening in my
room. She occasionally took away my computer keyboard. But she was no
match for the child predators, who worked hard to make sure my child
porn shows continued.
In my personal opinion, the law enforcement effort is no match for them
either. Until recently, I never understood why these child predators
always laughed about the government. Now I know the child predators are
at least partially right. They have little to fear from law enforcement.
Based on my case, efforts to prosecute these people are riddled with
mistakes and bureaucracy. Unless something changes, hundreds, or even
thousands, of children will be lost forever.
THE BEGINNING
I obtained a webcam at 13 after signing up for an account with
earthlink.net. The company, as a promotion, sent me a free Logitech
webcam. As a child drawn to computers, I was enthralled. I plugged the
device into my computer, and then followed the instructions in the
software. Within minutes, my webcam image was loaded onto a website
called spotlife.com.
Like many young teenagers, I hoped my webcam would improve my social
life. I didn�t have a lot of friends and I was very lonely. I hoped the
webcam would help me meet other teenagers online, maybe even find a few
girls my age. That never happened. No teenager outside of those in the
webcam pornography business ever contacted me. But, I did hear from many
child predators. Within minutes of appearing on spotlife, I received an
instant message from an adult male. This man, I now know, was a child
predator. I did not understand that at the time.
More child predators followed. Looking back today, my thoughts seem
foolish, but at 13, I believed these people were my friends. They were
kind. They complimented me. They wanted to know about my day, and were
endlessly patient in listening to me.
And they were generous. In no time, one of these men told me he wanted
to send a gift. He showed me how to set up a "wish-list" on Amazon.com,
which allowed anyone who knew my codename to send me a present, without
requiring me to disclose my address. Soon, I was swamped with videos,
cd�s and computer equipment "including better webcams" all free from my
new friends. I always rushed back from school to scoop up whatever
package was on my doorstep, before my mother got home from work.
My new friends were kinder and more generous to me than anyone I had
ever known. I trusted them. And that was when everything changed.
One afternoon, a few weeks after setting up my webcam, one of these
men approached me online with a proposal. He would pay me $50 if I
took off my shirt for a few minutes while sitting in front of my
webcam. He explained how to set up an account on Paypal.com "an instant
online money payment system. I was excited about the $50" an amount
that struck me at the time as a huge sum of money. Taking off my shirt
seemed harmless; I did it at the pool. The money arrived, and I took
off my shirt. My viewers complimented me, and it felt good.
BECOMING A PLAYER IN THE WEBCAM PORN INDUSTRY
The weeks that followed are a blur, but I now understand that, by
removing my shirt, I had signaled that I could be manipulated. More
gifts and money arrived, along with increasingly explicit requests. They
wanted me to take off my pants, remove my underwear, and eventually
masturbate on camera. The seduction was slow; each new request went only
a bit further than the last, and the horror of what was happening did not
strike me at the time.
I wish I could say that I hated what was happening. Perhaps that would
absolve some of my sense of guilt. But the truth is, I did not. As more
clothes came off, more people contacted me. The compliments were
endless, the gifts and payments terrific. I thought I had achieved
online what eluded me in real life: I was popular. Everyone wanted to
know my thoughts. Everyone wanted to give me things. I was the king of
my own universe. All I had to do in exchange was strip, and masturbate,
while alone in my room.
Men began to reach out to me. One man, Ken Gourlay, approached me online
to discuss my interest in computers. He operated his own web hosting
company, called Chain Communications, and I was awed. Here was someone,
running a real Internet business, talking to me, a 13-year-old kid, and
treating me as an equal. And, in the months that followed, Ken raised the
possibility of hiring me at Chain, as executive director of sales and
marketing. It seemed like a dream come true.
As I was working for him, Ken recommended that I attend an elite computer
camp at the University of Michigan, where I could obtain advanced
certifications. My mother agreed to send me there that summer, while I
was still 13. At the time, I thought it was just luck that Ken and Chain
were based in Ann Arbor. I now know I had been set up. Ken picked me up
at camp one day, to show me Chain. He took me to his home. There, I was
sexually molested by Ken, for what would prove to be the first of many
times by Ken, and other adult men.
With the help of my family and my psychologist, I now understand that my
molestation by Ken was a turning point that sent me on a path to
self-destruction. Afterwards, Ken apologized, promising me it would never
happen again. But it did.
By this time, I had formalized my webcam business. I had opened up a site
called justinscam.com, where child predators could come and watch, and
offer me money and gifts to do what they wanted. After my first
molestation, I began to act out sexually. I was reckless. Part of me
wanted to die. And every day on camera, part of me did.
MEMBERSHIP SITES
The next stage emerged with the help, once again, of Ken Gourlay. I
decided that I should sell monthly memberships for a new site, jfwy.com.
Ken offered to set up the membership section and host the business at
Chain. People could now, using the site programmed by Ken, pay me a
monthly fee through Paypal, and watch all they wanted.
Another computer executive, Gilo Tunno, was one of my members. He told
me he had been an engineer at Intel and a principal designer of the
Pentium 4 processor. I was so impressed. So when Gilo Tunno told me he
wanted to hang out with me in Bakersfield, California "where I lived"
and bring me presents, I agreed. I met him and we went to his hotel.
At some point he gave me a $1,500 projector and other gifts. We talked
about Intel and computers. And then he molested me.
I look back on those events with Gourlay and Tunno and feel ashamed.
All my explanations seem inadequate. How could I get myself into that
situation? How could I not see it? But this is one issue I wish to
stress. Webcams and instant messaging give predators power over
children. The predators become part of the child�s life. Whatever
warnings the child may have heard about meeting strangers, these people
are no longer strangers. They have every advantage. It is the standard
seduction of child predators, multiplied on a geometric scale.
I no longer cared about anything other than getting as much money as
possible. But when another teenager in my town found videos from my
website and distributed them to my classmates, I felt compelled to leave.
My father lived in Mexico. I wanted to establish a relationship with
him. My mother said I could visit him for a week.
MEXICO
My week long visit to Mexico was extended and extended again. At one
point, my father asked where my money came from. I told him about my
business. And he offered, in his words, to help "maximize the
earnings
potential." I had already established a new site, called
mexicofriends.com, which featured me engaging in sex with Mexican
women. My father helped by hiring prostitutes for me to have sex
with on camera. The number of paid members skyrocketed. I was 16
years old.
I became even more self-destructive. I abused marijuana terribly,
and consumed so much cocaine that I am amazed I survived. My life
was a swirl of drugs, money and sex. When a paying member of my
site, Greg Mitchel, offered to come to Mexico and bring me gifts,
I accepted. He, too, sexually molested me. But I no longer cared.
I just wanted his money. I had become exactly what my members
viewed me to be, what their degrading conversations convinced me I
was: a piece of meat, for sale to the highest bidder.
Just after my 18th birthday, I tried to leave the business. Money
was still coming in from mexicofriends, but I wanted nothing to do
with it. I used it to purchase clothes and other items for homeless
people in California. I rented a truck and delivered the materials
myself. I was looking for my own redemption. But I failed. I was
still addicted to drugs, and Greg Mitchel urged me to return to the
business as his partner. Together, he said, we could set up a new
website, justinsfriends.com. I resisted for months, but could not
find my way anymore in the real world. Depressed and high on drugs
every day, I agreed to return to porn. The site was fully operational
in June, 2005.
GETTING OUT
That same month, I met Kurt Eichenwald, a New York Times reporter who
was working on a story about webcam pornography. He urged me to quit
drugs and get out of the business, and I did. He asked for my help in
exposing this world, and I agreed. And when I told him of other
children who were being exploited and molested by adult men, he
convinced me it was important to tell law enforcement what I knew. I
agreed, even though I feared this meant I could be sent to prison. I
believed that the government would protect the children being abused.
I believed they would act quickly. I was wrong.
My lawyer, Stephen Ryan of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a former federal
prosecutor, contacted prosecutors of the Department of Justice ("DOJ")
and was put in touch with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
(known as "CEOS") on July 14, 2005. He informed them that the adults
I had worked with suspected I was seeking out law enforcement. He told
them my life was potentially in danger, and that evidence was being
destroyed. He provided DOJ with a written proffer of my testimony, and
described the physical evidence of IP addresses, credit card
information, and other proof I could make available. Mr. Ryan insisted
that DOJ provide me with immunity for my testimony to protect me. He
was confident they would respond promptly. Mr. Ryan was wrong also.
Almost two weeks passed. Finally, we informed the Child Exploitation and
Obscenity Section that I was flying to Washington, not at government
expense, and would be available to meet with them for two days, July
25 and July 26. At almost the last minute, CEOS scheduled the meeting.
In our meetings, I identified children who were currently being
exploited and molested, as well as the men who were committing the
crimes. I identified the adult child molesters such as Mr. Mitchel,
Mr. Tunno, and others. I told of the Internet locations where evidence
of these crimes could be found. I informed them I had the names, credit
card number and computer IP addresses of approximately 1,500 people who
paid to watch child pornography from my sites, and identified the adult
businessmen who facilitated the credit card payments necessary for these
businesses. The FBI case agents I spoke with were professional and of
the highest integrity. I cannot say enough good things about them. But
the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section did not make me confident.
Weeks passed, seemingly without progress. I cannot describe the agony
of that time. Each night I wondered, were the children I knew being
molested that night? Were they being filmed? Why was no one stopping
this? I understood it would take time to decide whether I should have
immunity. But why couldn�t they rescue children still in danger?
In late August, my lawyer informed CEOS, in writing, that if they did
not act, he would take me elsewhere to get state law enforcement
officials to begin work on the matter. Mr. Ryan began discussions with
California Attorney General Lockyer, whose staff agreed to consider
taking the case, Also, at that time, I believe the New York Times was
preparing a story about the government�s failure to do anything about
my case. I remember Kurt asking me what I would tell other camkids
who wanted to disclose their ring of predators to law enforcement. I
told Kurt, knowing my message would be heard by other kids, that no
one should ever step forward again. I got the distinct feeling that
the CEOS prosecutors did not know what to do with me or my
information.
Then, everything changed. It was so sudden that I have come to
believe the CEOS feared that the New York Times was going to report
the delay. But whatever the cause, I was granted immunity. My l
awyer turned over the physical evidence. The following week, on
September 12, 2005, Greg Mitchel was arrested. I expected this to
be the first of many prosecutions. Again, I was wrong.
I wish I could say the prosecution story had a happy ending. It
did not. At that time, I was concerned I would be killed by the
adults who would be harmed by my testimony and who were frantically
searching for me. After the Mitchel arrest, a sensitive government
document was deliberately unsealed from court records. It is my
understanding this was done by the U.S. Department of Justice. While
names were blacked out, the document clearly identified potential
defendants under investigation, as well as the fact that I was the
witness against them. Worse, it warned all the adult perpetrators
across the country I was cooperating with law enforcement. The local
U.S. Attorney was quoted in the newspapers, based on the release of
the document. And all of it appeared on the Internet, where the adult
perpetrators looking for me could read it.
I feared for my life. CEOS then offered me government protection,
which I needed, in part, because CEOS or the U.S. Attorney�s Office
had deliberately sought the release of the Affidavit. I declined
their offer. I do not trust CEOS to protect me. I feared the
actions of CEOS from that day forward, although not nearly as
much as I feared the anger of the predators.
CONCLUSION
Today, I�ve been off drugs for nine months, and just finished my
first quarter at college. My grades are good, and I have friends.
Had I not met Kurt Eichenwald, I would never have had this chance at
a new life. I will never be able to repay what he has done for me.
In a profession which is taught to "get the story," he did that,
but he treated me with the compassion of the Good Samaritan. I
have my life back.
But every day, I have regrets, not just for the dreadful decisions
I made in past years, but for failing to have the impact I had
hoped on this illegal trade.
I have never been asked by law enforcement about any of the 1,500 names
I provided them. Some of those who molested me, like Mr. Gourlay, and
who made all of this possible, are continuing to live their lives,
unaware or uncaring about any government inquiry. People like Mr.
Brown, who operate the credit card infrastructure of webcam child
pornography, have been permitted to continue their work, seemingly
undisturbed by any law enforcement effort. I have watched as my former
members go online to attack me, boldly proclaiming themselves as my
former customers, and having no fear that their self-disclosure could
result in their arrest. And events have proved them right.
Since I left the child pornography business last summer, I have risked
everything to get to tell these facts to persons who care, like this
Committee. It is my hope that the Congress will do everything it can
to see to it that children are protected and that our law enforcement
effort is competent to combat this evil. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, Justin, thank you very much for your
testimony. It was quite revealing and we genuinely appreciate
the information that you provided.
Mr. Eichenwald, you are recognized for your opening statement.
Mr. Eichenwald. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, my name is
Kurt Eichenwald and I am a senior writer with the New York Times. My
appearance today is somewhat unusual. As a matter of policy, the Times
instructs its reporters to decline requests to testify in judicial and
legislative settings because it can serve to undermine our work if we
are seen by the public as an extension of the Government. In this
instance, the Times accepted a subpoena from the committee on my behalf
after the committee agreed that I would be asked to provide only
published or publicly disclosed information. To the extent that the
committee seeks information about reporting processes, I will have to
respectfully decline to answer. Nor do I believe it is my place to
offer policy suggestions. Within that framework, I offer the following
testimony which may assist the committee in its exploration of this
important issue.
On December 19, the New York Times published a front page
article that was the culmination of my 6 month investigation
into the world of webcam child pornography. This was an
extraordinary project not only for me, not only for the Times,
or for journalism in general. This was an instance in which
the very reporting could by its very nature result in a crime
committed by the reporter. There was a great deal of
consultation with the lawyers, a great deal of consultation
with the FBI to ensure that at no point did I violate a law.
Through that care, we were able to lay bare a nightmarish
Internet world that grew without attracting significant
attention from law enforcement or child advocates. As a
citizen, I was dumbfounded by what I found. As a father, I
was terrified.
Like most people, I gave little thought during my life to the
scourge of child pornography, but I now know that we are
fighting a losing battle. The predators are sophisticated in
the use of computers and talented in their manipulation of
children. They count on our willingness to avert our eyes from
the unpleasant to succeed in their pursuit of illegal images of
minors. And we have been far too willing to comply. That is
part of why the child pornography business has exploded in the
past decade. As many of you noted in your opening statements
it is now a $20 billion a year industry.
Webcam pornography has emerged in just the last few years but
it is already a significant part of this elicit industry. I
have submitted copies of my articles which explain facets of
this business, as well as the events that led to my discovery
of Justin, who served as my guide into this world, showing me
the mechanisms used to seduce children into degrading and
harmful behavior.
Let me stress, this is not a problem involving just Justin
Berry or a handful of bad kids. Hundreds of minors have been
lost to the lure of performing in online pornography. I
interviewed a number of them. They include children from every
walk of life, wealthy and middle class, poor, honor students
and those struggling with their grades, children of divorce
and with intact families. The only shared characteristic I
found was a loneliness that these minors feel is alleviated by
meeting people online and in person through the webcam
business.
Entire infrastructures have emerged to sustain this business,
including both witting and unwitting corporate participants.
You have already heard how predators have turned the ingenuity
of some of our greatest online companies against our children.
Wish lists with companies like Amazon.com and American Eagle
Outfitters, a wonderful convenience for gift giving, have
become mechanisms for seducing children. Online payment
systems such as Paypal.com have been used to facilitate
transfers of cash. Communications programs from companies
like AOL and Yahoo! are used both for direct conversations
between predators and children, and for the transmission of
illegal video images. We have heard a lot today about chat
rooms. They are no longer necessary. A predator can reach each
child individually though these communication systems. Many of
these programs and services can be obtained by children in
minutes without requiring accurate identification, or proof of
your age on parental consent.
In addition to the unsuspecting companies, there are businesses
that know exactly what they are doing. In my reporting, I
discovered credit card processors who provided support for webcam
child pornography. I found web hosting companies that offered
servers for the illegal businesses. I even found a company that
provided streaming video to sites operated by minors on condition
that the company president be allowed to watch the pornographic
performances for free.
I also located scores of marketing sites known as portals which
were used to direct potential customers to the webcam child
pornography sites. These portals, many of which temporarily shut
down since publication of my article, underscore the scope and
magnitude of this business. I have provided the committee with
the listing maintained by a single portal of the almost 600
teenage webcam sites that it marketed. Perhaps most disturbing
was that major American and international companies advertised
on these marketing portals for child pornography. The
advertisements, copies of which have also been provided to the
committee appeared immediately above images used by boys and
girls to market their pornographic sites. Apparently, these
companies were attempting to win business both from customers and
the teenage pornographers themselves as it offered services to
help efficiently run for-pay sites. The advertisers included
Logitech and Creative Webcam, both webcam manufacturers, as well
as Verotel, an international credit card processing company. I
might note that the advertisements I found on archive.org for some
of these portals which you know the addresses for are as we speak
being changed. I do not know how it is possible but ads that
were there when I began my reporting are now disappearing.
Fortunately, I maintained copies.
But the for-pay sites of adolescents are only one level of this
illicit business. I am told thousands of other children have
become unknowing participants in the online pornography industry.
These minors perform not for money or gifts, but because they
have been tricked into stripping and masturbating online for
what they believe is a single viewer. These performances are
recorded and then posted on for-pay pornography sites without
the knowledge or consent of the minors. In my reporting, I
found websites dedicated to offering webcam videos of hundreds of
girls and boys who had been duped into such performances.
Surprisingly, a predator showed me a site he found so offensive
involving hundreds and hundreds of boys who had been lured into,
tricked into a single online performance. I note this because
each one of those videos had an image of the child, a
non-pornographic image that the potential customer could use to
decide which video to watch. We talk about the safety of
putting computers outside the children�s bedroom. I checked. Of
the numbers I examined, about 40 to 50 to 60 percent of the
single frame images advertising these pornographic videos were
from computers in dining rooms, living rooms, offices, only the
minority were in what appeared to be the child�s bedroom. That
site boasted of being the largest such site in the world. It was
shut down only after I called for a comment from its credit card
processor, Verotel, the same company advertising its services on
the portals.
There is a business infrastructure for this part of the industry
as well. There are people who make their living trolling the
Internet for children with webcams, luring them into sexual
performances, and selling the resulting pornographic videos. To
aid such people and others in disguising their true identities,
there is software available that allows anyone to make a recorded
video appear to be a live webcam transmission. The result is that
a middle age man can portray himself as a teenage boy or girl,
complete with the video needed to convince any doubters. In my
reporting, I discovered a group of predators who took bets among
themselves about how many online approaches it would require to
convince a girl with a webcam to take off her clothes with the
resulting recorded video shared among the bettors. By the time I
found this group, they had played their game dozens of times.
They appear to have never failed to convince their target to
strip.
To aid in their hunt for adolescents, these adults again use
legitimate businesses. Justin explained how predators used
spotlife.com to find him. Numerous listings of children,
including sites such as myspace.com and buddypick.com are now
the favorite sites, the virtual Sears catalog for pedophiles.
Using these sites in combination, predators can search for
children by age, location, and sex. They can obtain enormous
amounts of identifying data including whether a child operates
a webcam. I have witnessed conversations among child predators
online where they discussed the latest minor located from
these sites. Often predators share information obtained from
the minor, both from site posting and from direct conversations.
Even social networking sites that boast of being safe engage
in reckless behavior requiring personal data from minors before
allowing access to their sites, reinforcing the children�s false
view that providing such information is harmless.
When I explained how predators used these systems to the
producers for Oprah Winfrey, they asked me for a demonstration.
We limited my search to minors within 20 miles of my location.
Meaning if I was a pedophile, I could personally meet those
minors within the hour. The producers timed me. It took only
a minute and 30 seconds before I was in direct contact with a
16-year-old girl. By that time, I knew her name, address,
school, plans for the evening, and other identifying information,
including the younger sisters� names and ages. We repeated the
test searching for a boy within the same distance, this time we
wanted to make it harder, asked me to make sure the kid had a
webcam. I was in contact with a 14-year-old in two and a half
minutes. In both instances, I told these minors what I was
doing and advised them not to speak with strangers online. Both
replied contrary to the obvious that they never did.
From what I have witnessed, it is difficult to protect a child
once he or she has accepted the predators as allies. They
assist children with strategy and money in outwitting their
parents so that the shows could go on. That is exactly what
happened in Justin Berry�s case. These predators are insidious.
They advise the minors to make sure that they claim to be over
18, suggesting that otherwise the children might get in
trouble. Then when the predators are caught, they claim they
were deceived by the child�s often laughable claim to having
been an adult, even the children who had not yet reached
puberty.
Of course, as you see in Justin�s story, there is the
possibility and I would say the probability that a child
performing online will be molested. After my story, a
university professor emailed me and made postings about the
Internet to complain that statistically few viewers of child
pornography become molesters. As you have heard, his
statistics are bogus, but his argument applied to this
circumstance is ludicrous. These are not instances where
pedophiles are obtaining images of children they cannot
identify. Here, a single child is being set upon by hundreds
of predators all in direct daily contact. The entreaties to
meet begin quickly. Numerous minors told me of predators
pleading for meetings, more than a few, I believe agreed to go.
I have found oftentimes that adults react to these facts with
incredulity. They cannot comprehend how a child could be so
easily lured into pornography or speak so readily to a stranger.
I think our first panel today gave quite a number of answers to
those questions. You also have to understand the environment
where the minors find themselves. They are not being approached
by some stranger in the park. Rather, they are in their own
homes feeling safe. They feel comfortable on the Internet in
ways we may not recognize. Internet communication has all the
elements of true social interaction, but remains shallow. So it
is both socially fulfilling and emotionally non-threatening.
There is no one else there, just a small solid device nearby.
There is a level of unreality about it and on the part of the
minors a simple lack of comprehension.
There also appear to be few protections. You have heard that
the predators often laugh at Federal law enforcement. They
believe arrest is rare and prosecution followed by jail time
even rarer. I was dumbfounded by the willingness of online
pedophiles to identify themselves, to publicly discuss their
crimes in non-protected publicly accessible sites and chat
rooms. What became obvious as I disclosed in my article, is
that our Federal law enforcement effort to combat this threat
appears to be hobbled by fractured responsibilities,
bureaucratic mindsets, and a simple inability to respond.
In interviews with law enforcement personnel around the
country, I repeatedly heard of frustrations about the Child
Exploitation and Obscenity Section, or CEOS, serving as an
impediment in the aggressive pursuit of criminal cases. For
example, one law enforcement official told me that CEOS often
makes arguments against bringing cases in child pornography
cases that would embarrass a defense lawyer.
I saw the reasons for this aggravation in Justin�s case. From
the time that the Government was notified of Justin�s
information to the point where the children in direct danger
were saved, more than 50 days passed. As you heard, efforts
by Justin�s lawyer to push the Government into action were met
with silence. Requested subpoenas were not issued for weeks.
Delays were imposed because bureaucratic approvals were sought
from people on vacation. Important data offered to the
Government by Justin has even at this late date not been
collected. It has only been reviewed by me. As for the
material the Government did collect, weeks passed before a
forensic computer specialist could examine it, about average
for the Justice Department.
Some people identified as perpetrators literally could not get
themselves arrested if they tried. As I reported in the Times,
one of these potential defendants, Justin�s father, who at the
time lived in Mexico, attempted, through his lawyer, to turn
himself in at the American consulate in Mexico City. I
personally witnessed a conversation where Justin was informed
that CEOS had held that this potential defendant could not be
prosecuted because even though he was playing a role in
broadcasting child pornography into the United States, he did
so from across the border. When the problem of Mr. Berry
attempting to surrender himself to the Government presented
itself, there was a great deal of discussion as I understand
it among law enforcement personnel. They discussed until
Mr. Berry changed his mind. He has since fled Mexico.
These kind of problems spread throughout the Government; for
example, agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE,
an excellent organization from what I have seen, have been
months investigating a child rapist who had separately been
identified to CEOS by Justin as one of his molesters. This
is Mr. Tunno who Justin spoke about a few minutes ago. Indeed,
Justin possessed video evidence of the crime that had been
emailed to him by Mr. Tunno. These ICE agents at the time
were unknowingly searching for Justin who they knew solely as
a boy from Bakersfield that they suspected had been abused by
this serial molester. Those agents heard 4 months after
Justin�s meetings with CEOS that the boy they were searching
for was already a Federal witness. That information was not
passed on to them by CEOS, instead, they learned it from me,
a newspaper reporter in the course of an interview.
Justin Berry stepped forward at a time the Government did not
know he existed. He is, to experts� knowledge, the first such
teenage witness to ever turn over this kind of vast evidence to
the Government. Given the way his case was handled, including
the meager results and the longstanding threat that it would be
Justin who would be prosecuted, it is hard to imagine other
teenagers wrapped up in this world will risk their freedom or
safety to follow in his footsteps.
Each year, each week, each day, the predators are becoming more
sophisticated with computers facilitating the growth and
evolution of child pornography. It is why this business is
exploding. My reporting has shown me that we are woefully
behind.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Kurt Eichenwald follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kurt Eichenwald, Reporter, The New York Times
My name is Kurt Eichenwald and I am a senior writer with the New York
Times. My appearance today is somewhat unusual. As a matter of policy,
the Times instructs its reporters to decline requests to testify in
judicial and legislative settings, because it can serve to undermine
our work if we are seen by the public as an extension of the government.
In this instance, the Times accepted a subpoena from the committee on
my behalf after the committee agreed that I would be asked to provide
only published or publicly disclosed information. To the extent that
the committee seeks information about reporting processes, I will have
to respectfully decline to answer. Nor do I believe it is my place to
offer policy suggestions. But, within that framework, I offer the
following testimony, which may assist the committee in its exploration
of this important issue.
On December 19, the Times published a front page article that
was the culmination of my six month investigation into the
world of webcam child pornography. The story laid bare a
nightmarish Internet world that grew without attracting
significant attention from law enforcement or child advocates.
As a citizen, I was dumbfounded by what I found. As a father,
I was terrified.
Like most people, I gave little thought during my life to the
scourge of child pornography. But, I now know we are fighting
a losing battle. The predators are sophisticated in the use of
computers and talented in their manipulation of children. They
count on our willingness to avert our eyes from the unpleasant
to succeed in their pursuit of illegal images of minors. And we
have been far too willing to comply. That is part of why the
child pornography business has exploded in the past decade,
making it a multi-billion dollar industry.
Webcam pornography has emerged in just the last few years, but
is already a significant part of this illicit industry. I have
submitted copies of my articles which explain facets of this
business, as well as the events that led to my discovery of
Justin Berry, who served as my guide into this world, showing
me the mechanisms used to seduce children into degrading and
harmful behavior.
Let me stress: this is not a problem involving just Justin or
a handful of bad kids. Hundreds of minors have been lost to the
lure of performing in online pornography. I interviewed a number
of them. They include children from every walk of life - wealthy
and middle class, honor students and those struggling with their
grades, children of divorce and with intact families. The only
shared characteristic I found is a loneliness that these minors
feel is alleviated by meeting people online "and in person"
through their webcam business.
Entire infrastructures have emerged to sustain this business,
including both witting and unwitting corporate participants. You
have already heard how predators have turned the ingenuity of
some online companies against our children. Wish lists with
companies like Amazon.com and American Eagle Outfitters "a
wonderful convenience for gift giving" have become mechanisms
for seducing children. Online payment systems, such as
paypal.com, have been used to facilitate transfers of cash.
Communications programs from companies like AOL and Yahoo are
used both for direct conversations between predators and
children, and for the transmission of illegal video images.
Many of these programs and services can be obtained by children
in minutes, without requiring accurate identification or proof
of either age or parental consent.
But, in addition to the unsuspecting companies, there are businesses
that know exactly what they are doing. In my reporting, I discovered
credit card processors who provided support for webcam child pornography.
I found web hosting companies that offered servers for the illegal
businesses. I even found a company that provided streaming video to
sites operated by minors, on condition that its president be allowed
to watch the pornographic performances for free.
I also located scores of marketing sites, known as portals, which were
used to direct potential customers to the webcam child pornography
sites. These portals "many of which have temporarily shut down since
publication of my article" underscore the scope and magnitude of
this business. I have included as an exhibit to my remarks the
internal listing maintained by a single portal of the almost 600
teenage webcam sites that it marketed. Perhaps most disturbing was
that major American and international companies advertised on these
portals. The advertisements appeared immediately above images used by
boys and girls to market their pornographic sites. Apparently, these
companies were attempting to win business both from customers and
teenagers themselves, as they offered services to help efficiently run
for-pay sites. The advertisers included Logitech and Creative Webcam,
both webcam manufacturers, as well as Verotel, an international credit
card processing company.
But the for-pay sites of adolescents are only one level of this illicit
business. Untold thousands of other children have become unknowing
participants in the online pornography industry. These minors perform,
not for money or gifts, but because they have been tricked into stripping
and masturbating online for what they believe is a single viewer. Those
performances are recorded and then posted on for-pay pornography sites,
without the knowledge or consent of the minors. In my reporting, I found
websites dedicated to offering webcam videos of hundreds of girls and
boys who had been duped into such performances. One that boasted of being
among the largest such sites in the world was shut down only after I
called for a comment from its credit card processor, Verotel the same
company advertising its services on the portals.
There is a business infrastructure for this part of the industry
as well. There are people who make their living trolling the
internet for children with webcams, luring them into sexual
performances and selling the resulting pornographic videos. To
aid such people in disguising their true identities, there is
software available that allows anyone to make a recorded video
appear to be a live webcam transmission. The result is that a
middle aged man can portray himself as a teenage boy or girl,
complete with the video needed to convince any doubters. In
my reporting, I discovered a group of predators who took bets
among themselves about how many online approaches it would
require to convince a girl with a webcam to take off her
clothes, with the resulting recorded video shared among the
bettors. By the time I located this group, they had played
their game dozens of times; they never failed to convince the
target to strip.
To aid in their hunt for adolescents, these adults again use
legitimate businesses. Justin explained how predators used
spotlife.com to find him. Numerous listings of children
including sites such as myspace.com and buddypic.com are
now the favored sites, the virtual Sears catalogue for
pedophiles. Using these sites in combination, predators can
search for children by age, location and sex. They can obtain
enormous amounts of identifying data, including whether a
child operates a webcam. I have witnessed conversations among
child predators online, where they discuss the latest minor
located from these sites. Often, predators share information
obtained from the minor both from site postings and from direct
conversations. Even social networking sites that boast of being
"safe" engage in reckless behavior, requiring personal data from
minors before allowing access to their sites reinforcing the
children�s false view that providing such information is
harmless.
When I explained how predators used these systems to producer
s for Oprah Winfrey, they asked me for a demonstration. We
limited my search to minors within 20 miles of my location
meaning, if I was a pedophile, I could personally meet these
minors within the hour. The producers timed me. It took only
one minute and thirty seconds before I was in direct contact
with a 16 year old girl. By that time, I knew her name,
address, school, plans for the evening and other identifying
information, including her younger sisters� names and ages.
We repeated the test, searching for a boy with a webcam
within the same distance. I was in contact with a 14 year
old in two and a half minutes. In both instances, I told
these minors what I was doing, and advised them not to speak
with strangers online. Both replied, contrary to the
obvious, that they never did.
From what I have witnessed, it is difficult to protect a
child once he or she has accepted the predators as allies.
They assist children "with strategy and money" in outwitting
their parents, so that the shows can go on. And these
predators are insidious. They advise the minors to claim
they are over 18, suggesting that otherwise, the children might
get in trouble. Then, when the predators are caught, they
claim they were deceived by the child�s often laughable claim
to being an adult even with children not yet in puberty.
Of course, as you see in Justin�s story, there is the
possibility that a child performing online will be molested.
After my story, a university professor emailed me to complain
that statistically, few viewers of child pornography become
molesters. His argument, applied to this circumstance, is
ludicrous. These are not instances where pedophiles are
obtaining images of children they cannot identify. Here, a
single child is being set upon by hundreds of predators, all
in direct, daily contact. The entreaties to meet begin
quickly. Numerous minors told me of predators pleading for
meetings; more than a few agreed to go.
I have found oftentimes that adults react to these facts with
incredulity. They cannot comprehend how a child could be so
easily lured into pornography, or speak so readily to a
stranger. The answer comes from an understanding of the
environment where the minors find themselves. They are not
being approached by a predator in the park. Rather, they are
in their own homes, feeling safe. They feel comfortable on
the internet, in ways we may not recognize. Internet
communication has all of the elements of true social
interaction, but remains shallow. So it is both socially
fulfilling, and emotionally non-threatening. There is no one
else there, just a small, silent device nearby. There is a
level of unreality about it, a simple lack of comprehension.
There also appear to be few protections. You have heard that
the predators often laugh at federal law enforcement. They
believe arrest is rare, and prosecution followed by jail time
even rarer. I was dumbfounded by the willingness of online
pedophiles to identify themselves, to publicly discuss their
crimes. But what became obvious, as I disclosed in my article,
is that our federal law enforcement effort to combat this
threat appears to be hobbled by fractured responsibilities,
bureaucratic mindsets, and a simple inability to respond.
In interviews with law enforcement personnel around the country, I
repeatedly heard of frustrations about CEOS serving as an impediment
to the aggressive pursuit of criminal cases. For example, one
prominent law enforcement official told me that CEOS often makes
arguments against bringing cases in child pornography cases that would
embarrass a defense lawyer.
I saw the reasons for this aggravation in Justin�s case. From the time
that the government was notified of Justin�s information to the point
where the children in direct danger were saved, more than 50 days passed.
Efforts by Justin�s lawyer to push the government into action were met
with silence. Requested subpoenas were not issued for weeks, delays were
imposed because bureaucratic approvals were being sought from people on
vacation. Important data offered to the government by Justin has, even at
this late date, not been collected and has only been reviewed by me. As
for the material that the government did collect, weeks past before a
forensic computer specialist could examine it -- about average for the
Justice Department. Some people identified as perpetrators literally
could not get themselves arrested if they tried: As I reported in the
Times, one of these potential defendants, Justin�s father, who at the
time lives in Mexico, attempted through his lawyer to turn himself in
at American consulate in Mexico City. I personally witnessed a
conversation where Justin was informed that CEOS had held that this
potential defendant could not be prosecuted because, even though he
was playing a role in broadcasting child pornography into the United
States, he did so from across the border.
The problems spread throughout the government. For example, agents
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had for months been
investigating a child rapist who had separately been identified to
CEOS by Justin as one of his molesters; indeed, Justin possessed video
evidence of the crime. These ICE agents at the time were unknowingly
searching for Justin, whom they knew solely as a boy from Bakersfield
who they suspected had been abused by this serial molester. Those
agents heard four months after Justin�s meeting with CEOS that the boy
they were searching for was already a federal witness. But that
information was not passed to them by CEOS; instead, they learned it
from me, a newspaper reporter, in the course of an interview.
Justin Berry stepped forward at a time the government did not know he
existed. He is, to experts� knowledge, the first such teenage witness
to ever turn over this kind of vast evidence to the government. Given
the way his case was handled -- including the meager results -- it is
hard to imagine other teenagers wrapped up in this world will risk their
freedom or safety to follow in his footsteps.
Each year, each week, each day, predators are becoming more
sophisticated with computers, facilitating the growth and evolution of
online child pornography. My reporting has shown me, we are woefully
behind. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Eichenwald, thank you for your testimony. I
also want to thank you for the articles that you wrote in the New
York Times which bring this matter to the attention of the entire
country. We really appreciate your testimony.
At this time, I am going to recognize the full committee Chairman,
Mr. Barton of Texas, because he has a meeting down at the White
House and he is so interested in this issue and wanted to ask
some questions.
Chairman Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and Mr. Stupak for allowing me to go out of order. I appreciate
that. I do have an engagement at the White House in 15 minutes
so I am going to have to leave after these questions.
I have been listening in my office on the television to the
testimony of both witnesses and I do want to thank each of you
for appearing. It is a great credit to your courage, Mr. Berry,
that you are here and it is a great credit to the journalism
profession, Mr. Eichenwald, that you are here. I must remind my
friend from the New York Times that when this committee does
issue a subpoena it is outweighed. I mean, you seem to think you
are doing us a favor by showing up and you are, but you would have
showed up whether you wanted to or not if you had insisted not to
be here. Having said that, we are very pleased that you are
here, do not think this is any kind of an argumentative situation.
My first question is to you, Mr. Berry. I cannot fathom how you
could conduct the activities that you conducted in your home
with a mother who appears to have been as concerned as you
indicated she was. How did you get around her efforts to prevent
you from doing what you did?
Mr. Berry. To tell you the truth, that is probably the most
asked question that I have recently encountered. My mother is
great, she is wonderful, I love her a lot, and she cares for me
more than I can imagine. Her efforts were no match for the
pedophiles. They were no match for the predators. Whenever I
needed to, whenever I felt that I needed some more space outside
my home, one of the perpetrators came down to Bakersfield,
California where I lived and rented me an apartment on the
street. When I was--
Chairman Barton. So you did this outside your home?
Mr. Berry. It started in my home, went to the apartment which
this individual that I had--
Chairman Barton. Where did your mother think you were when you
were at this apartment?
Mr. Berry. I would tell her I was going to a friend�s house or
something like that. Being as I was not 18, I could not rent
the apartment myself so this individual signed the lease and
after that, I had recently, I had graduated high school early at
16 and my mom told me I could not move out of the house until I
graduated high school, so I took care of that. After a few
months had passed, I had moved to Mexico with my father.
Chairman Barton. Your father encouraged this apparently. He
thought he could profit by it.
Mr. Berry. Correct. I told my father about the business when
he asked where all my money was coming from and he helped me.
Chairman Barton. Well what did your mother think about where
all this money, or did you hide your money from your mother?
Mr. Berry. Living two separate lives and having to come home and
be the Justin that I was for the family, and then living a
different life in Mexico was very difficult.
Chairman Barton. Now you indicated that you were an honor student
and that you were president of your class. Is that right?
Mr. Berry. Correct.
Chairman Barton. But you also said you were very lonely. Can you
reconcile that? I mean how can you be the president of the class
and be lonely?
Mr. Berry. For me, I am not sure on why I felt certain ways or
why I did certain things. All I know is these people, I thought
they were my friends.
Chairman Barton. Did your friends at school, were they aware of
what was going on or did you hide that from them, too?
Mr. Berry. I hid this from everyone for years. I did not tell
anyone until recently.
Chairman Barton. So where you actually lived, your what we call
traditional friends in school, in church, and the neighborhood
thought you were just a normal teenager.
Mr. Berry. That liked to sit on the computer a lot, yeah.
Chairman Barton. Which is fairly normal for teenagers these days,
that is what teenagers do.
Mr. Eichenwald, what should we do about these credit card
companies that knowingly or maybe even unknowingly foster this
kind of activity? Are there some remedies that are not in current
law that you would recommend?
Mr. Eichenwald. Mr. Barton, in truth, I do not know. The danger
of a reporter is that we come in and we know what we have reported,
we know what we have found, and it gives us the view of an expert.
I do not know the laws governing credit card companies. I do not
know what standards are in place now which is why I was saying I
do not think it is my place to offer policy pronouncements. I
think anything I would say would be hardly uninformed.
Chairman Barton. Do you care to, either one of you, foster an
opinion about we are having a markup starting this evening and
then beginning, and then continuing tomorrow on the new video
services bill in which one of the big debating points right now
is the concept of Internet neutrality and freedom of the
Internet. Are their exceptions to total freedom of the Internet
and if so is this one of them? Should there be some laws,
explicitly Internet, concerning Internet behavior for child
pornographic activities.
Mr. Eichenwald. I have never understood why there was a
difference between the Internet and the mails and walking down
the street with a bag in your hand. Child pornography is
illegal and those who facilitate child pornography are committing
a crime. If a credit card company is involved in the business
and it can be demonstrated that they are for example involved
in multiple lines of child pornography, if I was a prosecutor,
I would certainly like to have that case. The bottom line
issue, I think sometimes we tend to think ourselves too much
into a spiral. If someone is engaging in an act that is illegal,
they should be prosecuted whether they are an individual, a
company, or whatever other level of involvement there is here.
I can tell you for however disturbing these issues have been
and I deeply appreciate what I have heard from the members about
how disturbing these things are, I can tell you that the reality
of what I have witnessed over the last number of months is far
worse than anything you can imagine. It is far worse than
anything you would want to imagine.
Chairman Barton. Right.
Mr. Eichenwald. This working on the story resulted in many, many
months of being unable to sleep. There were images I could not
get out of my head when the lights went out. Ultimately, I have
been, as a result of my reporting diagnosed with post traumatic
stress disorder. Fortunately, the Times is making sure I am
taking care of that. I say all that to underscore that if there
are people involved in this business, whether they are on the
Internet or not, this has nothing to do with freedom, this has to
do with sexual abuse, and those people should be prosecuted.
Chairman Barton. Mr. Berry, do you have a comment on that?
Mr. Berry. No, sir, I do not.
Chairman Barton. Okay. Last question. You ask topical questions.
We have had a testy relationship with the Justice Department. We,
being the committee in this investigation, although the Attorney
General has been very cooperative and we are getting cooperation,
could they have done more in your case, Mr. Berry to go after the
perpetrators and if so, what should they have done that they have
not done?
Mr. Berry. When we came forth to the Department of Justice and
told them, when I went and spoke with them and told them about
the children who were being abused and molested and exploited by
these adult perpetrators, sitting there and wondering every night,
were these children that I knew being molested, why weren�t they
safe, and having to wait there 50 plus days, almost 2 months
knowing that these children are in the hands of these
perpetrators, that ripped me apart.
Chairman Barton. Mr. Ryan, would you want to comment on that?
Mr. Ryan. I would, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Barton, let me give an example of a question that I
think the Chairman might ask on Thursday of the Department.
Given that we turned over approximately 1,500 IP addresses,
matching credit card information, and other identification for
people who are paying for child pornography, as a policy call, I
am not sure you would want to prosecute all 1,500 of those cases.
But I sure think that you would want law enforcement to get
search warrants and go get the computers of those people and
leave their wives and daughters and other people in their house
asking that person why it was that the FBI or ICE or another,
the Postal Service who do excellent work, had dropped by to
seize it. I think the Department needs to explain whether its
policy is to indict those people or to do something with them.
I think--
Chairman Barton. Well we want them to do their investigation
and we have every indication from staff interviews that they
are conducting an active investigation. I do not want to come
across as being too negative. My question is, is it a fair
policy question that even given limited resources and all the
various issues that you had to deal with at the Federal level
in determining to go ahead and prosecute, is it a fair
statement that Mr. Berry, and you as his attorney, feel like
they could have been more aggressive with the information
that you provided them?
Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Chairman Barton. Mr. Eichenwald, do you have a comment on the
generic ability to prosecute these types of cases?
Mr. Eichenwald. I do. Also on the comment of an aggressive,
they are aggressively investigating. I have written about law
enforcement issues for almost 20 years. Normally, I am not in
this field, I am dealing with corporate crime, the most complex
area of criminal prosecution. There you are dealing with
thousands of pieces of paper, sometimes millions of pieces of
paper. You are dealing with multiple witnesses, many of whom
have financial interests not to testify. I have never seen a
case in my experience move slower than this one. There were
identified again at the beginning, multiple levels of people.
You had identified particular perpetrators who had access to
specific children, children whose names we knew, children whose
faces we could describe, we knew where they lived, who were
being filmed and molested. I must admit, I, to this day, do not
understand what was happening over those 55 days. I do sit in
horror worrying about the day I hear that on day 35, something
happened to one of those children that was preventable. I cannot
explain what happened there.
Then there is the next level. I mentioned in my opening comments,
my opening remarks the credit card processor. Justin mentioned
the credit card processor. I was there at the beginning when
Mr. Ryan was speaking to CEOS on, I believe it was on July 26
and saying the centerpiece of this case is meova.net, the
company that is processing the credit cards. Justin Berry is a
spoke. Meova is processing credit cards for child pornography.
They are the hub. Not only that, the individual who was the
president of meova.net had previously been subject to a child
pornography investigation which he had escaped by saying oh, he
did not know there was child pornography involving what he was
doing. Mr. Ryan strongly recommended that the way to maximize
the impact of Mr. Berry�s information was to immediately go
after meova.net and to immediately seize its information, arrest
its president because you had direct evidence that he was
processing credit cards for child pornography. Hopefully flip
him or a member of his organization to make this case branch out
in the many directions it seemed like it could go. To date,
none of that has happened because meova.net is still around. The
president of the company, we are now 9 months later, the president
of the company is still wandering around.
In the Enron case, which I covered, it took 6 months until you
had a senior executive indicted. A month later you had another
senior all the way up to the chief financial officer. We are 9
months down the line and we have two low-level people who were
molesting children or filming children, and they were arrested
55 days after the information was provided to the Government.
You then have the areas of people who were involved in the
infrastructure of this business who were identified by Justin
where their information was contained in the documents and files
turned over by Justin. These people are not secret. I wrote
about them in the New York Times. I had always believed that I
would be able to name people in the paper by the time the story
ran. It never occurred to me that there would be no action by
the Government.
I also want to recount a story that was probably the more
horrific moment in terms of my interactions with Justin.
Eventually, at a point when I really was wrestling with do we
have to write a story about the Government�s failure to do
anything here. Eventually, Justin was granted immunity. One
individual who was endangering children was arrested, a few
weeks later another individual who was endangering children
was arrested. Justin kept coming back to me and saying what
about the other men who molested me? What about what they
did? Finally there was a day he said to me with tears in his
eyes, why is it the Justice Department does not care about the
men who molested me? To this date, none of those men have been
prosecuted. None of those men have been arrested, except for
Mr. Mitchel who had the distinction of being the sole person
who was identified as endangering other children who also had
molested Justin Berry. So, if you ask if this is an active
investigation or what more could they have done, in truth, the
better question is what less could they have done.
Chairman Barton. Well, I have spoken directly with the Attorney
General of the United States on this and am absolutely confident
that he is personally committed to actively pursuing the
specifics and the generic investigation. We will have the
Justice Department here on Thursday. And again, they have an
active criminal investigation underway so they are not going to
be able to talk on the specifics, but the fact that you two here
are testifying in an open hearing, and being as brave as each of
you are, is going to help activate those investigations even
more, I am very sure. But I appreciate your testimony and again,
I want to thank Mr. Stupak and Mr. Whitfield for letting me go
out of order. I appreciate that.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
At this time, I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you.
And before the Chairman leaves, Mr. Chairman, I hope we could if
Justice is coming in Thursday, we could pin Justice down because
as you were asking Mr. Eichenwald his comments just sitting here,
I already knew Justice would say well it is an active
investigation, therefore we cannot answer half of our questions.
So I hope we would take Justice in closed session or something
because if we let them off the hook, this is just going to drag
on and on. We have seen it so many times in this committee so
I would hope that--
Chairman Barton. We are not going to let anyone off the hook.
Mr. Stupak. All right, very good.
And since we are on the lines of law enforcement and having been
there for a number of years myself, Mr. Ryan or Mr. Eichenwald
if you care to comment on action by the Government. I see a
number of things and tell me what I am missing or what else
should be on this list. First, I am sure is their lack of
financial resources. Next, the lack of cooperation I have heard
between ICE and FBI and Justice, inadequate laws either updated
or not caught up with the computer, or conflicting laws between
State and Federal, and the credit card processing which I bring
up again because we have seen it last year in this committee
alone on the Internet pharmacy where people are buying drugs
improperly, illegally to great harm. We also saw it in masking
of drug testing and now we see it on child pornography. Credit
card processing seems to be as you said the hub of the wheel if
you will, and not just merely a spoke. And we have had
MasterCard, Visa, and all the rest of them in here and they keep
saying we will get back with you on how we can best crack down
on this and yet to this day we have never heard that happen.
When I look at the problems of law enforcement and the issues
or excuses they use not to move forward on this, is there
anything else missing? Financial resources, lack of coordination,
inadequate laws, conflicting laws, or processing of credit cards,
any other area we should explore if we are going to do true law
enforcement, truly aggressive enforcement?
Mr. Ryan. Congressman, I think there are very few impediments
to prosecution in this area and frankly, there may be
distractions in the post 9/11 world that have taken some of the
squads that may have worked this area before, and that would be
quite legitimate that there may have been an emphasis on
counterterrorism and other issues. If I could be bold enough, I
would recommend to the committee that you privately convene the
credit card industry at a roundtable here with staff, the members
coming in the late part of that meeting and ask them what they
would like to do here, because I think the kind of credit card
companies we are talking about here are not Visa and MasterCard
or the standard companies. These are companies we believe are
heavily involved in an illegal business knowingly. So the
question then is how can we identify those companies and I
believe there are ways of doing that and I think industry knows
them as well. And I do believe that cooperation between the
business community and the law enforcement community in the area
of child pornography can be increased without violating
personally identifiable information of normal citizens and I
think that is the challenge for the Congress with regard to
that. The challenge for law enforcement here I would rather
have a horse that I had to say whoa to rather than one I�ve got
to hit all the time and say giddy up. I think the question for
this committee in a sense with Justice is not so much if a law
is inadequate, as is the level of energy enough and is the
ambition of the 26, 27-year-olds, which we all were at one
point, prosecuting the Department of Justice being unleashed
on these people.
Mr. Stupak. Well, but the credit card processing if its
MasterCard or Visa that are being embarrassed then what I am
saying, wouldn�t they have a greater interest to try to see
who is processing these credit cards and for what purpose.
Mr. Ryan. I think the legitimate credit card industry could
be uniquely helpful to the committee privately in helping the
committee understand, and helping law enforcement understand,
what it is that they may be able to do to help on this
problem.
Mr. Stupak. Sure. You brought up 9/11 and I do not want to
necessarily tie this in here, but it seems like on 9/11 we
did not have coordination or Justice talking to this agency
or that agency, and it seems now when we are 5 years post we
are still not cooperating or talking with each other from a
law enforcement point of view. And the victims here are
children around this country.
Mr. Ryan. Well let me say something. As a prosecutor for
the Department of Justice, and I treasure the time that I
spent there, I think it is the responsibility of the lead
prosecutor in these cases to marshal the agents and their
energy. The 1811s are not responsible for these cases; the
prosecutors are responsible for coordinating with them so
that the good work that the agents do will result in
prosecutions to tell them what element is still missing that
they want them to go get. And I think that we have to ask
the Department of Justice about its leadership role in this
case.
Mr. Stupak. Part of this, I do not know if it is
inexperience or what, but why would you put Justin Berry,
your witness here, disclose his identity as he testified to
in the court case which actually threatened his life and had
made him now a greater victim than what he may have been?
Mr. Ryan. I have to say Mr. Berry is one of the bravest and
frankly he is a very smart young man. He understands the
danger that he undertook. He was at the height of danger last
summer when these people were really looking for him and they
are amateurs in a lot of ways, but amateurs can kill you just
the same as professionals.
Mr. Stupak. And certainly I would echo those comments but at
the same time who left them out there? Law enforcement, if you
will, Justice left him hanging. He is still out there.
Mr. Eichenwald. I would interject--there was a point after the
Justice Department unsealed the affidavit that revealed Justin�s
role in this case, there was a lot of backpedaling and
apologizing. And Justin was offered, I know this because it
happened while I was sitting there, Justin was offered whatever
levels of protection could be brought forward. At this point,
we are 70 days into it and Justin truly had absolutely no faith
in the Justice Department and he said to me if I ask for
something, they will know my address and if they know my address,
how do I know they are not going to open the document and unseal
it somewhere. And there was a point where he was told that the
Justice Department would do anything he asked to make him feel
safe. And his response was telling. His response was tell
them to stop being so stupid.
Mr. Stupak. Well, Justin, thank you again for being here and
for helping parents and young people across this Nation. Let
me ask you this question and if you can answer it. Is there
any reason why a 13-year-old needs a webcam?
Mr. Berry. That is a very simple answer, no.
Mr. Stupak. And they put this out as a promotion if you would
sign up with their service?
Mr. Berry. Correct.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. And the spotlife.com was that pre-noted or
anything or--
Mr. Berry. Spotlife.com, I do not believe it exists at the
current date. There are other sites that are similar and just
like it. That company is owned by Logitech which is the
manufacturer of the webcams. So spotlife.com was a way that
Logitech, I guess they envisioned that these webcams they can
communicate through the Internet, meet new people. It was a
site like that.
Mr. Stupak. It just made it all so convenient.
Mr. Berry. It just did.
Mr. Stupak. Let me ask this. You mentioned that your mother
had child protection programs, took away your keyboard, but the
folks you were dealing with where sophisticated enough to work
around that. Explain that for me, how did you get around it?
Because I am sure that parents buy things and say we have this
protection out here.
Mr. Berry. You know, I am not a computer genius, I know a
little bit, however, with the help of these people. Let us
just say my mom takes away my keyboard.
Mr. Stupak. Okay.
Mr. Berry. And the next day I hop on the Internet and I say,
okay, I need another keyboard, what am I going to do here?
Let us say I am discussing this with these people, I could
have ten keyboards FedEx�d to my house by same day delivery
if I needed it.
Mr. Stupak. Sure.
Mr. Berry. These pedophiles are no match for any parent out
there.
Mr. Stupak. If you can answer this, maybe you cannot. What was
the greater gift if you will that you received when you first
started down this unfortunate road? Was it the physical presents
that were left at your doorway or was it the compliments, the
companionship, the popularity, or as you said the king of the
universe. Was that the motivating force or was it the physical
gifts?
Mr. Berry. I really could not tell you exactly what I was
thinking or what drove this. All I know is these people are the
most manipulative and the most relentless people that I have
ever encountered in my life.
Mr. Eichenwald. If I could add, I have the unfortunate
distinction of having read many of the conversations that Justin
had with these predators. And when he says they are relentless,
that is truly the correct word. They would act to remove any
impediment to these shows. The moment depicted in the story
was when Justin had a girlfriend and she found out what was
going on and was basically begging him to stop. And this, every
element of his life was repeated to these people and they begin
telling Justin how terrible it is she is saying this, how
terrible. She is willing to let you spend your money on her,
but she does not want you to earn it. And the line that I
quoted was from one person, "She may not love you, Justin, but
your friends in this room do." That is the entire mindset.
They will remove anybody. They will take care of any
impediment. They are 1,500 people acting to subvert the actions
of a single parent and they win.
Mr. Stupak. Let me ask one more thing, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Yes, certainly.
Mr. Stupak. We talked earlier with Dr. Cooper about the benefits
of your personal gratification or else the commercialization if
you will of this pornography. But you brought in a third
element, the advertising that are on these sites. I mean, have
we become as a society so accepting of it that we advertise on
these sites? I mean, I was shocked to hear that. Could you
explain that a little bit more?
Mr. Eichenwald. The advertising is not taking place directly
on the children�s sites. The minors or there have been sites
that have been put up called portals which are basically--the
advertising is not taking place directly on the children�s sites.
If you are looking for webcam child pornography, it is hard to
find. You have to know where to go. Well the portals solved
that problem. The portals are a listing of webcam sites which a
customer goes in and votes for their favorite site. The more
outrageous the behavior of the child, the more votes the child
gets. These votes become this self-reinforcement, this element of
a kid feels good about herself or himself because they are getting
more votes than other people and so they do things to get votes.
I saw people who said I will let you watch me sleep. I saw, if
you do this, I will do that. There were some very explicit
offers of what would happen if people voted for them. Getting
higher votes moves you higher up the list. Being higher up the
list gets more customers. That little competition is going on
right beneath an ad for Logitech or an ad for Verotel.
The companies, I do not know if they simply do not look at what
is going on in the places they advertise but the committee has
some samples of a particularly well-known portal and what was
there. And you have, you know, I am a 14-year-old, you watch
me in my bed, I mean, they are not being subtle. They are not
making a secret. And also you get down to what is it people
think is being paid for? These are children in front of a camera
charging money. What in the world does anyone imagine is going
on there? And so I think what we have is not that we are just,
we have fallen so far is that we fall to the level of well I can
deny it. You know, I do not explicitly know what this is.
Mr. Stupak. Sure.
Mr. Eichenwald. But anybody who looked at it for 10 seconds would
know exactly what it is.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, witnesses.
Mr. Whitfield. Justin, in your testimony, you talked about spotlife
as and I believe that was the vehicle by which you were first
introduced into this world. Is that correct?
Mr. Berry. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And would you elaborate on that just a little bit
about exactly what spotlife was. I know there are other similar
vehicles today but would you elaborate on that just a little bit?
Mr. Berry. What spotlife.com was was an Internet website similar
in nature to what he, Kurt, spoke about, however this is a little
bit different. What it does is it was a website which allowed
viewers like yourself, the nice lady sitting next to you, whoever
it might be to go on these websites, browse through a directory,
and view the different web cameras that are hooked up through this
software. Thereafter that the guests of the website if there was
contact information on there, could contact that person with a
camera and after that they would begin speaking. So it is basically
an automobile to communicate with the webcam user themselves.
Mr. Whitfield. And you had a webcam at that time. Correct?
Mr. Berry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. And then you, I think in your testimony you,
someone contacted you and said that if you would take your shirt
off, they might give you $50?
Mr. Berry. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. And that was the first time that you had ever
had an experience like that. Is that correct?
Mr. Berry. Correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And so it just kind of went on from there?
Mr. Berry. From there it escalated.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. Now I read a lot of this testimony and I
read the newspaper articles that you wrote, Mr. Eichenwald, and
of course talked to Mr. Ryan some. I have not talked to the
Attorney General, although the Chairman has, but I must say
without hearing from their side, it does appear to me that the
child exploitation and obscenity section of the Justice
Department has a lot of explaining to do because you did give
them 1,500 names with addresses, with credit card numbers and
everything else, and I find it just unbelievable the different
stories that I have heard about this investigation and it appears
that this center, this section in the Justice Department is
failing miserably on this issue. So I am looking forward to
Thursday when they do come and testify. Hopefully, we can get
some answers from law enforcement and follow up on this as well.
But Mr. Eichenwald and Mr. Ryan, I know that when Greg Mitchel
was, he was convicted I believe. Was he convicted?
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, he was indicted, arrested, has plead
guilty, and on April 12 he will be sentenced.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. But one of the reasons that he is going to
be convicted and will be sentenced is because of the evidence
that Justin provided. And what is the explanation for the
Justice Department unsealing that information?
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, I wrote a letter recently to the
Department and I would ask that you put that letter and the
Department�s response to me in the record. We summarize it as
follows. The understanding that I have is that the unsealing of
the affidavit that identified Mr. Berry not by name but for
those who are looking for him, identified that he was cooperating.
I believe the Department�s position is that it was a mistake that
it was done. In my experience when a prosecutor makes a
mistake, and we do make mistakes as lawyers, you try and put
the milk back in the bottle. That is you reseal the affidavit.
I am not aware that any effort was ever made to reseal the
affidavit but that affidavit once it was released would have
given notice to everyone in the business who had done
facilitation of the business like the credit card business to
dump the server box for example, drop it off a bridge, put it
in a dump, erase the random access memory, you know, do various
things. But I do believe, I take at face value the
Department�s representation that they really had not intended to
do that and that it was a mistake which is in the letter that I
received last night about 5:00 in preparation for this hearing.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. So they basically said it was a mistake
but that was a mistake some time ago and there has been no effort
to reseal. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Ryan. You know, traditionally, Mr. Chairman, these things do
happen at a court. It could be the fault of the prosecutor, it
could be the fault of a court official.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Ryan. What you simply do is reseal the information--
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Ryan. --and try and pull it off the Internet which you can
do.
Mr. Whitfield. Right. Ryan, at the time that you were
negotiating with the Justice Department for immunity for
Mr. Berry, there was valid reason for Justin to be concerned,
right, about his life. I mean, did you feel at any time that
his life was in danger?
Mr. Ryan. Mr. Eichenwald and I both observed emails of people
who were frantically looking for him at various points. One of
those was--well there were these emails that reflected that. It
was our judgment that it was best for him to be at a location
that is not identified. We have never altered that practice.
Mr. Eichenwald and I continue today to advise Justin to not
describe for example here where he lives. And it is just best for
him that way. And I have to say that law enforcement offered us
their protection. But I took seriously the concern that some of
these child molester perpetrators might hurt him if they knew
where he was. I actually took it as a potential threat.
Mr. Eichenwald. Mr. Chairman, I was a direct witness to the
magnitude of the hunting that was going on. The most frightening
day in all of this in an array of frightening days, Mr. Mitchel
had somehow figured out that Justin had possession of his mother�s
cell phone and was sending text messages to it. And Justin was
very upset by this and basically gave me the cell phone which by
the way is still in my possession. That cell phone, he would say,
I have money for you. There was another child that Mr. Mitchel
was filming. He would say, Justin this other child is very upset,
he wants you to call him, please call, very manipulative acts.
And then there was the day when the message arrived and I looked
at it and it was my home telephone number and with no other
explanation. And apparently, Mr. Mitchel in his efforts to find
Justin had somehow obtained Justin�s cell phone records and found
that he had called a number he did not recognize. I showed that
message to Justin. I showed Justin all the messages that came in.
And he panicked. He looked at it, I think rightfully as a
potential threat to my family. And he devised what I thought was
a fairly brilliant response. We were planning to go the next day
to Bakersfield for me to examine some of the hard drives that
contained the conversations I mentioned earlier and Justin
contacted Mr. Mitchel and engaged in a rambling conversation
which was basically all fake saying send me my money, wire it to
me, send it to Bakersfield. The idea being he would pick it up
in Bakersfield and then no one would ever come and look for
anyone in my home where I have two children.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Eichenwald. That took place the evening before we left and
by the time we arrived in Bakersfield the next morning, there
were people hunting for Justin at the airport and they had already
gone to his home the night before around, I believe it was around
10:00 at night thinking that he was with his mother. And from
what we were told by his mother, there was a hotel by hotel search
going on. We had hoped to go to Justin�s house to pick up these
hard drives. We obviously could not and we ended up going to stay
at the home of a friend of Justin�s mother and all of the equipment
was brought over to us. But the speed with which we were talking,
he was talking to somebody in Virginia and suddenly there are
people hunting for him in California who I believed was a very
strong suggestion of the level of potential danger that this
young man was facing.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. And in his testimony he talked about
Ken Gourlay who actually is going to be testifying or appearing
later. And that Ken Gourlay talked him into going to a computer
camp up in Michigan and subsequently molested him there according
to the testimony. Did Justin tell you that Ken Gourlay molested
him?
Mr. Eichenwald. Yes. And there has been nothing that has been
more emotionally traumatic for Justin than in recounting the
events involving Ken Gourlay. I was very surprised he was able to
get through his testimony today. He has never been able to have a
full presentation/discussion about what happened with Ken Gourlay
without either becoming enraged or beginning to sob. And he also
at one point showed me a video in which Mr. Gourlay, it was taken
in Mexico in which Mr. Gourlay is in the video, walks behind the
camera and begins operating the camera and the video becomes
pornographic so I had no doubt that the things being described by
Justin and Mr. Gourlay�s involvement were--
Mr. Whitfield. So there is no question in your mind from the
evidence that you saw that Mr. Gourlay was involved in production
of child pornography.
Mr. Eichenwald. Not at all.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
At this time, I would recognize the gentleman, Dr. Burgess from
Texas.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Eichenwald, do you, I think you spoke to it but there were
times you were concerned for your own safety. Is that correct?
Mr. Eichenwald. I was more concerned for my children. I know
people who might feel my looking at people who do accounting fraud
and I normally do not have to worry about are they going to come
and balance my kids� checkbooks and there was a very large emotional
element in this for me in terms of dealing with the reality of what
was happening to other children, seeing my own children, realizing
that Justin�s members in my hometown included a pediatrician,
included teachers, included a lawyer who represents children and
family issues. And I probably became more than a little paranoid
about the safety of my own children but there were instances such
as this situation with Mr. Mitchel where I was truly concerned for
the safety of my kids.
Mr. Burgess. And Justin, were you concerned about your mother�s
safety during this time?
Mr. Berry. Throughout all of this, I was very concerned. I was
very concerned about the safety of me, the safety of my little
sister. I just--these people are relentless.
Mr. Burgess. And when you say there were people hunting for you
at the airport in Bakersfield when you arrived, how does that
occur? How does someone hunt for someone in an airport? Were
you paged over the air, were there people that you recognized?
Mr. Berry. Actually, when we got to the airport, Kurt and I, my
mother was there to pick us up from the airport.
Mr. Burgess. We have got five of those.
Mr. Berry. All right.
Mr. Burgess. Okay, go on, maybe six.
Mr. Berry. All right. When my mother came to the airport to
pick us up, she informed Kurt and I that my father had been
looking for me and Kurt as well. Whenever we arrived, she said
that staying at the house was not an option because an individual
had come by that previous night asking if I was there as well,
and let me know what was going on in that situation when I
arrived.
Mr. Eichenwald. When we arrived on our plane it was one of those
situations, I failed to turn off my phone when I was in flight
and as we landed, the message--
Mr. Burgess. I am shocked.
Mr. Eichenwald. Yeah, I am sorry. We landed. I immediately
had a message and my phone rang, his phone rang. His phone rang
with a phone call. It was his mother who was fairly frightened
who was saying there are people here. There were people who had
come as well as people who were up from Mexico, including his
father. They had come up the night before because they were
involved in these activities and we were told that there were
people at the airport who were looking for Justin.
Mr. Burgess. Would you have been able to identify them?
Mr. Eichenwald. I would not have been, I will say, no.
Mr. Burgess. Justin, would you have been able to identify those
people at the airport? Did you call law enforcement and say
arrest these men?
Mr. Berry. Well I never saw anyone with my own eyes, no.
Mr. Eichenwald. And law enforcement as you can imagine when we
were at, the Bakersfield circumstances were high pressure enough.
It was immediately after these events that Justin contacted
Mr. Ryan and solidified that relationship and Mr. Ryan immediately
contacted the CEOS. That is why when I say it was July 14, the
reason why is we were in Bakersfield on July 13.
Mr. Burgess. Let me go back to something just for a minute if I
could, Justin. I appreciate you being here and know this must be
difficult but you said that someone rented an apartment on your
behalf while you were still in high school or just graduated from
high school?
Mr. Berry. That is correct. Gilo Tunno who was originally of
Portland, Oregon, at the time. I had been contacted by this
individual over the Internet instant messaging and spoken with
him. He offered to come to Bakersfield, California, and rent an
apartment, sign the lease in his name because I was not 18 at the
time.
Mr. Burgess. But and so this was an apartment that someone rented
that they allowed you to use. They did not rent you an apartment,
did they?
Mr. Berry. No, they rented it for me.
Mr. Burgess. Now is it--
Mr. Eichenwald. When Mr. Tunno arrived in Bakersfield, I have
the records from that apartment rental. He rented the apartment
and then made sure there were two things in the apartment, Internet
access and cameras. This was not Mr. Tunno�s apartment. This was
Justin�s apartment that was rented for him by Mr. Tunno for the
purpose of making sure that the shows continued. Justin�s mother
was coming by his room too much and so that was going to be a
problem. Once the apartment was rented, there was no problem
anymore.
Mr. Burgess. Now has this person been arrested?
Mr. Eichenwald. That is the individual I mentioned who was
arrested subsequently for raping an 8-year-old boy. That was
the fellow who was being investigated by the Immigration and
Customs Enforcement agents who were trying to figure out who
the kid was in Bakersfield who they believed had been molested
by Tunno. And again, that was information--they only learned
that Justin-- they spent 4 months of their time trying to find
somebody who was already a Federal witness and they learned that
Justin was a Federal witness. They learned that this boy had
come forward not only saying yes, he had been molested but that
there is video evidence of it in the course of an interview with
me.
Mr. Burgess. Well Mr. Eichenwald, I mean you said it so
eloquently, you are concerned about where are the arrests of the
people that molested Justin and I guess I would ask the same
question and what has been done to preserve evidence, what has
been done to make certain that prosecution of these individuals
is still possible?
Mr. Eichenwald. I am not sure I understand.
Mr. Ryan. Let me, I want to make sure that something is clear.
This particular individual is a guest of the United States before
Justin came forward to law enforcement. He was convicted based on
other activities. Law enforcement did catch him, the ICE agent.
We are cooperating with the case agents to help on additional
work in that case.
Mr. Burgess. I see. But Mr. Eichenwald, you had or gave us
testimony that Justin had said to you when are they going to
arrest the people who molested me. And I guess I would ask the
same question. What is being done in that regard? What is being
done to hold those individuals accountable, to present evidence,
to preserve evidence?
Mr. Eichenwald. I could not tell you. Again, some of the
evidence regarding some of those individuals is contained on the
laptop computer that Justin described to the Government back in
July. No one has ever picked it up. I mean, that is why we talk
about an active investigation when you say there are four hard
drives, I believe it was four hard drives, it may have been six.
The number of hard drives and there is a laptop computer all of
which contain evidence. And they picked up the hard
drives but they do not pick up the computer. I mean, it
is sort of you are left scratching your head. I cannot
tell you what is being done. I cannot tell you why
things are the way they are.
Mr. Burgess. Well if we can get some answers when the Department is
in here on Thursday. Mr. Eichenwald, I just commend what you did.
A good deal of likelihood that Justin would not be alive today had
you not intervened. It certainly, I mean it is a fantastic story
that you just literally stumbled upon one day. Is that correct?
Mr. Eichenwald. One of the very strange things about the webcam
pornography business is that if one, I mentioned the competition.
If one site or one group of sites become successful, the
competitors will start to launch very devious ways of attacking
them. What happened for me is I came across one of these devious
attempts to attack a site. I had just come back from a book
tour on my last book about Enron and decided I wanted to do
something international on the same area I deal with so I did
a search for, a did a Google search for Interpol fraud alerts
and in the course of looking through what popped up, I came
across what purported to be a posting by a Tallahassee law firm
about an Interpol investigation involving eight, I believe it
was State Attorneys General who were looking at fraud, a fraud
case involving a series of websites.
Most of those websites were a credit process or many of those
websites were credit card processors. The posting was detailed,
I was delighted. This was a story that was wrapped up in a bow.
I just had to figure a little bit out. I would call the law
firm and I have something in the paper. As I went down looking
at what each site was I came across a site called Mexicofriends.
Given that it was a fraud case and it was called Mexicofriends,
I thought money laundering, there was something good here.
Mexicofriends at that point was a dead site so I stuck the word
Mexicofriends into Google as a single word, and found a bunch
of people talking about somebody named Justin who was obviously
a porn star. I did not understand what, that had to do with
fraud, but it sounded like it was getting to become a more
interesting story on some level.
And eventually once I had what I could get out of those
listings, I went to something called archive.org which is a site
that preserves images of old websites and in the course of
looking at what are these things that I have not been able to
find, I put in mexicofriends.com and up popped an image that it
looked like something you would find in a seventh grade school
book. It was not pornographic, it was a photograph of Justin at
the age of 14. Now right now he is 19 and I think he looks
about 16. When he was 14, he looked like he was about 12 or 11.
And as I am looking at that, I very quickly came to realize that
this image, this person I am looking at was Justin. Is the
person who I had already knew was some sort of porn star. And
the level of disconnect in my head was huge. I did not know
what I was looking at, what I was dealing with. I do know that
I was abjectly horrified. And I did not at that time think wow
a news story. In fact, my thought was I have to figure out if
this is real.
And about that same time I found out that the original posting,
the Tallahassee law firm I was going call, the Tallahassee law
firm and say well what is this and what about this kid, it ended
up that the original posting was a fake. It had been posted, I
believe by a competitor to a number of sites that use different
credit card processors to say there is a criminal investigation
so all the customers should not go there, they should come over
here. I subsequently understood the bulletin board it was posted
on was one used by webcam operators.
So once I realized that was fake, now I just had a kid out there
wrapped up in child porn but maybe that was false too because
all I had was an image that could have been cropped out of any
seventh grade school book and I began trying to figure out if it
was real, not for the purpose of doing a story because truthfully
I did not, it did not occur to me there would be a story there,
not bother to get law enforcement. There was a posting for
Justin�s instant message address. Actually, there were postings
for his email which he never responded to any of them, apparently
he did not use them anymore. And then there was a posting for his
instant message address. I put that in my buddy list. He
eventually signed on. I tried to contact him twice. Both times I
was too aggressive in my questioning. I started off by saying
something like how old are you and he immediately blocked me.
But after that, I went onto a third screen name and tried a much
slower approach and it was not until a number of days after that,
I cannot tell you how long it was when I finally became convinced
that he was a real person and that he was a real teenager because
I was asking him what do you want to accomplish in your life?
What is it you want to do? And he replied I want my mother and
my grandmother to be proud of me. And at that moment, I knew I
was dealing with an abused, sexually abused child. And subsequent
to that, made a rapid arrangement to meet him in Los Angeles at
which point I revealed, and at that point I began to realize
there was a story here and I was in the problem of not having
identified myself as a reporter. So when we met, I immediately
identified myself as a reporter, explained who I am, what I do,
and after about an hour of questions from him and then began
asking him details about this webcam world.
Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman, you have been very generous. I just
would ask if I could ask a question to be answered in writing by
Mr. Eichenwald. I know you must have thought about the issue of
freedom of the press for a place like myspace and yet restriction
of online predators and I actually would be very interested in the
journalist take on freedom of the press versus controlling the
abuse of the Internet for child pornography.
So with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I recognize the gentlelady from
Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that and
I am going to be respectful of your time and of the committee
member�s time today. We truly appreciate the time that you have
given.
Mr. Eichenwald, your series is riveting and having read through
that it is well done. I am glad you did it. But you know, I
think that reading it and listening to you and Justin today, it
just shows us time and again the frustration that our
constituents have and rightfully so many times in trying to deal
with the Government, in trying to deal with government agencies,
and trying to deal with the bureaucracy, whether it is with this
issue or whether it is with other issues. And I thank you for
what you did and for the accountability that you have called us
into by placing some criticism and some questions and laying
those on the table for us to consider. Addressing the moral
security of this Nation, there is nothing greater that we do.
And it is a responsibility that we take as being a very
important responsibility and our constituents should be able
to trust that we are mindful of the need to protect and address
the moral security of this great Nation.
Mr. Eichenwald, reading your articles and then looking through
the testimony and I know you said that it is hard to get in here
and kind of quantify the scope of online child pornography and
you mentioned there are five, you had at least 585 sites that
were created by teenagers. Is that correct?
Mr. Eichenwald. That is an internal listing off a single
portal. I have actually provided that listing to the committee.
Mrs. Blackburn. And so that was one portal.
Mr. Eichenwald. That was one portal.
Mrs. Blackburn. Wow. Okay, and do we have any way of knowing
when you are on the Internet, when you go through one of the
servers how many sites there are that deal with child
pornography? Do we have any idea of the scope of the number
of those sites?
Mr. Eichenwald. I have, I know that what I have read in the
interviews with law enforcement and interviews with folks from
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children whatever
number we were to pick today would not be true tomorrow because
the number is growing and growing very, very quickly. I just
saw last night in fact that there is an organization that
basically does Internet security and spam, capturing spam and
one of the interesting things they do is they analyze the spam
that they capture. And just last night, I saw this, they have
come out with a report that the fastest growing piece of spam
they are getting now is for new child pornography sites.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay. Now do we know how many of those within
this universe of new sites that continue to pop up on an ongoing
basis, do we have any idea if most of those sites are housed on
U.S. soil or offshore?
Mr. Eichenwald. The best analysis actually comes out of Britain.
Right now the British are from what I have read, the British
identify two areas of the world as being the primary locations
for the production of child pornography. Eastern Europe is
number one and the United States is number two.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay, I thank you. Thank you very much.
Justin, how long--and I never found this in your reading. How
long did it take before you mom picked up that something was not
right with all of this new equipment and your attraction to the
Internet? How long did it take her to kind of chew into this?
Mr. Berry. Up until recently here, when I told her.
Mr. Eichenwald. And if I could add in, I mean, Justin�s mom,
you know, he comes at--what happened when he was 13 and 14, he
was a 13 and 14-year-old. I hear about it as a parent. His
mom began to notice there were problems, that he was not acting
quite the same way, that he was behind closed doors more often
she tried to get him to come on out, open the door, she began
to sense he was withdrawing. She took him to see a mental
health counselor who diagnosed him at the time as having ADD
which he does not have. In fact, at the time, from what I have
heard the belief now is that he was already experiencing
problems from trauma, from the trauma of what was happening to
him. And in terms of the equipment, he did have his own
website development company and he was actually designing
websites through real companies and actually getting paid for
it. And so it was not unusual for him to have money or equipment.
You know he could hide the more outrageous sums and just make
sure that anything that she caught onto he would just say well
that is from my website development business.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay. Mr. Ryan, let us go to the cell phone
records. I think that all three of you mentioned that one of
the predators, Mr. Mitchel had purchased Justin�s cell phone
records. Do you know what avenue he traveled to purchase those
records?
Mr. Eichenwald. I do not know if he purchased them or not. I
just know that he--
Mrs. Blackburn. He had those.
Mr. Eichenwald. He suddenly was instant messaging Justin; a
phone that he believed reached Justin but it was actually
reaching me. He instant messaged my home phone number.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay. Well the cell phone record issue is one
that this committee is addressing and whether it is pedophiles
or identity thieves or drug traffickers or those that would seek
to do an individual harm getting access to those records. That
is something that is of great concern to us.
I want to again thank you all for your time and for being here.
And Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my time so that we can move
onto the other panels today but I thank you. We will have some
other questions that we will submit to be answered in writing.
Mr. Walden. [Presiding] Thank you. The gentlelady yields back
her time.
I want to thank all of you for being here today obviously. And
Mr. Eichenwald, I read the comments that you gave in a speech
to Marquette University where you were somewhat less than kind,
but obviously truthful about your views regarding CEOS. And in
those comments, you said it became obvious no matter how urgent
the situation, no matter how many times CEOS was told that the
witness�s life was in danger, no matter how many times they were
told of other children in peril, no matter how many times they
were told about evidence being destructed, they would not act
with any exigency. Is it as bad as you say it is?
Mr. Eichenwald. I can only speak to this circumstance.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Eichenwald. And in this circumstance it was as bad as I say
it is. It was very hard to understand. And I need to take a
step back and let you recognize the strangeness of this
situation. There has been a wide belief that the New York Times
made the decision to persuade Justin Berry to become a Federal
witness because we were offended by the fact that there were
people who paid him for pornography. That is completely untrue.
I would have been delighted to simply write the story and expose
this but when Justin began to reveal that there were real
children that he knew of who were being harmed and exploited and
abused by real adults that he knew of and proceeded to show me
evidence of this or certainly things that were suggestive that
this was happening, I went to the executive editor and said we
cannot just sit here and work on a story while children are
being molested and raped. And so I was authorized to go back
and tell Justin you need to become a Federal witness. The whole
idea that there would be some huge delay when someone is coming
in and saying this is what is happening, I have personal
knowledge of it, I being Justin. I mean there is one of the
individuals, probably the individual he was most worried about
I know from a filing in Mr. Mitchel�s case that the Government
obtained a videotape of this boy on July 26, the second day that
Justin Berry was speaking to them. And so they were--
Mr. Walden. That was a result of that discussion?
Mr. Eichenwald. As a result of that discussion they were aware
that this existed. They knew that Justin specifically knew this
kid. And they knew that he had said a man who molested me was in
the room when that video was taken and other videos are being
filmed. There was where Justin had a very difficult day when a
video of that kid was posted that had been filmed obviously in a
hotel room. And it was a question of how bad is this going to
get. And so during that whole period of time, the difficulty for
me was not having enough to write. Not having--I cannot prove
anything yet.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Eichenwald. My reporting was not sufficient, but knowing in
my gut and in my heart what is going on and also knowing that
ll anybody had to do was go serve a search warrant and they
would have all that they needed.
Mr. Walden. And 1,500 names and credit card information data
points that were given to the Justice Department and all the
other information that you brought forward, do you know if the
Department of Justice has arrested any of those people? Justin,
do you want to--
Mr. Berry. I know that Mr. Mitchel has been under arrest,
Mr. Tunno has been previously arrested. He is working with
that on a different case.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Berry. Mr. Richards is another individual who was
endangering children and there are others that have molested
me that have not been arrested.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Eichenwald. I would also mention that Mr. Tunno�s arrest
had nothing to do with this case.
Mr. Walden. Right, yeah, I understood that from the other
testimony.
Mr. Ryan, you were a Federal prosecutor. Correct?
Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. I am not an attorney but explain to me this affidavit
process. When the affidavit was released and made public--
Mr. Ryan. Congressman, it is very traditional in law enforcement.
There is a covert phase of your investigation and the covert
phase is very, very important because during that covert phase,
you can get ready, for example, to serve search warrants in
Boston.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Ryan. And in Roanoke, and in Bakersfield all at the same
time. And we are very good at that as a Justice Department.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Ryan. I mean as a youngster, I was taught the business by
agents and older prosecutors. In this case, an affidavit that
depended on Justin�s testimony was the basis for the arrest
warrant and search of Mr. Mitchel�s residence. That was a
very important case and I credit the Justice Department and
CEOS for prioritizing that.
Mr. Walden. Okay, but what about the release of that
information and the exposure of Justin and the exposure of
these other men.
Mr. Ryan. That case it was unforgivable in my opinion.
Mr. Walden. But has it been resealed today?
Mr. Ryan. No.
Mr. Walden. Should it have been resealed?
Mr. Ryan. Yes.
Mr. Walden. If you were the prosecutor in charge, what would
have happened?
Mr. Ryan. If I had been anywhere near this case, I would have
just immediately filed a one page application with the court
to reseal the affidavit.
Mr. Walden. And have you asked the Justice Department to
reseal this or was that your role?
Mr. Ryan. I said unprintable things to the Department of Justice
when this was released. I asked them why frankly they could
screw up a one car funeral by--
Mr. Walden. What was the reaction to you about A, releasing
this and B, did you make a request that it be resealed and what
did they say if you did?
Mr. Ryan. The conversations on that, I would have to--let me
try and recall them as best I can for the record but the bottom
line is nothing happened. And--
Mr. Walden. So you did ask them to reseal and they have not
resealed?
Mr. Ryan. You know, I do not recall asking them to reseal it.
I do remember telling them at the time that it was an
outrageous piece of malpractice--
Mr. Walden. Did they explain why they released the in
formation--
Mr. Ryan. There is a letter that is the best department
explanation that I received last night at 5:00.
Mr. Walden. And what does that letter say and could you provide
it for the committee?
Mr. Ryan. I can.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Ryan, it is intriguing to me. This happened
in September, right, that the affidavit was released?
Mr. Ryan. Yes.
Mr. Walden. And you got the letter how many hours before our
hearing?
Mr. Ryan. Well I raised it in a different context. Mr. Berry
was never contacted to participate and provide a victim witness
statement in the sentencing of Mr. Mitchel and I thought that
since the Department had relied on his information to obtain
the arrest and search warrant that they would be interested in
using him as the key victim because he had been abused by
Mr. Mitchel and it was in that letter that I pointed out, I
guess ironically, that the Department had released the affidavit,
they might want to come back and ask us for the information so
that the court would know about the abuse.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Berry, I just have less than 2 minutes and I have to ask
you what may be a difficult question for you to answer. But
you have testified that during a certain summer, Mr. Gourlay
who I think is here in the audience, took you to his home and
sexually molested you, you were 13 years of age. And he was
what, in his 20�s at that time?
Mr. Berry. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Walden. And were you scared? Were you upset?
Mr. Berry. Upset is not even the word.
Mr. Walden. And he promised it would never happen again and
yet it did?
Mr. Berry. That is correct. He promised me it would never
happen again and it did.
Mr. Walden. And he took advantage of you again. The question,
I think probably a lot of parents have is having been through
what you have been through, having seen that happen and happen
again, why were you not able to cut off contact with
Mr. Gourlay? And this is not an attack on you, but what is
it that allows somebody to grip you like that to the point
that you were scared, you were upset, you were all these
things and yet being in your life.
Mr. Berry. As a 13-year-old being molested and abused, I do
not know exactly what my thoughts were. All I know is that
I buried those emotions until recently and right now it really
hurts.
Mr. Walden. What advice would you have for other young people
who may be in a similar predicament? How could they break it
off where at that age you were not able to? What would you
tell them?
Mr. Berry. Yeah, truthfully I am not too sure. I am really
not. I do not know if I would listen myself. I was pretty
stubborn as a kid as most teenagers are.
Mr. Walden. I understand that. All right, well thank you for
your courage and for being here today. My time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Actually, Mr. Ferguson, we are going to recess for 5 minutes
to take a bit of a break and give our witnesses a bit of a
break. We forget that sometimes and the committee will resume
its business in 5minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Whitfield. The hearing will reconvene and the Chair will
recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Ferguson, for his
10 minutes of questions. Mr. Eichenwald is coming back in so
Mr. Ferguson you are recognized.
Mr. Ferguson. Give Mr. Eichenwald a chance to take his seat.
Mr. Eichenwald. My apologies.
Mr. Ferguson. Get back settled, not at all.
Mr. Eichenwald, in your testimony, you referred to sites like
myspace.com and buddypick.com and you called them a virtual
Sears catalog for pedophiles. Can you explain why that is
the case and if you would, would you try and be concise? Why
do you believe that is the case?
Mr. Eichenwald. Kids put up the images. They put up their
contact information, many times to attract attention to their
site; they pose in provocative ways. There will be shirtless
shots. There will be everything there to suggest which kid
is comfortable with what. And whenever there is a kid who is
found who is more explicit than the usual, not illegally
explicit, just explicit, just sexualized, I have watched these
conversations. Those kids begin to be discussed by the
predators. There are postings about them and the links to
their sites are posted.
Mr. Ferguson. I know you said that you were not here to make
public policy recommendations, I understand that. But what do
you believe the ISPs should do with regard to these sites?
Mr. Eichenwald. The ISPs have a responsibility. I truthfully
do not know. I mean the reason I do not make public policy
pronouncements is because I simply do not know the mechanics and
mechanisms. And ultimately, I am not sure what an ISP is capable
of doing or should be required to do. I think I would say Steven
Ryan knows a lot about that.
Mr. Ryan. Congressman, I think this is--
Mr. Ferguson. Just pull the microphone closer to you, please and
turn it on.
Mr. Ryan. My technological guru. Congressman, I think the
legitimate ISPs do a lot in this area. The problem of course is
they have to balance the rights of privacy of legitimate
subscribers and also not invading communications. I think it
would be very useful for the committee frankly to have a
roundtable discussion without the press here, with staff, with
the Members coming in at the end to find out what the ISP
industry can do in this area. I really do think that industry
could be an important partner with law enforcement. There is a
center that has been established in Pittsburgh that is a
cooperative center between State and Federal law enforcement and
in my corporate capacity when I am representing corporations, we
have established relationships with that Internet clearinghouse
center for law enforcement and we do make referrals there. So I
think there is important work that is being done by the private
sector with the law enforcement community in this area. I think
it would benefit the committee to know more about that.
Mr. Ferguson. Okay, I appreciate that.
Justin, Mr. Berry, your testimony, you mentioned that child
predators over the Internet are laughing at law enforcement.
What do you mean when you say that?
Mr. Berry. When I was still in this business, I talked to or
spoke with one of the child predators and told them I was going
to turn them in to law enforcement. Their response to that was
they laughed at me and they told me that I would be the one in
trouble. And that I would be the one being prosecuted for child
pornography. I wish I could say that would be true or would not
be true. These people, the law enforcement efforts I do not
know what is going on in all the cases. All I know is what is
going on in this case and it seems that they are right.
Mr. Ferguson. These folks are technologically savvy.
Mr. Berry. Some are, some are not.
Mr. Ferguson. I am talking about the folks that you described
as the predators, the folks that are laughing at law enforcement.
These are folks that are Internet savvy, they are technologically
savvy.
Mr. Berry. Like I said, some are, some are not.
Mr. Ferguson. Why do you think it is difficult for law
enforcement to find these folks, the folks that are making and
distributing this material and buying these images of children?
Mr. Berry. Maybe asking them would be a better question. I do
not know if--
Mr. Ferguson. Well we will. I promise we will. I wondered if
you maybe had any theory or any thoughts with regard to this.
Mr. Berry. I have been heavily disappointed by what has happened
in regards to this case. And I can see if that is a reflection
on the United States and how they feel and how they prosecute
child pornographers, well I can see why they would feel that way.
Mr. Eichenwald. Congressman, there is one individual I would
strongly recommend the committee speaking with. I will have to
get you his name later. He is an art professor at a university
who as an experiment in 2000, spent many months trafficking among
the predators basically doing what I have been doing and watching
their conversations. And actually it was from what I interviewed
him in the course of my article and he is the first one who told
me about how the predators truly laugh at the Federal enforcement
effort. That they believe the only people who get caught are the
ones who are just too dimwitted to figure out how to handle the
situation. A lot of it does have to do with the technological
capacity of the people who are the predators. They share
information on how to avoid leaving footprints, how to avoid
leaving any evidence that they have been to sites, any evidence
of what they put on their computers. Mr. Tunno, who we have
heard about a number of times, who is involved in this situation,
actually had invented a computer that had no hard drive so when
it was unplugged from the wall, the illegal images or whatever
other evidence was on the computer would disappear. These are
smart people. They are sophisticated people. They know that,
if child pornography is what they want, they know how to get it,
requires them to be technologically sophisticated and
unfortunately they are ahead of the game.
Mr. Ferguson. I am advised by staff that professor�s name is
Philip Jenkins.
Mr. Eichenwald. That is it, yes.
Mr. Ferguson. He has been interviewed by the committee staff.
That is the professor you were talking--
Mr. Eichenwald. He is a wonderful resource because he is a
person who has been for many months and he wrote a fabulous book
about this--for many months talking with these people and his
information dates back to 2000. But from a historical basis in
particular, it really underscores the obsessive nature of the
online predator as well as the technological sophistication and
their contempt for Federal law enforcement.
Mr. Ferguson. Now Mr. Chairman, we are obviously continuing our
investigation into this subject and I would imagine and I would
hope frankly as we learn about whatever inadequacies there may
be in the law, that as we look at legislation to correct and
address problems in the law in terms of prosecution, information
available to those clearinghouses and whatever else, I would
respectfully suggest that we might name that legislation for
Justin Berry. He has been through a lot and he has experienced
a lot. He has done some difficult things and courageous things.
By his own admission he has made mistakes and it has taken a
lot for him to appear before the committee today. And I would
hope that we would consider that.
I have a couple of more questions for Mr. Berry. What do you
think would be a fair sentence for the men that you say
molested you?
Mr. Berry. These people, these predators are not going to
stop. If you arrest them, they are going to go back and find
another kid and they are going to keep doing it until they are
put away. I would hope they would get life.
Mr. Ferguson. You testified, Mr. Berry, that you now see Ken
Gourlay�s molestation of you as the beginning of your downturn,
the beginning of this spiral that you entered into in your
teenage years. Why do you think that?
Mr. Berry. When I was molested by Ken, before that I was a
happy kid. I went to school, I played in sports, I had a few
friends. Afterwards, now that I look back in retrospect, my
life from there on has changed dramatically. I would have never
imagined I would have done the things that I have done and I am
not proud of it. I cannot say exactly how it affected me, all I
know is to this day right now I am seeing a psychologist and I am
a pretty messed up kid.
Mr. Ferguson. Thanks very much for being here today and we
appreciate your testimony. Mr. Eichenwald, we appreciate your
testimony as well the work that you have done in uncovering this
situation.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thanks, Mr. Ferguson and we appreciate your
suggestion and I do think that we obviously are going to be
looking at legislation to enforce the firewalls relating to this
issue and it is a complex issue and we will need to work on that.
Your suggestion in naming that after Justin Berry is something
we definitely will consider and will follow.
Mr. Walden?
Mr. Walden. Mr. Chairman, if I might.
Mr. Berry is there anybody in this room who you believe molested you?
Mr. Berry. Yes, Ken Gourlay.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Are there any other questions of this panel?
Okay, well I am going to thank the three of you very much for
your time, for your testimony. Justin, we know that it was quite
difficult for you and we look forward to staying in touch with
you through our committee and wish you the very best in pursuit
of your college degree. And Mr. Ryan, thank you very much for
your testimony. And Mr. Eichenwald, we once again thank you for
the articles you wrote in the New York Times to focus attention
on this issue.
And with that, we will release this panel and we will call up
the next panel which will actually be the third panel. And
that is one person and that is Mr. Ken Gourlay who is
accompanied by his attorney. I believe his name is James Rasor
with the Rasor Law Firm in Royal Oak, Michigan.
And Mr. Gourlay, if you would have a seat at the table. Now
Mr. Gourlay, you are aware, you have watched the other panels
and you are aware that the committee is holding an investigative
hearing and in doing so we have the practice of taking testimony
under oath. Do you have any objection to testifying under oath
today?
Mr. Gourlay. No, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Under the rules of the House and the rules of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, you are entitled to be advised
by legal counsel about your constitutional rights. Do you
desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony today?
Mr. Gourlay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. And would you identify your counsel for the
record, please?
Mr. Gourlay. Mr. James Rasor.
Mr. Whitfield. And you are Mr. Rasor?
Mr. Rasor. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Rasor. Jim Rasor of the Rasor Law Firm in Royal Oak. A
pleasure to be before the committee today.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay.
Mr. Rasor. And I think this has raised some very interesting
questions in testimony.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. Now I want to make it aware that
the legal counsel will not be testifying in this panel but will
be here for the purpose of the advising Mr. Gourlay on his
constitutional rights.
[Witness sworn]
Mr. Whitfield. You are now under oath, Mr. Gourlay and do you
have an opening statement that you would like to make?
Mr. Gourlay. No, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. All right. Mr. Gourlay, you heard Justin Berry
testify under oath that you initially contacted him online when
you saw him on his webcam and then you continued to contact him
through instant messaging regarding his interest in computers.
He was a 13-year-old boy at the time and you were a man in your
20�s. According to Mr. Berry�s sworn testimony today you
invited him to attend a computer camp near your home in Michigan
and during that trip you sexually molested him, the 13-year-old
boy, for the first of what would be many times. In addition,
Mr. Berry testified that you and your company, Chain
Communications or www.thechain.com, were involved in commercial
enterprise which made money from the sexual exploitation of
minor children over the Internet. Mr. Gourlay, did you ever have
sexual contact with Justin Berry when he was under the age of
18 years old?
Mr. Gourlay. I will decline to respond based on Fifth Amendment
privilege.
Mr. Whitfield. Are you refusing to answer any questions that
we may ask you today based on the right against self-incrimination
afforded to you under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Mr. Gourlay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. And is it your intention to assert this right in
response to all further questions from the subcommittee today?
Mr. Gourlay. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Given that if there are no further questions from
the members, I will dismiss you at this time subject to the right
of the subcommittee to recall you if necessary. So at this time,
you are excused.
Okay, at this time, I would call up the fourth panel of witnesses
and that is Mr. Ernie Allen who is the President and Chief
Executive Officer for the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children and is located in Alexandria, Virginia.
Mr. Allen, we appreciate your being here today. I have enjoyed
our conversations with you prior to this hearing and the great
work that your National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children is performing and I would like to recognize you
5 minutes for your opening statement on this important subject
matter.
TESTIMONY OF ERNIE ALLEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, NATIONAL
CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I am
delighted to be here as you discuss this important issue.
I have submitted written testimony but per your request, I
would like to do a brief summary focusing particularly on the
scope of the problem of child pornography. You have heard from
other witnesses this morning that this is an exploding problem
not just in the United States but around the world. You have
heard that the latest estimates are that commercial child
pornography is a $20 billion industry and non-commercial child
pornography is an even larger share of Internet child pornography.
But I would like to make a couple of key points that I think are
important to this Congress. One is that while this is a global
phenomenon, we believe that the majority of the consumers are
Americans. Secondly, we believe that the majority of the
victims are Americans, and we also believe that the age of the
victims being used and exploited in child pornography is
becoming younger and younger and the images are becoming more
graphic and more violent.
What I would like to do briefly is direct your attention to the
screen. You have asked for some visual information. As the
committee knows, in 1998, the Congress asked our center to become
the 911 for the Internet on these kinds of issues. We have
created a Cyber TipLine that has handled 385,000 reports of child
sexual exploitation; 350,000 of those reports are on child
pornography alone.
Mr. Whitfield. Excuse me, Mr. Allen, what was the year that you
started this?
Mr. Allen. In 1998. But just to give you an idea, the first year
of the Cyber TipLine we handled 4,800 reports. In 2004, we handled
112,000 reports. So this is a growing phenomenon.
One of the key issues we are tying to address is who these children
are. In the aftermath of the Ashcroft Decision by the Supreme Court
3 years ago, increasingly defendants are now arguing these are not
real kids. These are virtual images. So judges and prosecutors
are asking that we try to figure out who these children are. We
have been able to identify working with Federal law enforcement in
the United States and law enforcement around the world, 660
children have been identified but we have reviewed 3.7 million
images so this is a huge and growing phenomenon.
One of the other points I would like to make to the committee is
that overwhelmingly the perpetrators of these offenses are not
strangers to the children. Almost half of the offenders have
been members of the child�s family. Another 32 percent have been
family friends and associates. The phenomenon that we talked
about in Justin�s panel that preceded this, the sort of
self-produced images, that covers 5 percent of the reports we
have received but is a growing share of the problem with the
advent of the webcam and other technology.
The age of the children who we are identifying in these images, 73 percent
of the victims had been pre-pubescent. And of the offenders that we have
identified, 39 percent of the offenders have had images of children
younger than 6 years old, 19 percent younger than 3 years old.
Now a couple of quick examples. I talked about the importance
and in each one of these cases obviously we have eliminated any
possibility of identifying who the children are. In the recent
case, ICE agents made a child pornography arrest involving an
offender but there were six young girls in these images who we
were not able to identify rapidly. What our center is trying to
do is to place these children somewhere on planet Earth so we
can identify the appropriate law enforcement agency. In this
case, there was some evidence in the background, a television set
with an advertisement that enabled us to narrow, identifying the
company that produced this cup to narrow the focus to several
Midwestern States; a grocery bag on a shelf that similarly helped
us hone in on where these children were; an envelope on a desk
that enabled us to reduce the focus to one city. And then in one
of the images, it is very difficult to see but there is, the
child had had--she was drugged and had her Brownie or Girl Scout
uniform removed. Through enhancing this image, we were able to
identify the last two digits of the scout troop. And through the
other information and in localizing the information, we were able
to identify the six children and the offender who is currently
being prosecuted in that State. This is an ongoing challenge.
I want to give you just a quick example of the kinds of sites
that are out there. And we are currently working with law
enforcement not only State and Federal but around the world to
identify these sites and then use every legal means to shut them
down. This is one example. This is--obviously we have removed
images from the sites--but this is an active child pornography
website. As you can see, you are encouraged to join. This is a
fee-based commercial site, $150 a month and you are offered the
opportunity to provide credit card information or other method of
payment information. What is happening in so many of these cases
is that the individuals are purchasing access to this illegal
content, using credit cards and other methods of payment
information and we are working very hard to end that. Credit
card information--it is hard to see from here, it is on the
bottom of the screen.
One of the steps we have tried to take, I know in the earlier
panel you talked about the difficulty of prosecution and law
enforcement simply because the magnitude of the challenge is so
great. What we have tried to do is to create a financial
coalition. We brought together credit card industry leaders,
banking leaders, Internet industry leaders with the premise that
you cannot possibly prosecute everybody. And at a minimum, what
we can do is following the money, stop the payments under
existing terms of service agreements under existing law, and
shut these sites down. If we take away the profitability, it
is going to be very difficult for them to sustain themselves.
And the process that we have developed just to show you
quickly, we are going to use our Cyber TipLine to identify the
reports, aggressively identify these sites. Once that is done,
our analysts will visit the sites and confirm that it is illegal
child pornography. Then what we will do is work with Federal
law enforcement to perform test transactions.
What the financial industry has told us is that credit card companies
do not often know what the purchase is for. If we can identify the
merchant bank for them in a timely way, they can use their legal
leverage to stop the payments and use their licensure provisions to put
the pressure on the banks to terminate these relationships. Once we
have done that, the companies will provide us the details of that
transaction, the credit card company will isolate the transaction and
the location of the merchant. The credit card company will amend the
information in the database and one of two things will happen. We are
going to provide it to law enforcement for 3 days so that law enforcement
can make a determination of whether it wants to initiate a criminal
investigation. That will always be the first priority. But if it does
not act within those 3 days, then we would provide that information to
the appropriate financial institution, issue a cease and desist letter,
and ask them to take administrative action to shut down the businesses.
The last thing, Mr. Chairman, that I want to do is show you a
highly edited photograph. We hear from people every day that
well, child pornography, isn�t that just adult pornography?
Aren�t these 20-year-olds in pigtails dressed to look like
they are 15? This is a real image that flowed through our
Cyber TipLine. The child was identified. The predator was
identified, has been arrested, and prosecuted. The child is
getting help. This little girl was 5 years old. As you will
notice in the image, she had a dog collar around her neck. And
in the second photo, the child was covering her face with her
hands because she did not understand what was going on and was
so traumatized and terrified by what was happening she would
rather have been dead. This is an insidious problem, it is a
growing problem, and America needs to wake up to it and do more.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ernie Allen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ernie Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, I welcome this
opportunity to appear before you to discuss how the Internet is used
to commit crimes against children. Chairman Whitfield, you are a
tireless advocate for child protection and I commend you and your
colleagues for your leadership and initiative. The National Center for
Missing & Exploited Children ("NCMEC") joins you in your concern for
the safety of the most vulnerable members of our society and thanks you
for bringing attention to this serious problem facing America�s
communities.
Let me first provide you with some background information about the
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). NCMEC is a
not-for-profit corporation, mandated by Congress and working in
partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice as the national
resource center and clearinghouse on missing and exploited children.
NCMEC is a true public-private partnership, funded in part by
Congress and in part by the private sector. Our federal funding
supports specific operational functions mandated by Congress,
including a national 24-hour toll-free hotline; a distribution
system for missing-child photos; a system of case management and
technical assistance to law enforcement and families; training
programs for federal, state and local law enforcement; and our
programs designed to help stop the sexual exploitation of children.
These programs include the CyberTipline, the "9-1-1 for the Internet,"
which serves as the national clearinghouse for investigative leads and
tips regarding crimes against children on the Internet. The Internet
has become a primary tool to victimize children today, due to its
widespread use and the relative anonymity that it offers child
predators. Our CyberTipline is operated in partnership with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), the Department of Homeland
Security�s Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), the
U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S.
Department of Justice�s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section and
the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces, as well as state and
local law enforcement. Leads are received in seven categories of crimes:
possession, manufacture and distribution of child pornography;
online enticement of children for sexual acts;
child prostitution;
child-sex tourism;
child sexual molestation (not in the family);
unsolicited obscene material sent to a child; and
misleading domain names.
This last category was added as a result of enactment of the PROTECT
Act in 2003.
These leads are reviewed by NCMEC analysts, who visit the reported
sites, examine and evaluate the content, use search tools to try to
identify perpetrators, and provide all lead information to the
appropriate law enforcement agency. The FBI, ICE and Postal Inspection
Service have "real time" access to the leads, and all three agencies
assign agents and analysts to work directly out of NCMEC and review
the reports. The results: in the 8 years since the CyberTipline began
operation, NCMEC has received and processed more than 385,000 leads,
resulting in hundreds of arrests and successful prosecutions.
However, despite our progress the victimization of children continues
and there is evidence that it is increasing. The number of reports of
online enticement of children to the CyberTipline increased 400 percent
since 1998. Our records show a significant and steady increase in
these reports over the years. This upward trend is very disturbing and
shows the seriousness of this issue. But this is not the only evidence.
According to a recent study, one in five youth ages 10 to 17 who used
the Internet regularly received a sexual solicitation over the Internet
within the previous year. However, less than 10% of sexual solicitations
were reported to authorities.
These numbers are powerful testimony to the fact that children are at
risk and that we must do more.
Over the years as technology has evolved so, too, have the methods for
victimizing children. The Internet has provided a veil of apparent
anonymity, enabling predators to seek out children, win their confidence
and then victimize them.
As technology evolves, so does the creativity of the predator. Today,
we are hearing a great deal about new innovations, including the use of
webcams, social networking websites and Internet access on cell phones.
These innovations are popular and are utilized by millions of Americans.
Yet, as with every other new program or service, there are those who
would use them inappropriately and for unlawful purposes.
For example, there has been great attention to the social networking
websites. While they are marketed to and primarily utilized by young
adults, kids are attracted as well, and there have been instances in
which offenders have taken advantage of the images and information
displayed to target kids.
Some of the social networking sites link defined communities of
registered users, such as students attending a particular college or
high school. Others are open to anyone over a certain age. These
websites permit registered users to create an online profile, including
photographs, with categories of interest such as music and sports, as
well as an online journal. They are highly personalized and often
extremely detailed. Children consider this to be an easy way to connect
with friends, find new friends and share their thoughts and feelings.
However, child predators consider these sites to be an easy way to
find child victims. They can use the information posted by children
to pretend to be someone with shared interests, then develop a
�cyber-relationship� that can lead to that child being victimized. The
number of reports involving online journals received by our
CyberTipline has increased. In recent years, many kids were using their
email profiles and chat rooms in a similar fashion to share their
hobbies and interests and make "friends".� However, those forums didn�t
have nearly the same implications as the social networking sites given
the enormous universe of users. This recent phenomenon reinforces the
importance of education messages where we engage teens to be a part of
their own online safety.
Today, NCMEC is working with leaders in many industries who are involved
in the burgeoning field of social networking in order to explore
improvements, new approaches and better ways to attack the problems.
Further, we are also working on plans to bring together key business,
law enforcement, child advocacy, governmental and other interests and
leaders to explore ways to more effectively address these new issues
and challenges.
Webcams offer the exciting ability to see the person you�re
communicating with over the Internet. While this has many benefits, such
as allowing divorced parents to have "online visitation" with their
children in distant states, it, too, can be used to exploit children.
Many children are victimized inadvertently, by appearing on their
webcams without clothes as a joke, or on a dare from friends, unaware
that these images may end up in a global commercial child pornography
enterprise. Other children are victims of blackmail, threatened with
disclosure to friends and family if his or her �performance� before
the webcam doesn�t become more sexually explicit. Too much technology
and too much privacy, at a sexually curious age, can lead to
disastrous consequences.
The teenage years are a time of personal exploration. This is only
natural. However, the new form of social interaction is over the
Internet, exposing children to, literally, a world of potential danger.
Finally, let me briefly report to you on the exploding problem of
child pornography via the Internet. Child pornography has become a
global crisis. A recent report by McKinsey Worldwide estimated that
today commercial child pornography is a $20 billion industry worldwide,
fueled by the Internet. Its victims are becoming younger. According
to NCMEC data, 19% of identified offenders had images of children
younger than 3 years old; 39% had images of children younger than
6 years old; and 83% had images of children younger than 12 years old.
There is also strong evidence of increasing involvement by organized
crime and extremist groups. Children have become a commodity in this
insidious crime.
We are particularly concerned about the linkages between child
pornography and the financial system. In a recent case investigators
identified 70,000 customers paying $29.95 per month and using their
credit cards to access graphic images of small children being sexually
assaulted.
That is just not acceptable. As a result we have convened a Financial
Coalition Against Child Pornography. At this point it includes as members
18 major financial and Internet companies, including MasterCard, Visa,
American Express, Bank of America, Citibank, Microsoft, America Online,
Yahoo and many others. We are bringing new financial institutions into
this Coalition every day.
Our goal: To eradicate commercial child pornography by 2008.
How are we going to do that? We are going to follow the money. First,
we will aggressively seek to identify illegal child pornography sites with
method of payment information attached. Then we will work with the credit
card industry to identify the merchant bank and stop the payment. Then
we will shut down the sites.
In each case we will work hand-in-hand with federal, state, local or
international law enforcement, and the first priority will be criminal
prosecution. However, our fundamental premise is that it is impossible
to arrest and prosecute everybody. Thus, our goal is twofold:
To increase the risk; and
To eliminate the profitability.
We have created working groups of industry leaders explore the best
techniques for detection and eradication.
In addition, these companies have asked NCMEC to serve as the global
clearinghouse for this effort, sharing information and working together
on this effort in a truly collaborative way.
We need to do a better job as a nation of identifying and addressing the
greatest risks to our children today.
NCMEC urges lawmakers, law enforcement and the public to take a serious
look at the dangers threatening our children today, and to move decisively
to minimize the risks posed by those who exploit new technology and target
our children.
Now is the time to act.
Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, Mr. Allen, thank you, and once again we
appreciate your being here and the great work that you are doing
in this important area.
I know you had showed us the images of this little 5-year-old
girl prior to the hearing today and it is unbelievable that
someone would exploit a child in that way. And I believe that
you are telling me that the person who was indicted, convicted,
and sent to prison in this case actually had a site that was
generating in the neighborhood of $2 million a month in revenue.
Is that correct?
Mr. Allen. Well it was a different site but that is right. I
mean one of the things that really awakened us to this problem,
we thought the child pornography problem had been virtually
eradicated because the Supreme Court of the United States in
1982 said it is not protected speech.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Allen. It is child abuse.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Allen. But what awakened us was one lead we received that
led to an investigation of Federal law enforcement and local law
enforcement of a mom and pop website. They decided they were not
making enough money doing what they were doing so they set up a
child pornography website. When that was shut down by local law
enforcement, these people had 70,000 customers paying $29.95 a
month and using their credit cards to purchase access to graphic
images of young children being sexually assaulted.
Mr. Whitfield. Unbelievable. And they were both convicted. Is
that correct?
Mr. Allen. They were both convicted. The husband is doing
60 years in prison and the wife is doing 20. They were making
$2 million a month net.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay.
Mr. Allen. And I think, Mr. Chairman, one of the most
frightening aspects of this problem is that it has reached beyond
pure pedophilia and organized criminals and other entrepreneurs
now suddenly recognize that children are a commodity.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Allen. And this is a way with relatively low risk and high
profitability to make a lot of money.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah. Well you are the real experts in your
organization in this field and I assuming that you would consider
the $20 billion figure we hear per year on this type of activity
is probably a conservative figure.
Mr. Allen. I do not think there is any question about that and
I sincerely believe that we really do not know how big the figure
is.
Mr. Whitfield. Right. Well tell us a little bit about Cyber
TipLine. How would children and parents actually find this Cyber
TipLine?
Mr. Allen. Well Mr. Chairman, we are non-profit. We are not
Proctor and Gamble. We cannot advertise in the media but what we
try to do is use free media and promote it in every way possible.
We for example, a number of Internet service providers provide
links on their sites, companies like AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo!, AT&T,
Cox Communications. And we try to promote it in every way we can.
The goal is if people encounter this kind of content, we want them
to report it. They can be anonymous but we really need to find
out about these sites.
Mr. Whitfield. All right. You may have heard Chairman Barton
today talking about the fact that we are getting ready to mark up
a telecommunications bill that is going to change the way the
telecom business does business. Would you have any thoughts or
suggestions on using that bill as a vehicle of some small steps
that we might take to make it easier to put these websites out of
business or to prosecute?
Mr. Allen. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think there are a couple of
things. One is I believe it is imperative that these companies
report suspected content like this. As you know, the Congress in
1998 also passed legislation called the Protection of Children
from Sexual Predators Act that mandates electronic service
providers to report child pornography on their systems to law
enforcement through the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children. Now today, 215 ISPs including the major ISPs, are
doing that. In addition, we are in discussions with the
wireless industry and two of the major wireless companies,
Verizon and Sprint Nextel, are currently reporting voluntarily.
But there are still thousands of ISPs who are not reporting.
This is an issue that is moving into the wireless world. And
I think a requirement that these companies when they encounter
this kind of content report it, is imperative. Identification
is the first step to eradication.
Mr. Whitfield. All right. Well that is a good suggestion and I
know our committee does look forward to continue working with you
to explore additional options as we consider legislation on this
in the near future.
You had mentioned the Department of Justice. Do you find
yourself working closely with the Department of Justice and
specifically the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section?
Mr. Allen. We do. We work very closely with Federal law
enforcement generally and our Cyber TipLine. The FBI�s Innocent
Images national initiative is connected online to all the leads
we receive. CEOS is connected online. The Homeland Security�s
Immigration and Customs Enforcement plus the FBI, ICE, and the
United States Postal Inspection Service all assign agents,
inspectors, and analysts to work out of our center in Alexandria.
So we are not law enforcement. We are a non-profit mandated
by Congress working in partnership with the Department of
Justice. What we are trying to do is build the cases for the
appropriate law enforcement agencies. We also work very
closely with the Justice Department-funded Internet Crimes
Against Children Task Forces, 46 of them around the country who
are making hundreds of arrests and prosecution. So we are
working with every agency that has some role in this issue.
Mr. Whitfield. Now I know that the Department of Justice
provides some funding for you through their--
Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. --Congressional appropriation process but--and I
am not even going to ask you to comment but if you heard all the
testimony today, you know that we have some real concerns about
the effectiveness and the enthusiasm with which the Child
Exploitation and Obscenity Section appeared not to operate in
the Justin Berry case and that is something that we are going
to look at more closely.
You testified in your opening that the goal was to eradicate
child pornography as a commercial enterprise by 2008. Do you
think that is a reachable goal?
Mr. Allen. I have been accused of being naive in the creation
of that goal but yes, sir, I do. I think this is a challenge
of mobilizing these financial companies with law enforcement.
I firmly believe that the vast majority of this commercial
enterprise is accounted for by relatively few organizations
and people. And I believe that it is like taking, tracking
down terrorist financing, and anything else. I think you
follow the money. You use the kinds of tools and resources
you have and you shut it off. I think that that is not going
to eradicate child pornography, but I think if we can get it
back to where it was and, in fact, I and the FBI and others
testified before Congress a decade ago that if there were no
pedophiles there would be no child pornography. I am skeptical
that all 70,000 of those people accessing that one website in
Texas were pedophiles. So something else is going on here.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah.
Mr. Allen. There was research in 2002 by ETPAD International
and the Bangkok Post that estimated that there were 100,000
child pornography websites. That was 2002. But frankly, I
think this is an issue where law enforcement has come relatively
recently to this process. Once again, law enforcement has not
been at the forefront of getting and being able to utilize the
new technology.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Allen. And instant images is only 10 years old. And so I
think that is realistic. I think we can do that.
Mr. Whitfield. And did you also tell me that there is now
developing a tourism business in which pedophiles go on trips
to foreign countries and young children are brought to their
rooms. Is that correct?
Mr. Allen. Yes, sir. It is a global enterprise. And this
Congress had the wisdom in the Protect Act in 2003 for the
first time to provide legislation that enables the prosecution
of U.S. citizens who go abroad for that purpose and there have
been many charges brought just in the couple of years since
then.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, Mr. Allen, my time has expired.
I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Stupak. Mr. Allen, I appreciate your enthusiasm in trying
to get it wrapped up by �08 but how is that possible when you
get your ISPs you say there are 250 and reporting more, but
there are thousands more out there plus wireless providers.
How are you going to get the rest of them if you got 250
right now?
Mr. Allen. Well I think two responses to that, Mr. Stupak.
One is we need not just to wait for people to report it, we
need to aggressively go out and find it and we are trying to do
that. And secondly--
Mr. Stupak. Who is we?
Mr. Allen. Well Federal law enforcement and the National
Center. We have been using spidering technology to go out and
proactively search out illegal sites and we are going to
continue to do that. Secondly, I believe that the key to this
is the financial industry. And the good news is to this point
we have been able to encourage and persuade 18 major companies
to join in a financial coalition against child pornography
including MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Discover.
Mr. Stupak. How many of these 18, did you ever check them
against Justin Berry�s list to see how many of the 18 were on
his list of 1,500 names and transactions?
Mr. Allen. Well now these and I am talking about, I mean,
when you spiral the web and look for active child pornography
websites, the major sites that you find or the major methods
of payment that you find today are the third party payment
sites like Egold which is a part of this coalition and the
credit card companies. Now a lot of those are bogus. But
MasterCard, Visa, American Express have all said to us we do
not want to make any money on this.
Mr. Stupak. But what are they doing?
Mr. Allen. Well they told us the same thing.
Mr. Stupak. Yeah.
Mr. Allen. They have agreed to participate in this process in
which--
Mr. Stupak. What does that mean, participate in this process?
What can they really do?
Mr. Allen. Well what they are going to do is take the
information that we generate, they are going to share it within
this network of companies. They are going to, once we have
identified with them the merchant bank and law enforcement has
said we are not going to investigate or prosecute on this one,
they are going to take steps under their agreements. I mean
credit card companies are just associations of banks to hold
the banks responsible because when a bank operates an illegal
account and submits payment, it is not only a violation of the
law, it is a violation of their--
Mr. Stupak. Has any of that been done yet?
Mr. Allen. Just begun. We just started this 2 weeks ago.
Hold us accountable, we are going to do that.
Mr. Stupak. Well what about this meova.net, the third party
that we heard so much about in the last panel?
Mr. Allen. We have no contact with them.
Mr. Stupak. Okay.
Mr. Allen. But we welcome everybody�s involvement and welcome
the committee�s help in bringing other financial institutions
into this process.
Mr. Stupak. But isn�t that the name that in Justin Berry�s
case, why these were paid was this meova group and not the big
credit card companies? So how do you get them to participate?
Mr. Allen. Well we do it one at a time. We basically leverage
the relationships we are building with the credit card companies
and the banks and we--I mean I am not suggesting Mr. Stupak
that there is a quick, easy solution to this.
Mr. Stupak. No, there is not and that is what I am trying to
drive at.
Mr. Allen. Yeah.
Mr. Stupak. How do we get it done? Even if we put something
in legislation tomorrow, I am not too sure it is going to
either. I think we have to have a more comprehensive approach.
Two years ago, you testified before this committee about the use
of peer-to-peer clipboards by child pornographers and pedophiles
as a way to share files without being identified. This is often
the system that child pornographers and the customers use to
share files and individuals from all the world can use these
networks. Could you describe how this works and whether there
have been any advances? Have you been in control of these
networks, these file sharing networks?
Mr. Allen. Well the way it works is that this it basically does
not require an ISP, this basically linked the files shared through
networks like Kazaa and other mechanism. What is happening is
there has been aggressive effort by Federal law enforcement and
the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces to make cases.
The case that the Attorney General and ICE announced a couple of
weeks ago was in essence a peer-to-peer network, child
pornography on demand. You know, it remains a challenge because
it is harder to identify. It is harder to capture that image at
the moment that it is distributed than it is if it is
distributed through an ISP.
Mr. Stupak. Well part of my concern is the music company shut
down Napster for illegal file sharing of copyrighted material.
Why can�t law enforcement be more aggressive in shutting down
these sites?
Mr. Allen. Well frankly, I think the largest challenge is
again, I think law enforcement is overwhelmed by the magnitude
of the problem. We would welcome, I mean, I do not speak for
the FBI or Homeland Security or anybody else, but I think this
is a problem that is going to require more resources, more
personnel. Innocent Images needs to get bigger. The Cyber
Crime Center at ICE needs to get bigger.
Mr. Stupak. Throughout your testimony today and even the
earlier the testimony, everyone talked about the Federal law
enforcement, Justice, things like this, Department of Justice.
Can you or do you work with State and local law enforcement?
Mr. Allen. Yes, sir, we do actively. And I think a very
important point that needs to be made is that Federal law
enforcement cannot possibly do all of this. What we have
emphasized very strongly is building State and local
capacity because in every one of these cases, just like
Justin in Bakersfield, there was a local victim. The only
thing that is different about this is the medium that is
being used to transmit the image.
Mr. Stupak. Have you had any access to the information
that Mr. Berry provided Justice? Have they worked with
you at all, Justice like I--
Mr. Allen. I do not think we have seen that information.
Mr. Stupak. You also testified that a 1999 law that
requires Internet service providers to report child
pornography on their sites or face substantial fines and that
was back in 1999 that law was passed. Five years later in
2004, the reporting mechanism had not yet been formalized.
Has any been formalized? I mean, why should it take 5 years?
If we knew it was a problem in �99 and we passed a law, it
is 5 years. Has it been formalized or has it not? What has
happened? Has anybody been fined or anything ever happened
with that?
Mr. Allen. No, sir it has not been formalized. What we have
been advised by the Justice Department is that there was a flaw
in the statute that in essence it is a civil statute with a
criminal penalty and so we have met with many. The good news is
that the majority ISPs are complying. We have developed our own
system with them. We work with the U.S. ISP Association but
anything this committee can do to make every electronic service
provider in America have to report, I think it is a good thing.
One of the real challenges quickly, Mr. Stupak is that a lot of
these companies are saying to us that absent some safe harbor
provision, their concern is that when they transmit these
images to us they in fact may be violating the law. So I know
the Justice Department is taking another look at that. We
welcome whatever resolution can happen.
Mr. Stupak. Well I know Mr. Chairman, and I think members of
this committee should be--we passed the law in �99 and this is
the first we have heard that there is a problem with it. I
would think after 7 years someone would step forward and say
hey, we cannot do what you intended, to go after this Internet
pornography especially with children, because there is a flaw
in the law. So thank you for that, we will note it for those
questions on Thursday.
Since controlling peer-to-peer networks seems so difficult, do
you think the new financial coalition, the one you have listed
here against this child pornography to follow the many, will
eradicate child pornography? What percentage of the child
pornography is shared without payment? I think we have had a
lot of that where you had to produce a payment, plus you had
produced pictures, nude pictures, or fill in the blanks or I
call them trading cards if you will pornography. Is that here
today?
Mr. Allen. In our judgment, we think that the largest share of
child pornography is distributed and shared without payment.
Even though the commercial site of this problem is a billion
dollar problem, we think the non-commercial side is larger.
Mr. Stupak. I think you mentioned it earlier, but if you could
take a moment and expand upon it. I think you said law
enforcement lacks the resources. What area do they lack the
resources? I thought you indicated they could come to your shop
and do some work there but what are the resources that are
lacking? Is it just training in what is going on? Is it the
empire or what is it?
Mr. Allen. Well there has been an aggressive effort to train.
We have been training unit commanders and investigators in
computer facilitated crimes against children for some time.
Ten years ago, I was aware of one specialized unit in a local
police department; the San Jose Police Department had a kind of
an early cyber crimes unit. The good news today is that most
major police departments now have specialized units. The good
news today is that there are 46 Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Forces funded by Congress around the country that
are State and local with Federal involvement. But I just think
the sheer scale of this problem requires greater investment,
more people, more technology, more advanced technology, because
it continues to evolve.
Mr. Stupak. Let me ask you one more clarification. I had asked
you earlier if your center has been provided any of the names or
the information on the Justin Berry case. It is my
understanding that the FBI has an agreement to provide all the
images to your center.
Mr. Allen. That is right.
Mr. Stupak. So if your center--have you received those images,
and if not and that means CEOS has not given you the images,
then the FBI--you have not seen them yet, have you?
Mr. Allen. Candidly not to my knowledge, no.
Mr. Stupak. So you cannot give me comparisons then either
without the images.
Mr. Allen. That is true. Now I will confirm that. I do not
know that absolutely, but to the best of my recollection, I do
not believe we have received those images.
Mr. Stupak. Any reason why not? Not names but just images so
you could do you work?
Mr. Allen. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Allen, let me just ask one concluding question here. Around
the world, do most countries have laws against child pornography
and child molestation?
Mr. Allen. The answer unfortunately, Mr. Chairman is no.
Through our international center, we just did an analysis, we
have done a report that we are releasing on Thursday of the 184
member nations of Interpol. Ninety-five of those countries have
no law on child pornography at all. About 135 or 140 including
some of those that do have some law do not criminalize the
possession of child pornography. The good news is we reviewed
this law based on five categories of statute. The good news is
five countries including the United States have enacted laws in
each one of those five areas.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay.
Mr. Allen. And another 22 have enacted laws in all areas except
ISP reporting.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay.
Mr. Allen. But there is a lot of work that needs to be done
around the world as well.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Allen, I thank you very much.
Ms. Blackburn, did you have any questions for Mr. Allen?
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I do have a couple. I do not know if--and I apologize I have
got constituents that were in and I had to jump out--and I think
you have maybe answered these but let me just go back. In your
very opening statement, you said something about looking at how
much of the industry is in the U.S. and how much is offshore and
that was one of the questions that I had posed earlier to
Mr. Eichenwald.
Mr. Allen. Right.
Mrs. Blackburn. And the follow-up I have for you on that would
be, are you all doing the research so that we can begin to
quantify this and kind of get our arms around it?
Mr. Allen. We are trying, but it is very difficult to do because
there is no real database to measure. It is all sort of
estimated. The other thing that is clearly happening is, for
example, there was a case in January of 2005 in which the
business, the server, was Delarosa. The financial support for
the child pornography system was in the Caribbean, was offshore.
But the vast majority of the customers were Americans and the
vast majority of the victims, the child victims were Americans.
Mrs. Blackburn. You know, Mr. Allen, to me listening to all of
this testimony today, it seems that the business of the child
pornography which is just so sickening when you hear about this
that it is labeled in some ways to identity theft, the pirating,
the different types of theft or subversive type activity that
we see over the Internet and there seems to be some common
things that are developing and running through these businesses.
Mr. Allen. Well Congresswoman, we have heard from a number of
experts that there are five basic factors in play for the
reason why this has become not just an insidious crime but big
business. One is that children are plentiful and easily
accessed. Secondly that the production of the material has
become very inexpensive. You do not need massive studios
anymore. Thirdly, that there is enormous consumer market for
the content. Fourth, therefore it is incredibly lucrative,
incredibly profitable. And five, at least comparatively there
is virtually no risk, particularly compared to drugs and guns
and tobacco and other kinds of commodities. So what our focus
has been strategically working with law enforcement agencies
around the world is we have got to dramatically increase the
risk and we have got to dramatically reduce the profitability.
Mrs. Blackburn. Because at this time it is the lowest risk,
highest profit area of the what we would call subversive or--
Mr. Allen. Right. And that is why I wanted to add one other
thought to the Chairman�s question earlier about is the goal of
eradicating commercial child pornography by 2008 realistic.
Well our basic premise is if you can eliminate the use of the
credit card, we can take the credit card out of this process.
If you can eliminate the use of the third party payment
mechanism and we are working with the Egold�s and PayPal�s and
those kind of companies, it is going to become more and more
difficult to sustain the enterprise. The payment mechanism is
going to have become a lot more sophisticated and farther
reaching. Kurt talked this morning about the six steps removed.
We just have to make it ten steps and then 14 steps. If you
have to pay cash, access to a child pornography website, the
profitability compared to the investment drops dramatically.
And I think at that point, these are entrepreneurs. These are
organized criminals. They are going to look for some other way
to make money.
Mrs. Blackburn. Well I thank you. I thank you very much for
your patience with us today. I thank you for the work that you
all are doing and I thank you for being accessible to us and
allowing us to have some time to visit with you on the issue.
Mr. Allen. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Blackburn. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mrs. Blackburn.
And Mr. Allen, thank you so much for being with us today. We
look forward to continuing working with you on this issue and
thank you for the great job that you do at the center.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. I would call the fifth panel of witnesses,
please. We have Ms. Parry Aftab who is the Executive Director
of WiredSafety from Irvington-on-Hudson, New York. We have
Shannon Sullivan who is a Teen Angel with WiredSafety from
Irvington-on-Hudson, New York. We have Ms. Teri Schroeder who
is President and Program Director of i-SAFE America from Carlsbad,
California. And then we have Moni Sallam who is a mentor at
i-SAFE America from Carlsbad, California. I want to welcome all
of you today. We genuinely appreciate your patience. We
similarly look forward to your testimony because we know that
you are doing some great work to assist our young people and
others as we try to eradicate this problem. And as you know,
this is an oversight investigation hearing and we normally do
take testimony, in fact, we always take testimony under oath.
Do any of you have any difficulty in testifying under oath
today? And do any of you have legal counsel with you today?
[Witnesses sworn]
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. You are now sworn in and Ms. Aftab,
we will ask you to give your opening statement first so you
are recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF PARRY AFTAB, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WIREDSAFETY; TERI L.
SCHROEDER, PRESIDENT/PROGRAM DIRECTOR, I-SAFE AMERICA; SHANNON SULLIVAN,
TEEN ANGEL, WIREDSAFETY; AND MONI SALLAM, I-MENTOR, I-SAFE AMERICA
Ms. Aftab. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Parry Aftab. I am an Internet privacy and security
lawyer or at least I used to be. A number of years ago, I used
to represent corporations in cyberspace protecting them until
one day someone sent me an email telling me shut down the
website, to put the people in jail.
I know a great deal about child pornography and I testified
before this House.
Mr. Whitfield. Maybe you could just turn off the sound on your computer,
Teri, it might make it easier. Thank you.
Ms. Aftab. I have testified before the House of Commons and the House
of Lords, Parliament. I advised the Singapore Government. I do this
all over the world so I knew a lot about child pornography. But when I
went to this site, up came 150 names of images, just names. I clicked
on one of them and up came a picture of a little three and half year old
being raped. She had her eyes closed in the way that those of who are
parents remember our children. Mommy, you cannot see me, can you? And
we all pretend that our children are invisible. No, where did you go?
Oh, my goodness, you did, where you, you are gone, you are invisible.
And then giggle and we tickle our children and we laugh about it. This
little girl was being graphically raped and had her eyes closed hoping
that she too would be invisible. She was violated not only by the sexual
molestation but by the fact that they expected her to pose for the cameras.
I cried for an hour, I vomited for two, and I realized that
the reputation I had earned over the years as one of the first
Internet lawyers in the world could be used to do perhaps
greater good. The companies I represented I thought would
follow me and the law enforcement that I had advised would as
well. And we created the world�s largest Internet safety and
help group. It is called WiredSafety. We have 11,000
volunteers in 76 countries around the world. Not one of us is
paid a dime. We have no offices, we operate from our homes and
offices and cell phones. If you dial the telephone number on
our websites, my cell phone will ring. I sold my house, a very
expensive one in New Jersey, and emptied my bank accounts and
this is what we do.
It started out in the early days where we were dealing with a
child�s sexual exploitation. We also do a tremendous amount of
work in identity theft. We protect everybody of all ages in
cyberspace and on wireless devices and interactive cell phones
and gaming devices, on anything that can go wrong, from cyber
terrorism to ID theft to fraud but my heart is with the children.
For years, I looked for this little girl. I never found her but
instead we found many others. We have and this has never been a
public statement of ours before, we have been working very
closely with the National Crime Service in the UK for the last
7 years. Together, we infiltrated some of the leading sex
trafficking groups in the world and hundreds of people have gone
to jail because of our work. The person who did that with the
National Crime Service is another one of my unpaid volunteers.
I have been doing this for a long time. It is what I am
supposed to be doing.
A number of years ago, I met a young woman. Her name was Kitty
Tarbucks. Kitty was 13 from Connecticut when she met someone
online she thought was Mark. She thought he was 23. She was
a little bit heavy. She was a member of the swim team. She
was not as popular because she was brighter than a lot of the
other kids in the room. She met him online. She thought what
the heck, he was in California, she was in Connecticut, she
is never going to meet him in real life. So she chatted with
him and she talked on the phone with him and she shared
pictures with him and became friends. She talked about
politics. And he thought she was wonderful and pretty and
bright and smart. Six months into the relationship, she shared
that she was going to a swim meet in Dallas, Texas. He said,
you know what, I will come out and I will meet you. I will
fly out from California to your swim meet and he did. She
made arrangement with her roommate that she was going to
walk down the hall to meet him in real life. She really
wanted to and she will admit that to this day. She found what
room he was in and he was waiting for her. She walked down
the hall, pushed the button the elevator and went upstairs.
She knocked on the door and it was answered. Her first thought
was oh, my gosh, he was an adult. And he has got the ugliest
white shoes I have ever seen in my life. He opened the door,
she walked in and sat down on the sofa. He shut the door
behind her. He sat down and he said, you know, Kitty, it took
so long to get the luggage in the airport and she said yes.
And the food at this hotel is not very good is it? And she
said no. I love your watch, he said, and starting touching it.
And your hair is so beautiful and ran his fingers through it.
I have been thinking about doing this for a long time he said.
He reached out, kissed her, started to grope her, and began to
molest her. Luckily, her roommate had told her mom who was a
chaperone on the trip and her mom and the police and security
were at the door pounding until he opened. They whisked him
away and Kitty sat there in tears while she tried to reassemble
her clothing. The police came to her a few minutes later and
they said you talked to this man for 6 months? We talked to
him for 5 minutes, he is a 41-year-old investment banker and
his name is Frank Cusovich, not Mark. What are you thinking?
Years later she put him in jail for about two and a half years
under the Communications Decency Act, a section that was
actually maintained as constitutional, and she wrote a book
that was later renamed A Girl�s Life Online about her story.
But we do this all over the world. And I was working with a
young family in the UK and little Georgiana was 13 and she had
met Johnny who was 16 from about 200 miles away. And they were
talking on the phone. Her parents knew and he said he wanted to
meet her and she said great, my mom will bring me and he said no,
you bring your mom, I am not coming. So she said to her mom, I
do not know what to do, I have to lie to one of you, I am going
to lie to him. She said to her mom but when you drop me off,
pull the car up about a half a block. You will be able to see
me but I do not want him to know you are there and if everything
is okay, disappear, come back later, we are going to the movies.
She stood there alone in front of the movie theater when a
46-year-old approached. She wondered why Johnny had sent his
dad. He said, Georgie, I am Johnny. Her first thought was oh
my gosh, he is an adult and he has got the ugliest brown shoes
I have ever seen in my life.
Now I am a lawyer so I hear this, I talk to a lot of kid
victims. I immediately think about that I am from New Jersey.
We have this very ugly shoe store that sells only very ugly
shoes in New Jersey. And I said what you need to do is stake
out places like this because obviously the Internet sexual
predators wear ugly shoes. And the child psychologists who
donate their time with us and the forensic psychologist turned
and they said, describe my shoes, Parry. Okay, no, no, look
at me and describe my shoes. Well how can I describe your
shoes if I am looking you in the eye and they said exactly.
When our children fall in love with a person they meet online
who they think is now a perfect soul mate for them and they
meet them in real life and find out who they are, they all
become experts in men�s shoes. They walk through it. They
got through with the molestation. They do things they
ordinarily would not have done because they are embarrassed.
They just think they led him on because of something else.
Well if you went to Myspace about a month ago and you clicked
on safety tips, you would have learned all about us. For the
last year and a half we have been working on the inside with
Myspace and with Facebook, and with Febo, and all of the
others. We have done a great deal of work in cyber stalking,
cyber bullying, and sexual predators and we deal with these
issues and provide this information to these sites.
One of the problems we are finding on social networking is
that there are some benefits like we never thought there
were. It would have been much easier if I could find social
networking and say, you now, that it is terrible, let us shut
them down. But we are finding kids who are raising money for
charities and expressing themselves and writing music so a kid
from Connecticut or California can write the words to it. So
we now have to do the hard thing. We have to find a way of
making them safer, so we worked with Myspace in the west in
developing safety tips and links to my volunteers to help with
these issues.
Not too long ago, I was in L.A. having lunch with a girlfriend
and who walked in but Nick Lachey. If you do not have any
young kids at home, he is the one who is getting divorced from
Jessica Simpson. He is on the cover of Teen People and
everything else. So my girlfriend was there and she said look
that is Nick Lachey and I said I will be right back. And she
said, we are from California, we do not approach celebrities.
I said I am from New York, we do not admit they are celebrities.
And I walked up to his table, I handed him my card, and I said
Internet sexual predators Nick, are using your name to lure
kids. If they find out, the kids have posted something that
they are fan of Nick�s, the predator becomes a close personal
friend of his. I am a close personal friend of Nick Lachey�s
and if you send me a picture, I will get it to him. He really
likes that picture. Do you have a sexier one, something in a
bikini? Anything else? He turned white as a ghost. He said
would any money--I should have said yes, but we run a charity
that is all volunteers. I should have said, yes, but I said
no, just give me a public service announcement. Two weeks
later he had Googled me. He got Tom Patters who owns Polaroid
and everything else to write a $2 million check to create a
safer social networking site for teens called YFly. When kids
are bothered by people posing as a teen they can click report
the creep.
I then reached out trying to find spokespeople. I used to
represent a lot of them in the olden days and so many of them
now are getting arrested on drunk driving and everything else,
I was standing on a stage in Singapore and who popped through
a screen behind me but Spiderman. And as part of our exhibits
today, you will see the first of a series of Internet safety
comics written by Marvel for us using all 4,000 of their
characters that they donated to us on a worldwide license.
We do a lot of this work and it is going to take all of us.
There is far too much backbiting and knifing of MGAs in the
back. Unfortunately, there are enough children being hurt,
there is enough work to go around and each of us has our own
specialties. What I suggest we do is look at some of the
models that we have used around the word. UNESCO named me to
head up their efforts on these things for the United States.
And we do not have in this country a national task force that
is put together with the leading experts in the world on
Internet safety. Instead, I am on a home office task force
in the UK and I advise the EU. We need one here and that is
easy and that is cheap. You get good at doing that when you
run a non-profit that is unfunded.
In addition, there are lots of questions about the statistic
s. Ernie, who I respect incredibly well, cannot give you the
statistics on how many kids have been victimized in what way
because they do not exist. Because on a crime reporting form
there is no check, or no box you can check, saying that the
Internet was involved in some crime. That is an easy fix to
help us start tracking growth. We need to know that if we
are going to address it to see if we are making a difference.
We need to get a lot of players together and work together.
And one of the things I learned a number of years ago is if
we are going to reach the kids, we have to do it in their own
language in their own ways. So I founded a group that is
called Teenangels and it is part of our group. And they train
for a very long time. It usually takes about a year to train
a Teen Angel. They are trained by law enforcement, AOL, and
Disney, and Oracle, and everybody else I know and the FTC and
they learn what everybody needs to know about privacy policies,
predators, piracy, illegal inappropriate use, and responsible
technologies. And when they are done, they go out and create
their own programs and they are now advising all of those
companies. They have got a new cell phone that Disney launches
tomorrow that is a little safer because parents can control who
can text message or call their kids. And that came out of some
of the thinking of the Teenangels. And Disney and AOL and the
CTIA when you look at the Telecommunications Act that you are
reviewing, the CTIA has turned to my Teenangels and to us for
advise on how they can use our skills and things we know to make
things safer.
So I would like to thank you so much for giving us the time
today. And I would like to introduce one of my very special
Teenangels who in addition to Nick Lachey and with Teen People
that is out on the stands right now was selected by Teen People
as one of the top 20 mover and shaker teens in the country.
Shannon is 14 and here to talk about her experiences as a Teen
Angel.
[The prepared statement of Parry Aftab follows:]
Prepared Statement of Parry Aftab, Executive Director, WiredSafety
SUMMARY
Our children are online. They do their homework, entertain themselves,
communicate with each other and us, research things, buy and compare
prices online. They need the Internet for their education, their
careers and for their future. Of all the risks our children face
online, only one is certain. If we deny our children access to these
technologies, we have guarantees that they are hurt. All other risks
are avoidable through a combination of awareness, supervision and
parental control and other technologies. More and more children being
lured and stalked by online predators who gather information about
them from chatrooms, instant messaging, e-mails, websites and the
like and use this information to become close to them.
With our children walking around with Internet access in their
backpacks and pocketbooks, we can no longer rely on parents watching
whatever they do from a central location computer. Our children need
to learn to use the "filter between their ears" and "ThinkB4TheyClick."
This requires that we get them involved in framing solutions and
educating each other. It also requires that we find new ways of
building good cyber-citizenship and helping the kids and parents spot
risks in new technologies and protect themselves online.
But we also need to recognize that in most cases our children are
putting themselves in harm�s way. They are intentionally sharing risky
information online in profiles, blogs and on websites. They post their
cell numbers on their public away messages when using IM technologies.
And even when they are careful about protecting their own privacy,
their close friends may expose personal information about them by
posting photos and information on their profiles. They are also, in
greater and greater numbers meeting people offline that they met online.
Family PC Magazine reported that 24% of the teen girls they polled and
16% of the teen boys they polled admitted to meeting Internet strangers
in real life. Our children go willingly to offline meetings with these
people. They may think they are meeting a cute fourteen year old boy,
but find that they are meeting a 47- year old child molester instead.
This has to stop.
Smart kids are sharing sexual images online with people they don�t
know, or e-mailing them to others they have a crush on and hope to
entice. And with the newer video-chats and technologies, the predators
have moved to luring our kids into posing and engaging in sexually
explicit activities.
Yet, the actual statistics are lacking. Everything we know is largely
anecdotal. In 1999, the FBI�s Innocent Images (charged with
investigating crimes against children online) opened 1500 new cases of
suspects who were attempting to lure a child into an offline meeting
for the purposes of sex. Based upon my estimates, about the same
number of cases were opened by state and local law enforcement agencies
that year. The same year, approximately 25 million minors used the
Internet in the U.S., Now, with more than 75 million young Internet
users in the U.S. we don�t know if the number of instances have
increased, decreased or remain flat, given the growth. The crime
reporting forms don�t collect information about the use of the Internet
is child sexual exploitation crimes, or any other crimes. That has to
change.
We also need to recognize the real risks and what is hype.
Notwithstanding media reports to the contrary, to my knowledge, law
enforcement is not aware of anyone who is using the information
children provide online to seek them out offline, by hiding behind a
bush or grabbing them on their way home from school. They currently
agree to meetings (even if they don�t admit it to the police when
things go wrong.) But it�s only a matter of time before this happens,
since universal access to the Internet means that even violent
sexual offenders who are online can use it for their own horrible
purposes.
OPENING STATEMENT
Thank you for inviting me to testify here today about ways we can
keep our young people safer online. This is a very important topic
and one to which I have devoted my life over the last ten years. My
name is Parry Aftab. I am an Internet privacy and security lawyer
and run the world�s largest Internet safety and help group,
WiredSafety.org. We are an all-volunteer group and a charity formed in
the United States. We have approximately 11,000 volunteer from 76
countries around the world, all devoted to helping create a safer
interactive technology experience for users of all ages.
SNAPSHOT OF U.S. MINORS ONLINE AND HOW PREDATORS REACH THEM
It is estimated that approximately 75 million minors in the Unites
States access the Internet either from home, schools, community
centers and libraries or from some newer Internet-capable device.
This is up more than ten-fold since 1996, when only 6 million U.S.
minors were online. Now our children are using cell phones with
Internet and text-capability, interactive gaming devices (such as
X-Box Live and Sony Playstation Network) with voice over Internet
and live chat features, handheld devices with Bluetooth and other
remote-communication technology (such as PSP gaming devices and
mobile phones) and social networking profiles (such as MySpace,
Facebook, Bebo, YFly and others) where they can advertise their
favorite things, where they live and pictures of themselves and
their friends to anyone who wants to see them.
Ten years ago, when I first wrote my safety tips telling parents
to put the computer in a central location, that made sense. It was
a central point, where parents could get involved and supervise
their children�s interactive communications and surfing activities.
Now, where they take their communication technologies with them in
their pockets, backpacks, and purses, it is not longer as relevant
as it once was. Now, instead of expecting parents to watch everything
their children are doing online from the comfort of their familyrooms,
or kitchen counter, we have to do more. Now, we have to teach our
children to use the "filter between their ears" and exercise good
judgment and care when using any interactive device. While teaching
parents how to supervise their children online was a challenge (I have
written the leading books, worldwide, for parents on Internet safety),
teaching children to "ThinkB4uClick" is much harder.
When I was growing up (in the days before electricity and indoor
plumbing, when we had to walk up hill, both ways!, in blizzards to get
to school ), parents used to blame us for not behaving. We were
disciplinary problems. Now pediatric neuro-psychologists tell us that
preteens and young teens are hardwired, through immature brain
development, to be unable to control their impulses at this age. Either
way, we recognize that preteens and teens take risks, don�t appreciate
the consequences of their actions and act before they think. When their
audience was their school friends, family and neighbors, the risks were
containable. When they act out where 700 million Internet users can see,
it takes on a much deeper significance.
Putting Their Heads into the Lion�s Mouth
Now, I will share something very controversial. While educators and
child psychologists understand this, most parents will be shocked at
the suggestion that their preteens and teens are in control of their
safety online and putting themselves at risk, often intentionally. But
unless we accept this, and direct our attentions at solutions aimed at
this reality, we are all wasting our time. We will focus on the much
smaller segments of preteens and teens who are being victimized through
not fault of their own - those who are targeted at random. All others
need to change their online behaviors. And that�s where we need to
devote all our attentions.
For this to happen, you need to understand the truth. For years we have
told parents and minors not to share too much personal information
online. "You can be tracked down in real life," we told them. But,
notwithstanding anything to the contrary reported in the media and by
some local law enforcement officers, to my knowledge, to this date, no
preteen or teen has been sexually-exploited by someone who tracked them
down from information they posted online. In each and every case, to my
knowledge, to teens and preteens have gone willingly to meet their
molester. They may have thought they were meeting someone other than the
46 year old who is posing as a teen, but they knew they didn�t know this
person in real life. They are willingly agreeing to meet strangers
offline.
What does this mean? It means we can do something about this. It means
we can educate teens and preteens about the realities of meeting people
in real life they only know in cyberspace. It means we can create
solutions. It means that this is, at least for the time being, 100%
preventable. It means that what we do today will have an immediate impact
on the safety of our youth. It means we have to join together and work
on things that are effective and abandon those that are not.
But we have to act quickly. When I testified before the U.S. House Of
Representatives, Committee On Commerce, Subcommittee On
Telecommunications, Trade, And Consumer Protection on October 11, 2000,
I cautioned:
Law enforcement is not aware of anyone who is using the information
children provide online to seek them out offline, by hiding behind a
bush or grabbing them on their way home from school. But it�s only a
matter of time before this happens, since universal access to the Internet
means that even violent sexual offenders who are online can use it for
their own horrible purposes. (See Testimony of Parry Aftab, Esq. U.S.
House Of Representatives, Committee On Commerce, Subcommittee On
Telecommunications, Trade, And Consumer Protection on October 11,
2000.)
Luckily, while our young people are sharing much more information online
than ever before, to my knowledge, predators aren�t using it to hunt
down our children offline. They are like vampires. They need to be
invited in. Sadly, our teens and preteens are too often doing just that.
They are inviting them to offline meetings, phone calls and videochats.
But, as an expert in cyberrisk management, I can tell you that this is
good news. Because we have a single point of risk - our children,
preteens and teens. If we stop their risky and unsafe behaviors, and
teach them when to reach out for help, we can manage this risk. We can
keep our children safe.
Our children are mainly at risk because of their own actions. Some
are intentional. Others are inadvertent. They may willingly engage in
communications with people they don�t know in real life "RL," agree
to meet them offline or send them sexually-provocative images or
perform sex acts on webcams they share with people they encounter
online. They cyberbully each other by advertising their victims for
sexual services, posting real or manufactured sexually explicit
images of them online or by passing online rumors able their sexual
preferences or activities.
Preteens and Teens at Risk: Most of the high risk preteens and teens
fall into three categories: those who are naive and looking for love
and affection (typically the "loners" and "shy" preteens and teens),
those who already engage in other high risks activities, such as drug
and alcohol abuse, driving too fast or doing risky things for the
thrill of it (often the student leaders, athletes, cheerleaders and
very competitive teens, the risks takers and thrill seekers looking
to let off steam or impress their peers) and those who don�t realize
that what they do online is real, the ones who are looking to appear
older, cooler, more fun and more popular (most of the teens and
especially preteens fall into this category at least once). Sadly,
most of our preteens and teens fit one of these categories. Sadder
still is the fact that in recent years we have learned that most
preteens and teens are potential victims.
Naive, loners and socially-shy preteens and teens: Some believe
that they are communicating with a cute 14 year old boy, who they
later discover isn�t cute, isn�t fourteen and isn�t a boy. Most of
the reported cases fall into this category, and until the death of
Christina Long four years ago this May, experts all believed that
all victims fell into this category. They are conned, and easy to
spot online. Predators can seek them out, and find their
vulnerabilities. They are groomed with care, and often fall in love
with their molesters. Sadly, when the molestation finally occurs,
not only are their bodies broken, their hearts and trust are too.
They need to understand how the predators work online. Too often
they tell me that they can "tell" how old someone is online. They
can�t. No one can. Many predators spend years cultivating the right
tone and language to look like a fellow teen online.
These preteens and teens are sitting ducks. While they may have
learned not to fall for the "help me find my puppy" ploy offline,
they need to learn how that same ploy (appeal for assistance) works
online. They need to know how to spot the risks and the predators,
when online everyone can look like a cute 14 year old boy. They need
to learn that romance shouldn�t occur only in cyberspace, and that
parents can get involved to help them meet their soul-mate, assuming
they really are. So, if they aren�t, and turn out to be a 46 year old
child molester, they can come home safely and help put that molester
behind bars where they deserve.
Risk-takers, Thrill-seeking preteens and teens: Some preteens and
teens (mainly teens) are looking for the thrills and challenge of
engaging in a relationship (or at least prolonged communication) with
an adult. They "play games" with the adult, and are intentionally extra
sexually-provocative. They think they are smart enough to do this
without getting hurt. They see this as a game, without realizing the
consequences of their actions. And crossing the sexual line isn�t as
frightening online as it would be in real life. The problem is that
the consequences are not as apparent, the realities not as immediate.
They take risks. And they think they can handle them. (They don�t often
understand the consequences, though.) They often willingly engage in
sexual communications with men they know are adults. That�s part of the
thrill. They are also often willing to engage in sexual activities with
the adult, but don�t realize what that can mean when things go very
wrong. We rarely hear about these kinds of victims, because they never
report it when things go wrong. They feel as though they "asked for it,"
or are to blame. When we hear of these cases, it�s because they are
killed or kidnapped. (Christina Long was in this category. She was the
first confirmed murder victim of an Internet sexual predator in the
U.S. and died four years ago this May.)
Friends are the answer here. If we can get friends too help watch out
for each other, it is less likely that they will meet adults in real
life, or if they do, got alone. Also, finding cool spokespeople, like
Nick Lachey, to explain that it isn�t cool to be stupid and campaigns
such as our "Don�t Be Stupid" help. So do real life stories from
victims themselves about how they got caught and advice from the
trenches. Kateisplace.org has sections specifically directed at this
type of victim. And Teen People is an important partner of ours in
spreading the word.
Not really a drunken slut, just playing one online: We�ve all been
reading about this new trend in the news (often with me as the expert).
Good, respectful, otherwise well-mannered preteens and teens acting
out in cyberspace. In profiles, blogs, on social networking sites
and their away messages on IM, on their websites and interactive
gaming bios, they act out. They pose in their bras, or worse. They
simulate sexual activities (and in some cases post images of actual
sexual activities). They pretend to be someone or something other
than what they really are. And this alter-ego may be a sexually
promiscuous teen "up for anything."
They don�t think it is cool to tell others they were home coloring
with their five year old niece last weekend. Instead they claim to
have snuck out after everyone was asleep to get drunk at a wild
party. To them it isn�t real. They lie. They pose. They do thing
online they would never dream of doing in RL. They aren�t really
drunken sluts - they are just playing one online. (Shannon, one of
our award-winning Teenangels, will share insight into why teens and
preteens are doing this, during her testimony today.)
The Anatomy of a Cyberpredator:
There have been many cases recently where pedophiles and other adults
have lured children into offline meetings and molested them. Luckily,
there are even more cases when such attempts to lure a child have
brought about the attention of law-enforcement groups. I debated
whether I should discuss any of these cases, because I did not want to
sensationalize them. But if explaining the methods used by offenders
might make parents more aware, and their children safer, it�s worth it.
Cyberpredators, just like their offline counterparts, usually aren�t
the scary, hairy monsters in trench coats we imagine standing on a
dark street corner. Many are the kind of person you would be inviting
to your home as a guest, and often have. They are pediatricians,
teachers, lawyers, clergy, vice cops, welfare workers, journalists,
Boy Scout leaders, baseball coaches, scientists, etc. They are almost
always men. (Sometimes women are accomplices, but rarely are women
the molesters.) They are often articulate and well-educated. They
come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, and they can be very rich or
out of work. But they have one thing in common: they want your
child.
Most of us are sickened at the thought of an adult having sexual
relations with a child, but to be able to protect our children, we
must get into the mind of the predator. First of all, predators
often don�t see themselves as predators. They see themselves as
loving partners with the children they molest. To them this isn�t
rape, it�s a seduction. And, as with any seduction, it�s a slow and
painstaking process. (Predators have been known to wait more than
two years, collecting data on a particular child, before striking.)
That�s what makes them hard to detect. They don�t appear to your
child to be dangerous.
An FBI agent who shared a panel with me recently said it best:
"Before the Internet, these people had to get physically close to
your children. They had to lurk near schoolyards, or playgrounds.
Kids would see them. Adults would see them. It was a dangerous
situation to be in for them, because everyone would notice an adult
male lurking around children. They often had to take jobs and
volunteer positions that allowed them to work with children in a
position of trust in order to reach their victims. Now, however, the
personal risks the pedophiles had to expose themselves to in order to
be around children are gone. Now they can be �one of the kids� and hang
out with your kids online without exposing themselves. As long as they
don�t say or do something in the public room that makes them stand out,
they can stay there forever, taking notes.
And, many of them do. They have been known to create large databases on
children. They track the children�s likes and dislikes. They track
information such as whose parents are divorced, who doesn�t like their
father�s new girlfriend or their mother�s boyfriend, or who likes
computer games or a particular rock group. Kids often share personal
information about their lives in chatrooms or on profiles. This is one
reason why they shouldn�t. The more the predator knows about your child,
the more easily they can "groom" them or appear to be their soulmate.
Some cyberpredators (known as "travelers" to law enforcement) seek out
the good kids, the smart ones, the ones who are not street-smart and are
from sheltered suburban or rural families. Many of our children match
that profile perfectly. Others, however, target (or are targeted by)
popular, super achiever, risk preferring teens. It took the death of a
young teen from Connecticut, Christina Long, before we realized that
many of the incidents involved teens who did not fit the loner profile.
What we learned was that these kids never report any attacks or
exploitation. The only time we hear of these cases is when the teen is
kidnapped or killed.
So who is a typical victim of an Internet sexual predator? Anyone
between 11-1/2 and 15. All are vulnerable.
It Doesn�t Take Torture for Them to Spill Their Guts
Here�s a mock chatroom discussion that my law-enforcement friends and I
agree is pretty realistic. Imagine a predatorial pedophile sitting and
taking notes on this child, and using this information to lure them
later. Would your child fall for this? Most, unfortunately, would.
This one is more typical of a boy victim and predator communication
than a girl victim communication.
Child: I hate my mom! I know it�s her fault that my parents are getting
divorced.
Predator: I know. My parents are getting divorced, too.
Child: We never have any money anymore, either. Every time I need
something, she says the same thing: "We can�t afford it." When my
parents were together, I could buy things. Now I can�t.
Predator: Me too. I hate that!
Child: I waited for six months for the new computer game to come out. My
mom promised to buy it for me when it came out. She promised! Now it�s
out. Can I buy it? Nope. "We don�t have enough money!" I hate my mom!
Predator: Oh! I�m so sorry! I got it! I have this really kewl uncle
who buys me things all the time. He�s really rich.
Child: You�re sooooo lucky. I wish I had a rich and kewl uncle.
Predator: Hey! I got an idea! I�ll ask my uncle if he�ll buy you one
too....I told you he�s really kewl. I bet he�d say yes.
Child: Really!? Thanks!!
Predator: BRB [cybertalk for "be right back"]... I�ll go and call
him.
� � �
Predator: Guess what? He said okay. He�s gonna buy you the game!
Child: Wow, really? Thanks. I can�t believe it!!!
Predator: Where do you live?
Child: I live in NJ. What about you?
Predator: I live in New York. So does my uncle. New Jersey isn�t
far.
Child: Great!
Predator: Is there a mall near you? We can meet there.
Child: Okay. I live near the GSP Mall.
Predator: I�ve heard of that. No prob. What about Saturday?
Child: Kewl.
Predator: We can go to McDonald�s too if you want. We�ll meet you
there at noon.
Child: Okay. Where?
Predator: In front of the computer game store. Oh! My uncle�s name is
George. He�s really kewl.
Child: Great... thanks, I really appreciate it. You�re so lucky to
have a rich and kewl uncle.
Saturday arrives, and the child goes to the mall and meets an adult
outside the computer game store. He identifies himself as "Uncle George"
and explains that his nephew is already at the McDonald�s waiting for
them. The child is uncomfortable, but the uncle walks into the store
and buys the $100 game. He comes out and hands it to the child, who is
immediately neutralized and delighted. Stranger-danger warnings are not
applicable. This isn�t a stranger--he�s "Uncle George,"and if any
proof was needed, the computer game is it. He gets into Uncle George�s
car without hesitation to meet his friend at McDonald�s. The rest is
reported on the 6 o�clock news.
It�s disgusting. It makes us sick to our stomachs, but it happens. Not
very often, but often enough that you need to be forewarned. (Several
thousand cyberpredator cases are opened each year by law enforcement
agents in the United States.) But no matter how often it happens,
even once is too often. Knowing how they operate and the tricks of
the trade will help us teach our child how to avoid being victimized.
Each case differs, but the predators tend to use the same general
tactics. Aside from the "bait and switch" scam discussed above, they
often attempt to seduce a child. They want the child to "want" them.
The Script--How They Operate Online
They begin by striking up a conversation with the child, trying to
create a relationship of trust and friendship. They often masquerade
as another child or teenager, typically of the opposite sex, unless
the child has indicated homosexual interests. (The child may or may
not know the "seducer�s" real age by the time they meet face-to-face.)
Phone calls usually start at this point. Sometimes gifts are sent to
the child as well, which may include a Polaroid camera and film. Once
they have broken down barriers of caution, they begin introducing
sexual topics gradually, often with the use of child pornography to
give the child the impression that other children are regularly
involved in sexual activities.
Then they begin to approach the child�s own sexuality and curiosity,
by asking questions and giving them "assignments," like wearing
special underwear, sending sexually suggestive photos of themselves
to the pedophile, or performing certain sexual acts. These assignments
eventually broaden to the exchange of sexually explicit photographs
(using the Polaroid, cell phone camera or digital camera) or videos of
the child. Finally, the pedophile attempts to arrange a face-to-face
meeting. (He may also have divulged his true age or an age closer to
his actual age at this point.)
Why It Works
All the lectures we have given our children from the time they are very
young about not talking to strangers aren�t applicable online, where
everyone is a stranger. A large part of the fun online is talking to
people you�ve never met. In addition, our children�s stranger-danger
defenses are not triggered when other kids are involved. The warnings
apply only to adult strangers, not to other children.
If any of us walked up to a child in a playground and tried to strike
up a conversation, they would ignore us and probably run away. But if
an unknown eleven-year-old came up to another eleven-year-old in the
same playground, they�d be playing in ten seconds flat! That�s how the
pedophiles get in under our kids� stranger-danger radar'they pretend
to be other kids. And children often believe what they read and hear.
They "know" things about the predator because they believe what he told
them. They also believe what they read about him in his "staged"
profile, which supports what he told them. So it�s not just true,
it�s confirmed.
There are many stages at which the pedophile can be thwarted by an
observant parent. In addition, children with healthy friendships and a
strong, open, and trusting relationship with their parents are less
likely to fall victim to pedophiles online. Pedophiles typically prey
on a child�s loneliness. They feed the child�s complaints about her home
life-creating an "us-versus-them" atmosphere. "Your mom is so mean to you!
I don�t know why she won�t let you _____." (Fill in the blank with
whatever we try and limit: makeup, malls, concerts, etc.)
This atmosphere does two things: It creates a distance between the
child and her parents, at the same time bringing the child into a
special secret alliance with the pedophile. (You should know that boys
are almost as often the victims of Internet sexual exploitation as girls
are, but they report it less frequently.)
I have followed many cases over the last few years. In my role as
WiredSafety executive director, I�ve also been responsible for reporting
several of these to law enforcement and for helping many families
through the pain of prosecution. Sometimes we just help the families
survive what the molestation has done to them. (The child isn�t the only
victim-entire families are torn apart in the aftermath of a molestation.)
Parents feel guilty for not having protected their child, siblings don�t
know how to treat their fellow sibling--the pain can continue for a
lifetime, and even more. And, in addition to being hurt physically, the
young victim�s heart is broken by the betrayal of trust.
Anatomy of a Real and Early Case
One case I reviewed many years ago involved a New Jersey teenager and
an Ohio adult predator. It was one of the earliest reported cases of
cyber-predatorial conduct, discovered in 1996. Luckily, the liaison
was discovered before the girl met the man face-to-face. But it had
gone on for a year and a half before being discovered by the girl�s
mother. As you read the details, think about what could have been done
to discover the situation earlier and how you can use these
precautions to protect your children.
Paul Brown, Jr., an Ohio resident, was forty-six years old. He was
also unemployed, weighed over four hundred pounds, and lived in a
basement. He had accounts with several ISPs. Mary (a hypothetical name
for the young girl involved) was twelve when her mother, a schoolteacher,
bought her a computer, reportedly because Mary was having problems
making friends. When she got online, Mary posted a message on an online
service, in the spring of 1995, looking for a pen pal. In her message
she described herself as a teenage girl. Paul Brown, Jr,. responded to
the message, using his real name (something they often do, surprisingly)
but identifying himself as a fifteen-year-old boy.
Brown and Mary maintained an e-mail and telephone relationship for
several months. As the relationship became more involved, they began
writing letters, and Mary sent Brown a photograph. He told her that he
was living at home with his mother and was hoping to find a girlfriend.
In early August, Brown asked Mary for a "favor." "If I sent you a roll
of film, could you get one of your friends to take pictures of you in
different outfits and maybe hairstyles? Makeup if you use any, and
different poses. Some sexy, if possible. Please. Baby for me. Thanx.
You�re the best. Love Ya."
Mary complied. For the next eight months, they continued to converse
and correspond, and Mary sent additional photos. Brown encouraged her
with juvenile antics, such as using stickers in his letters to her
saying things like "Getting better all the time!" In May 1996, Brown sent
Mary a special love note. "Saying I love you... seems to be an
understatement. At the age of 14 you have captured my heart and made it
sing... I love everything about you."
Shortly thereafter, Brown confessed to being in his twenties. He also
suggested that Mary videotape herself in sexually provocative poses. She
did. After Brown had reviewed her videotape, he returned it to her with
instructions to redo the tape and include views of her genitalia and
breasts. He later admitted to being divorced and in his thirties. He
reportedly also sent her small gifts from time to time.
A few months later, in response to Brown�s promise to pass copies of the
tape to four members of a rock band Mary admired, she sent additional
videotapes to Brown. (Brown told Mary that he knew the band members very
well.) Each tape sent to Brown was designated for a different member of
the band and contained sexually explicit conduct. Brown apparently had
also sent her his size 48 underwear. When her mother discovered the
underwear, the authorities were notified. Tracing Brown through phone
records, special agents of the FBI in Cleveland seized the videotapes
and photos of Mary and of more than ten other teenage girls from across
the country.
Mary was fourteen when this was all discovered. Brown pled guilty to
enticing a minor to produce sexually explicit photos and videos and was
sentenced to a little less than five years in prison (the maximum penalty
for a first offense). In a written statement to Brown following all of
this, Mary said, "I trusted you. I thought you were my friend."
There are several things that stand out in this case. One, interstate
phone calls were made by Mary. Parents should always be reviewing
long-distance bills for suspicious calls. Two, Mary was lonely. These
kinds of children are often the most vulnerable; a parent should be
involved in their online friendships, and monitor their online lives.
And, three, as hard as it is to know what our kids are doing when we�re
not around, especially if you are a single parent, a year and a half
is a long time for a relationship to be going on undiscovered. You should
spend time learning who your children�s friends are, online and off. But
Monday-morning quarterbacking is always easier than playing the game in
real time. We may look at the situation and say that could never happen
to one of our kids. However, there but for the grace of God go all of
us....
Knowing your child is lonely and has problems making friends is the first
sign that the child may fall prey to a pedophile or cyber- predator.
Predators can spot lonely children. They can also spot kids who are new
online and may not yet know all the rules. Most teens, when surveyed,
admit to having been propositioned online. But what may be obvious to a
cyberstreetsmart kid may not be so obvious to a child not yet familiar
with cyberspace. Pedophiles befriend these kids and patiently build trust
and a relationship--looking toward the day when they can meet face-to-face.
Encourage your children to make online friends, but learning about their
online friends is an important way to avoid these secret relationships.
Education is important in avoiding this danger, too. (Had Mary been
forewarned about how pedophiles operate online, she may have been more
attentive to how old Brown sounded on the phone, and been more aware of
his classic tactics.) So is control over incoming and outgoing
information when younger children are involved, using technology
blockers, monitors, and filters. These kinds of situations can be
avoided if you plan ahead, educate and communicate with your children,
and keep your eyes open.
Getting in Under Your Radar:
Even when parents are watching, bad things can happen.
I included the Paul Brown case in my first book, A Parents� Guide to
the Internet. (He was sentenced in 1997, when I wrote the book.) I
included it because it was a good example of how cyberpredators
typically operate, and suggested that if the mother had been a bit more
attentive, it might have been discovered earlier. I was right about how
cyberpredators operate. I was wrong about how being attentive might
have avoided the sexual exploitation. It takes more. It takes both an
attentive parent and a teenager who has been taught how these pedophiles
operate online.
In November 1998, I met a mother who did everything right. She was
attentive and inquisitive about her daughter�s online relationships. She
asked the right questions. She had a good relationship with her
daughter, and yet Charles Hatch, a child molester from Utah, got in
under everyone�s radar and sexually exploited her thirteen-year-old
daughter.
Jennifer (not her real name) was eleven and a half when she first met
"Charlie" online. She thought he was a few years older, and was
intrigued about befriending a slightly older teenage boy. Jennifer was
an honors student and had already been taking advanced college courses
while still in middle school. She lived in a loving and warm household
with her mother and father. She also had siblings and half siblings
from her father�s previous marriage. They were all close.
Jennifer�s mother, Sharry (also not her real name), talked to Jennifer
about her online friend, Charlie. She insisted on talking to Charlie
himself, by phone, once he and Jennifer had started calling each other.
He passed the phone call test, and Sharry was convinced that he really
was the teenage boy he professed to be. Either he had manipulated his
voice to sound younger or he had a younger person make the call.
Charlie even called and spoke to Jennifer�s brothers, talking about
when he would be their brother-in-law someday, after he and Jennifer
were married. He pleaded with Jennifer to come and visit him in Utah.
Sharry invited him to visit them instead. But Charlie always had a
reason he couldn�t come.
As things progressed, Sharry insisted on talking to Charlie�s mother.
He first avoided it by saying she was sick, later that her sickness had
become cancer, and that eventually she died from the cancer. The family
fell for this, hook, line, and sinker. Most caring families would.
Although the "relationship" progressed for almost two years, it remained
relatively tame. Charlie was romantic rather than predatorial, and he
sent her expensive gifts, including a Polaroid camera. (Remember the
Polaroid camera Paul Brown sent?)
Jennifer was inexperienced with boys and dating, and Charlie seemed to
know not to push her too fast. But about a year and a half after they met
online, Charlie sent her sexually explicit photos of himself from the
neck down. She became very uncomfortable and pulled back. But several
tragedies occurred around the same time, which made Jennifer easier
prey. Her father was hospitalized with a serious illness, and her
sixteen-year-old half brother died of a brain hemorrhage.
Charlie, like all good predators, knew when to strike. He told Jennifer
that she owed him sexually explicit photos of herself, since he had
sent those of himself. When she refused, he told her that she would be
left alone, since her family was dying or would die--and he threatened
to leave her. Reluctantly, after fighting against it as hard as she
could, she acquiesced and sent him sexually explicit photos of herself.
When Sharry was cleaning Jennifer�s room, she discovered a letter in
which Charlie had set forth the sexual poses he wanted Jennifer to
photograph. Sharry sent him a letter, confronting him. She said that
he didn�t sound like a teenager in the letter. She told him that if he
ever contacted her daughter again, she would inform the police. He
never replied, and Jennifer was not permitted to use the Internet for
months.
One day, just when Jennifer and Sharry thought that the whole episode
was past them, the phone rang. It was a detective from Utah, who
informed Sharry that Jennifer�s photos had been discovered in Hatch�s
day planner by a coworker. He wasn�t sixteen--he was thirty-six. He
was a former teacher who had been dismissed by the school after having
been accused by a student of sexual abuse. (The school hadn�t taken
any other action.) He was currently employed by the welfare office in
Utah, and was married with children and step-children.
Six months later, Charles Hatch was convicted of sexual exploitation in
a Utah federal court. He began his six-and-a-half year sentence in early
June 1999. As a condition of his plea, he will not be permitted to use
the Internet. This mother has become a dear friend of mine, after seeking
WiredSafety� help in getting through this. She was the first parent to
speak out publicly about her child being targeted by a sexual predator
online.
Unfortunately, the predators are willing to try many different ploys
until one finally works.
Using Celebrity�s Names
I was having lunch in Los Angeles with one of my girlfriends when Nick
Lachey walked into the restaurant. She pointed him out to me and I
immediately grabbed my business card and approached his table (to the
utter embarrassment of my friend). I introduced myself and told him I
needed his help. I explained that predators were using his name and the
name of other celebrities to lure kids into meetings and unsafe
activities. They find teens who post their favorite celebrities on
their profiles, websites or other online communications. Then they
create a profile claiming to be a close personal friend of that
celebrity. They offer to forward a pic of the teen to the celebrity,
and seek sexier and sexier pics as time goes on, ultimately ending
with an offer to introduce the teen to their favorite celebrity in
real life. Years ago, Justin Timberlake was the most popular of these
celebrity lures. Nick is now. He listened intently and turned white
when he realized people where using his name to hurt his young fans.
He offered his help.
When I left his table, he has agreed to do a public service announcement
to help teens understand that is anyone claims to be a close personal
friend of a celebrity, they aren�t. Or won�t be for long. I was very
excited, but not as excited as I was two weeks later when someone from
Nick�s office called asking me to help them create a safer teen-only
social networking site called YFly.com. I agreed and YFly.com became a
reality with the financial assistance of Tom Petters (and the Petters
Group), and the creativity and energy of its founders, Drew Levin and
Daniel Perkins. I joined the team to set up a safer network and create
the most advanced educational and awareness content online, just for
teen users. The young users can click on "Report the Creep" if they
suspect someone is an adult posing as a teen.
It�s a beginning. Finding safer technologies and services is part of
the solution. So is awareness using teenspeak.
Shannon, one of our Teenangels is 14 years old. She was selected by
Teen People as one of the twenty teens who will make a difference. She
has gone them one better...she is already making a difference. It is
with pride that I introduce Shannon Sullivan, one of my Teenangels.
Common Internet Sexual Predator Ploys...How it works online
WiredSafety has done a substantial amount of research on how predators
operate offline and online. Working with missing children organizations
internationally, Internet providers, law enforcement and victims and
their families, we have developed a substantial knowledge base about
how teens and preteens are lured into offline meetings and online
sexual exploitation. From the young victims of sexual predators and
online sexual exploitation, we have learned the typical [ploys and how
they unfold. By handling online one-to-one help for victims of
cybercrime and cyberabuse, we have learned what parents and teens need
and how to get them assistance quickly. WiredSafety has stood on the
front line against Internet criminals and abusers since 1995.
There are certain tactics that sexual predators use offline to prey on
children offline, whether they are strangers or someone known to the
child. Interestingly, these same ploys are often used online, by
Internet sexual predators, with some "virtual" modifications. Only a
few ploys, which are aided by the anonymity of cyberspace, are unique
to cyberpredators. Until our recent work, no one has pulled together a
list of common predator ploys used by offline sexual predators and
compared them with the ploys used by online sexual predators. Our
researchers are developing additional materials and studies to expand
what we have already learned.
This new research is crucial to keeping our teens and preteens safer.
Protecting young people from Internet sexual exploitation is much
easier if the young people are aware of the kinds of tricks and ploys
used by the predators. If they are alert to possible "ploys" they are
less likely to be caught off-guard.� Many of these ploys are used over
and over again by perpetrators and taught to others within their child
molester communities. They include: asking you child for assistance
(this is the help me find my puppy ploy, when used offline), the love
and affection, confidence and trust ploy (where the child is groomed
to fall in love with their online soul mate), the curiosity ploy, the
fear tactic, the games and fun, the fun and job offers and the modeling,
talent scout or beauty contest ploys.
"Don�t talk to strangers" is probably the most common warning parents
give their children in an attempt to prevent abduction or exploitation.
Unfortunately, these warnings don�t work in cyberspace, where one of
its greatest benefits (and the most fun for teens) is being able to
communicate with strangers. In addition, unlike the perception of a
"stranger" as the raincoat clad, dirty, bearded man who lurks on street
corners or in playground, Internet "strangers" quickly become Internet
"friends" and the stranger danger radar is no longer working. The kids,
tweens and teens are no longer treating them with care, and have let
them into their inner-circle. That�s where the real dangers begin. These
child molesters can get in under your and our children�s stranger danger
radar. Sometimes this happens because they believe their net
friend is another young person. And a "stranger" is never another young
person. Unlike the offline counterpart ploys, a 47 year old can easily
masquerade as a 13 year old online. Or someone can be three or four
different people at the same time online, engaging in conversations
with themselves in a public setting, allowing young by-standers to
think they are trustworthy, or famous or otherwise worth talking to.
Online our children are in the dark, literally.
With the number of young sexual predator victims growing, and the amount
of contact information young people are sharing online in blogs,
profiles and away messages putting them at greater risk, awareness and
prevention in these areas is crucial. Partnerships with Internet
service providers, media and entertainment companies and learning from
and sharing what we know with each other is what needs to be done. And,
it is worth the effort. Our children are entitled to sleep more safely
at night, and enjoy the wonders of the Internet...without fear of being
preyed upon or hurt.
Parents are the Beginning
From the time I published my first book for parents on Internet safety
in 1997 (A Parents Guide to the Internet) we have been educating parents
on how they can stay ahead (or at least on par :-)) with their children
and teens online. Our quick guide - Parenting Online, is available
online without charge and has been copied and distributed by hundreds
of groups and schools around the United States. It includes a
parent/child contract, a quick guide to parental control technologies
and our very popular "Common Sense to Cybersense." (A copy of this guide
is attached as part of the Parenting Online Guide.)
Now, many parents want something quick. They are happy that expert
groups such as WiredSafety.org understand all the issues and that they
can turn to us. But they are being pulled in so many directions just by
virtue of their parenthood, that they want "Just the Facts...Madam." Our
new programs, called Internet Safety 1-2-3 make it easy for parents to
spot the risks by age, and also by technology. Our new automated Family
Internet Safety Plan works using this new approach (patent pending) to
help parents understand what works for them and what things they need
to do to keep their family safer, given the technologies they use, the
ages of their children and their value system. (A quick example of the
kinds of things covered is attached as an Appendix 3 in our "Cheatsheet
on Risks by Age".)
Our children are worth it, and so is the Internet. Too often blamed for
everything from the Black Plague to the sinking of the Titanic, the
Internet is a wonderful tool for learning, communication and
entertainment. It levels the playing field between the haves and the
have-nots. All children look alike online. No one is classified by their
race, ethnic origin, religion, accent or physical ability. Online they
are all just children. And like it or not, the Internet is here to stay.
We�re all in this together. Let�s work together to make the Internet
fun, safe, private and educational for children. And let�s work together
to make sure that the children�s Internet industry, which has so much to
offer our children, flourishes!
For the children.
I remain willing to help, and provide input and expertise in any way this
Subcommittee can use my help and expertise.
I wish to thank the Subcommittee, its chairman and all its members for
inviting me to present this testimony on such an important subject.
Parry Aftab, Esq.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Ms. Aftab. And we want to hear from
Ms. Sullivan in just 1 minute but right now I want to recognize
Mrs. Schroeder for her 5 minute opening statement.
Ms. Schroeder. Thank you very much. I wanted to thank you, Chairman,
for inviting me here to testify today.
And what I would like to do is talk about what i-SAFE has been
doing for the past 6 years. We have been in Congressional
Appropriations for the past 6 years. We are in all 50 States and
we are in 15 countries. Predatory acts against our children are
the most heinous acts that we have ever seen. We have heard it
today from Justin and we have seen it time and time again with many,
many children. And we look at this in terms of, and we ask
ourselves how can this be, you know, in terms of families, we are
here to protect children.
Our Nation now is being faced with a new technological challenge
which is these kids know a lot more about technology than parents.
They know a lot more about technology than their teachers. This
is their world. In my day, when I would come home from school, I
would pick up the telephone and we would be talking to one another.
Today, what the kids do is they go home, they fire up their
laptops, and they get on the buddy list and that is their friends.
And we have heard testimony today in terms of how do you define a
friend, how somebody tries to make a friend online, and how that
is all done under the guise of anonymity.
If you would look at the screen that I have here on the Internet
landscape and as you see here, 90 percent of the kids and this is
an assessment that we did with over 200,000 students in the
schools and they have Internet access. If you look at the fact
that 25 percent of those kids and we really do believe that this
is a low number, they spend at least 5 hours a week online. If
you look at also too the way the Internet is is that the kids
like to be by themselves. We heard this with Justin in his room.
This is where he was comfortable in terms of he needed to talk
to people. And as you can see here with the statistics that
we have with them, the numbers are quite high when you start
looking at the fact of in fifth grade 40 percent. That is
small. In fifth grade, we are still chaperoning our kids but
yet they feel so comfortable on the Internet in terms of being
alone. Also here, if you look at the statistics that we have
and there is no right or wrong answer from these kids. I mean
they--we did pre, post, and delayed assessments, but 33 percent
of them said that they fee freer in cyberspace. And I actually
have had the opportunity to do site visits in these schools and
some of the questions that we asked them is why do you feel
freer in cyberspace. And it is just one of those that they feel
that they know these people. We heard from Justin and how he
was enticed and he did things that in real life you would think
that is something that nobody would ever do.
But also, too what we looked at was the fact that the students
and we went ahead and did a survey of 30,000 students with
30,000 parents and we asked them, do you tell your parents what
you are doing online? And what was interesting after this
survey was the fact that the kids said no but the parents said
yes. And actually this was published by the Justice Department
when we were through with it, and what we found out with the
conclusion of this that this is the digital divide. We went
ahead and asked the kids in terms of would your parents approve
of what you did on the Internet? Many of the kids said no and
the parents said that well of course I would, I trust my kids
in terms of what they do on the Internet. We look at the risky
online behavior of students. As kids grow older, they take
risks and that is inherent within them. That is how they learn
to be able to do things in terms of they take risks riding bikes,
they take risks in everything that they do in life and one would
hope as they grow and they become much more mature, that those
risks are much more calculated and they do not become risks but
more so it is one model of appropriate behavior.
We went ahead and in the school districts we asked the students
in terms of how many of them gave out personal information and
what we found out from these kids was the fact that many of them
said well I do not tell people my name. And one of the
activities in the classroom is the fact that they will have to
go and actually tell what is their screen name and they had
discussed is that identifiable information? How much of your
screen name does that say about you? And what we found out was
the fact if you look here, there is a very high percentage of
kids that what they do is they will put a screen name down and
then describe maybe their age, their location, what they like,
what they do.
We found out, too that after education, NIJ gave a $3 million
grant to an entity in Virginia to study us for 2 years. We were
selected on an efficacy study and we presented that study to
you in November. And what they told me when they presented it
was is that they saw that this is probably the fastest crime
prevention in terms of preventativeness that really made a
difference. And one of the questions I asked was why? Why did
they see that of all the crime prevention that they had ever
looked at before? And you know it was a real easy answer, which
is this is their world. This is their cyberspace. They know
all about it. And after the curriculum, what we found out here
was that 84 percent of the students they were a lot more careful
in terms of the information that they gave out. They also were
a lot more careful in terms of what they were sharing information
because now they are a lot more knowledgeable about I understand
now in terms of what that information can do and where it can go.
Also in actual property. Many of the students did not understand
what is that? Isn�t everything free out there? They did not
really grab the concept of this is actually stealing.
We look at the fact of meeting face to face and you can see here
many of the students there is not any student that you would
talk to that said yes, I do want to meet a pedophile online.
There is just, I mean, that is just not going to happen to them.
And we have talked to millions of kids. But the fact is while
they are looking at that saying that they are a lot more careful
in terms of being a willing participant. When they start
giving gifts, they start thinking this is not normal. One of
the activities in the fourth grade class was the fact that the
kids turn around and they have something and they are to give
it to their best friend. And if it contains a value, let us
just say $50, you do not want to give that away. Well then
why would you think that somebody that you do not know would
send you money in the mail?
Up here is a chart and it is a map of the United States. This
year, i-SAFE will have educated 1.8 million students. And those
are audited figures. Those are classroom instructions that we
get from the school. We have cooperative agreements with the
schools. And so as you can see here that, those are pretty
significant numbers in terms of the desktops, the numbers of kids
that we actually touch their lives every single day.
And one of the big things that we have found is is that the
peer-to-peer, you are hearing it, peer-to-peer from the kids and
I have with me one of our I Mentors and he is from the State of
Maryland. And what I wanted to actually show today and I have
here in terms of we use Kentucky as a model. Kentucky was one
of our original States that we actually implemented in and it
was a State that just took off with a vengeance, particularly
with those mentors. It was amazing to see what they did in
their State, in that particular State. When you look at the
model of Kentucky, we formed the partnership with the Department
of Education, with law enforcement, with the Attorney Generals,
with the parent organizations, with the school organizations.
We did 120 man professional developments in that State, 88 parent
programs. And as you can see in that State alone there are over
112,000 students that have received the curriculum.
Also looking in terms of the educators on a national perspective,
we have done almost 2,000 professional developments nationwide
and we do train the trainers so we form a strategic development,
a partnership with the Department of Education and it�s
institutionalized within their school day.
And you do not want to forget the parents because the fact is
that parents they are trying to catch up with what their kids
are doing. I was on the last two Dateline segments with Chris
Hansen on how to catch a predator. And the big one that was
just on television a few months ago, I addressed the issue of
parents. And it is not the fact that parents do not care, it
is just that many parents and including myself grew up in the
television age, so you cannot grab the concept of can that
computer really do that? Or, you know, if the computer is
upstairs in their bedroom, many parents today are thinking, I
am really glad that my son or daughter is at home, it is 10:30
at night, but the question is who are they up there with?
Mr. Whitfield. If you could summarize, Ms. Schroeder.
Ms. Schroeder. Yes. What we have looked at today is the fact
that kids are having two way communication. We did a project
with VeriSign and we gave kids their first digital ID and it
was called the i-STIK Project. Kentucky participated in that as
well. So they see what kids are doing with social networking,
they are in school, they are doing their homework online. And on
this particular project what we did there are the kids actually
had a digital ID, they went to a local area and right now what we
are working with is YAHOO. We had Myspace contact as well
regarding, because of the problem that they are having, Microsoft,
and looking at the fact of being able to give these kids their own
digital ID so it would authenticate them. So what happens is is
that you are in a green space where there is other kids.
What I would like to do is just show you brief video on the
mentor in Kentucky.
[Video]
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Teri L. Schroeder follows:]
Prepared Statement of Teri L. Schroeder, President/Program Director,
i-SAFE America, Inc.
Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Stupak for inviting me
to testify before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
at the hearing entitled "Sexual Exploitation of Children over the
Internet: What Parents, Kids and Congress Need to Know about Child
Predators."
Predatory acts against our children are among the most heinous of crimes
perpetrated within our society. Historically, communities as a collective
take deliberate and specific actions to protect their children in an
effort to prevent these heinous acts. These protective actions include:
education -- teaching children to be wary of strangers, to recognize and
avoid dangerous situations, to cry for help when they feel threatened.
Our nation is now faced with technological advancements that allow even
the youngest of children to have access to the Internet. Students today
explore the wonders of the world by transporting themselves through
cyberspace. They can travel to the brightest most intellectual domains
of the universe and conversely, they may travel to the darkest most
detestable realms of the human imagination; and they travel this world
alone. A universal paradigm shift has occurred in the methods and means
available to child predators in pursuit of their prey; and as such a
universal paradigm shift has occurred on the preventative tactics that we
employ in our efforts to protect our nation�s youth against these
predators.
The content of my testimony today will address the ramifications of
this universal shift as our nation�s youth explore the wonders of the
Internet. We truly are a global economy and as such our nation�s youth
are cyber citizens engaging in online activities. Those activities
include socialization (two way communication whether that be through
email, chat or instant messaging), games, shopping, entertainment and
education.
I will be addressing the role of education and youth empowerment and the
need to empower our nations youth with the appropriate tools to minimize
the number of predatory acts predicated against them. It is imperative
that a proactive well-balanced approach be deployed to support the
challenge of embracing the activities of our nation�s youth online.
i-SAFE America is dedicated to: 1) implementing a standardized Internet
safety education program throughout the nation that provides kids and
teens with essential tools to reduce the risk of their being victimized
while engaged in activities via the Internet; and 2) launching an Outreach
Campaign that empowers students to take control of their online
experiences and make educated, informed, and knowledgeable decisions as
they actively engage in cyber activities. From September 2005 through
March 2006 i-SAFE educated over 1.3 million students nationwide. That
number continues to increase monthly as the i-SAFE program is expanded
throughout school districts.
The i-SAFE Internet safety curriculum is a teaching and learning
experience, which incorporates best practices as they are defined by
the latest educational research, and correlates them to accepted
educational standards. This is accomplished by providing a broad range
of materials and formats which meet a variety of teaching and learning
needs for students and educators in grades Kindergarten through 12.
Topics are centered on up-to-date information pertinent to safety
issues, which confront today�s youth through continuing advances in
Internet technology.
The curriculum creates a successful learning environment through a
model of integrated critical thinking activities and guided
opportunities for youth empowerment. Active participation in i-SAFE
student activities promotes acquisition of knowledge, analysis of
online behaviors, construction of solutions to Internet safety
problems and issues, and involvement in the spread of Internet
safety concepts to others through peer-to-peer. Through this process,
students enhance and enrich their own lives, the lives of other
students, and the community at large as they engage in creating a
safer cyber community.
Our children now live in two diverse worlds: their physical world and
the world of cyberspace. As such, they essentially live in two cultures
that often conflict. Previously, many of the lessons learned in the
physical world don�t seem relevant in cyberspace as these children
reach out to strangers as friends. This paradigm shift demands new
innovative educational programs, and tools, for our children; their
parents and the community. It is essential that children, as they
travel their world of cyberspace alone, be provided with the knowledge
and tools they need to independently recognize and avoid dangerous
situations online; to actively engage learned proactive techniques to
more safely interact with strangers online; to critically appraise
situations in which they find themselves; and to react appropriately
when they find themselves in uncomfortable, compromising, or
threatening situations.
Students today will be global citizens for the rest of their lives.
Students view the Internet in a much different way than adults.
I would now like to address the "Parents Internet
Assumptions" and the "Youth Perceptions/Behavior regarding
the Internet." At the time of this report approximately
100,000 students had participated in the survey process;
students participating in our US program by grade level were:
15,000 K - 2 students
22,200 grades 3 & 4
62,800 grades 5 - 12
The i-SAFE assessment results show that in most cases there is
a noticeable difference in a student�s participation in risky
behavior from grade to grade. Older students are more likely to
take risks and/or feel safe in the Cyber world. This finding
reinforces the need to introduce and educate our youth in the
early grades. For example: When asked if they had visited an
"inappropriate" website; 15.5% of 5th graders said yes vs. 36%
for 10th graders.
Relative to gender; males are more prone to visit an
inappropriate place on the Internet than females (31.3% vs.
18.7%) and are likewise greater risk takers when asked if they
were willing to meet someone from the Internet "face to face"
(19.2% vs. 11.2%). Males were more likely to play games as
their primary online activity while females were more likely
to chat or use email.
Also, based on pre assessment results; it is evident that once a youth
enters cyberspace there are no significant differences in behavior
between ethnic groups. Therefore, the Internet has become the great
equalizer. 90.4% of students� in grades 5-12 and 84% of students� in
grades 3 & 4 have Internet access. And on an average 37% of all 3rd &
4th graders use some form of Internet communication; that figure rises
to the 80-90% level in the upper grades. Interestingly, about 45% of
students in grades 8-10 stated that online communications were their
main method in keeping in contact with friends. In addition students
in grades 5-12 stated that:
23% are online for more than 5 hours a week (86% are online at least
3 hour a week).
8% have been asked to keep their Internet friendship a secret.
12% have been upset by something that was said by a stranger they
met on the Internet.
32% have the skills needed to get past filtering software and 20%
have actually used those skills to get past filtering software.
Digital Divide Between Parents & Youth
There is a gap between what parents say they know and what
youth claim they share with their parents. In an i-SAFE
survey with over 2,000 parents, the vast majority (94%) of
parents stated they had a pretty good idea about their
child�s online behavior. In contrast, only 54% of the students
said they share where they go and what they do on the Internet
with parents. Our results also show that these differences
between parents and students generally increase with increasing
age.
EMBED Excel.Chart.8 Of the parents surveyed, 93% felt that they
had set ground rules for their child�s online activities. However,
the percentage of students acknowledging that their parents had
established rules for their Internet use drops to 63.7% (see chart
below).
EMBED Excel.Chart.8
In addition, 21% of the students stated that their parents
complained about the amount of time they spent on the Internet
but 29% also felt that their parents really had no idea how
much time they were actually spending online. 62% of the
parents polled indicated that they were NOT concerned about
the amount of time their child spends online. Interestingly,
on average, 25% of the students stated that their parents, on
some level, would disapprove of their online activities and
13.8% actually keep their Internet activities secret from
their friends and family. The gap between what youth believes
to be their parent�s level of awareness regarding their online
behavior and what parents have stated is significant and merits
continued attention.
At Risk Behaviors
There are other individual statistics that underscore the need
for constant Internet safety education. For example, the
Internet has become a focus for youth to find entertainment,
make new friends and make purchases. On an average 29% of
the students have shared such information when going online.
That figure goes up in the 50% in the higher grades.
EMBED Excel.Chart.8
Two other factors compound this issue. More than half of all
students prefer to be alone when accessing the Internet (see
graph below). Combine that desire with a student having their
own computer in their room (22% overall stated that the computer
they use is in their bedroom); and students feel empowered or
freer to do what they want on the Internet than they do in the
real world (33%).
EMBED Excel.Chart.8
It should be pointed out that even in the very early grades our
youth are being exposed to the cyber world. It is folly to
suggest, as some have stated, that "kids that are young are
not Internet savvy." The vast majority of K-2 teachers (54%)
stated that at least 50% of their students have used a computer
at home and 16% of the teachers indicated that at least 50% of
their students have used email. A significant number had also
gone into chat rooms. The age demographics of these students
consist of 5, 6, & 7 years olds.
28% of all students in grades 5-12 (43-52% in the upper grades)
have downloaded music or movies from the Internet. On an average,
65% were against any type of fee being charged for the service.
EMBED Excel.Chart.8
In real life Kids/Teens spend twice as much time with peers as with
parents or other adults. However, through the guise of anonymity the
Internet provides a medium which allows a student to believe that the
communication they are having online is a respective peer when in many
instances it is an adult. Even though students may be aware of the
dangers inherent in communicating with someone online, we continue
to see they make decisions about engaging in a behavior as if it
were a one-time thing.
Risk taking is a natural part of kids/teens lives. They take risks
in order to grow, trying new activities, generating new ideas,
experimenting with new roles. However, they can also find themselves
in trouble with their risk taking. Concern over such risk behaviors
have led to the creation of many types of intervention. Some of these
interventions have attempted to manipulate kids/teens beliefs, values
and behaviors hoping to get them to act more cautiously. Other
interventions have attempted to improve their stability to make
sensible decisions, hoping to get them to make wise choices on
their own. Having general decision-making skills enable kids/teens
to protect themselves in many situations.
Education Makes A Difference
The good news is that in-classroom education and outreach
efforts do make a difference. Students taking i-SAFE post
assessments, immediately after completion of the i-SAFE
curriculum, demonstrated a significant rise in their
Internet dispositions.
84% of students stated an intention to be more careful about where
they go and what they do on the Internet.
89% indicated that they would be more careful about the email
attachments that they open.
88% will be more careful about sharing personal information with
those they meet in chat rooms and other places on the Internet.
On an average, 80% of the students polled after completing
the i-SAFE program were going to be more careful about
downloading music from the Internet. However, older students
were more inclined to download and less concerned about
being careful.
EMBED Excel.Chart.8
An area that attracts quite a bit of attention is child
predation. Our pre assessment data shows that on an average
about 15% of the youth were willing to meet someone new from
the Internet "face to face". After the i-SAFE program 82%
of all students stated that they would be less likely to
meet someone face to face.
EMBED Excel.Chart.8
Though individual statistics can be interesting and in some
cases alarming, the real power of the data lies in the
overall trends that reveal the impact of emerging cultural
and social changes brought about by the Internet. The
increasing amount of time spent in the Cyber world, the
ability to remain "anonymous", the perceived lack of rules,
the ease of access; all contribute to a revolution in the way
our youth interact with each another, the way they make
friends, and the social skills they develop.
It is widely recognized and accepted that the main activity of
kids/teens, as cyber citizens, is online two-way communication.
That communication consists of chat, email and instant
messaging. The nucleus of the Internet affords the opportunity
of two-way communications and inherently the computer does not
know whether the users communicating are that of a child or an
adult. This means of communication allows users, regardless
of age, gender or socioeconomic status to openly and freely
exchange ideas and information. Our nation�s youth has now
coined a new term for "hanging out with my friends" and
actively searching for new friends is done through a click of
a mouse.
Kids/teens rarely "travel" with their parents or a chaperone
to many of the online areas. Buddy lists and instant
messaging has replaced the traditional "telephone and phone
book." Without education and the appropriate tools to raise
their awareness and to empower them to recognize the danger
of being alone in a room full of strangers, our nations youth
will continue to be at risk for exploitation.
Let me begin by addressing specific examples of how dramatically the
protective actions that have been employed historically have been
impacted by this technologically-enabled, Internet-driven, paradigm
shift.
Education: Parents teach children to be wary of strangers on the
street, in public places, and at the front door; but now, the strangers
that these children meet -- are not on the street--they are in
cyberspace. And, to the detriment of the parents, many of their
children are more "Net" savvy than either parent. This inequality of
knowledge hinders parents in their abilities to address cyber safety
issues and to properly instruct their children about the dangers of
meeting strangers online.
Historically, when parents taught their children to recognize and
avoid dangerous situations, those situations were based on tangible,
physical elements within their community. Now, danger lies in an
amorphous cyber-world cloaked in the allusion of anonymity.
Parental Supervision: Many of our children�s activities have
dramatically shifted from participatory activities (easily supervised
by a parent and often enjoyable to watch) to solitary activities -
engaged through the computer keyboard or joystick - that do not lend
themselves to easy supervision nor enjoyment by a non-participant
(such as a parent). Children may spend hours playing solitary games
online, or they may play in tandem with their cyber friends, or they
may even play with total strangers they connect with online in an
Internet gaming community.
The Internet has broadened a child�s ability to meet other people and
acquire "friends." Historically, children made friends at school,
through family acquaintances, and from participating in community
organizations. A child is no longer confined to the local community
from which to socialize and gain friends; literally, cyberspace
eliminates all geographical barriers and frees a child to roam the
world in search of that one, special "friend." Predators are also
free to roam.
The degree of difficulty for parents to monitor, or to simply meet,
their child�s friends has increased tremendously.
Preventative Tactics: A commonly employed tactic for protecting our
children is to provide an adult chaperone as our children explore
outside of their community. Now, children explore the wonders of
the world by transporting themselves through cyberspace and they
travel this world alone, without the care and protection of a
chaperone.
Physical Barriers. Historically, parents routinely lock their doors
at home each night to keep intruders out; schools monitor persons
who enter the campus. There are innumerable, vulnerable children
who are isolated, lonely, and bored who constantly search the
Internet for other children with whom they can make friends and
chat. As these children search the web for friends so too the
predator searches the web for prey. The predator will find the child,
the child will find a "friend," and the outcome will be devastating.
The effectiveness of currently employed physical barriers has been
severely compromised. Predators lure and seduce their victims from
within the privacy of the victim�s own home and operate in a world
that is no longer constrained by physical limitations or
geographical barriers. They stalk their prey through cyberspace and
the ramifications of this universal, paradigm shift are staggering.
When taken as a whole they can be overwhelming, perhaps paralyzing;
but - if ignored - the ramifications will be devastating to our youth.
To approach any entity of this magnitude and to effect change it is
advisable to search for a common element, theme; or component against
which a focused solution may be enjoined.
Up to this point in my testimony, I have provided insight into the
incredible paradigm shift that has occurred in our society and how
this new paradigm directly affects the safety of our children. To
illustrate the critical points, I mapped the ramifications of this
paradigm shift to a common element in cyberspace: two-way communication
(ie. chat room, instant messaging and email)
The remainder of my testimony will focus on potential solutions that
we as a society may embrace as our children extend into the farthest
reach of cyberspace; as they interact virtually with persons throughout
the world and as they evolve as "Net" citizens.
As Judith F. Krug, Director of the American Library Association�s
Office for Intellectual Freedom, stated in her testimony before the
COPPA Commission on August 3, 2000: "The children of today will be
Net citizens for the rest of their lives. They need to be taught the
skills to cope in the virtual world just as they are taught skills to
cope in the physical world. Children should be educated in appropriate
increments and appropriate settings on how to avoid inappropriate
Internet content, to report illegal or unsafe behavior and to engage
in safe interaction online. Children who are not taught these skills
are not only in danger as children in a virtual world, they also will
grow into young adults, college students and an American workforce
who are not capable of avoiding online fraud, Internet addictions and
online stalking."
It is imperative that any domain that engages in the attraction of
kids/teens recognize how children actually use the Internet. It is
equally important to promote the online social activities within the
domain to support the academic strategies that teach children to make
safe and wise choices about using the Internet and to take control
of their online experiences: where they go, what they see, to whom
they talk, and what they do.
Our nations youth need to be given the tools to assist them in the
acquisition of skills that will allow them to evaluate independently
the information they are acquiring and exchanging online. By
improving their "information and media literacy," they will become
safe and responsible cyber citizens thus vitiating the "digital
divide" that exists today between Youths Perception/Behavior
regarding the Internet and those of their Parents.
Currently, both businesses and governmental agencies have begun to
embrace digital certificate technology as an electronic means for
identifying participants in transactions that occur online. They
leverage this technology as a method for verifying and
authenticating a person�s electronic identity. The simplest way to
view a digital certificate is as an electronic ID card. However,
digital certificate technology is far from simple. Given that the
intent of this testimony is to identify and express how technology
can be used, rather than to define the intricacies of the technology,
I will refer to digital certificate technology in the simplest terms
possible for the reader to understand.
A certification authority issues digital certificates. A
certification authority can issue various levels of digital
certificates that are dependent upon the amount of authentication
that is required to ensure that the person who is applying for the
digital certificate is in fact the person that he or she claims to
be. In other words, to obtain a digital certificate a person must
present proof of identity and the "level" of the certificate
obtained depends upon the amount of proof required.
Example: Level 1 certificate - any photo ID
required
Level 2 certificate - government issued photo ID required
Level 3 certificate - government issued photo ID required plus
passport or birth certificate
Level 4 certificate - all requirements of Level 3 plus
a background check
Level 5 certificate - DNA
How could digital certificate technology increase the safety of
children who frequent a particular chat room or deploy two-way
communications on the World Wide Web?
A public- or private-sector chat room provider could engage digital
certificate technology as a means for permitting or denying access
to any given chat room or online area that allows two way communication.
Conceivably, a chat room provider could institute a policy that only
children under the age of 13 are allowed to participate in a particular
chat room. The intent of this policy is to provide a safer online
environment by making their "best effort" at excluding adults and
potential pedophiles from the chat room. To enforce the "under the age
of 13" policy, the chat provider would require all participants to
login using a Level 3 digital certificate. Through the use of the digital
certificate and the chat provider�s policy of restricting access, the
children participating in this chat room have a lessened degree of risk
than those children that participate in unrestricted chat rooms.
This technology exists and i-SAFE, through the empowerment of our
partnership with Verisign, has launched the first tool for our nation�s
youth, using digital certification. The unprecedented Digital
Credential program, "i-STIK" works to reduce the vulnerability of
America�s students in all grades, K-12, with a unique digital
credential that helps protect students as they engage in two way
communications online.
The Digital Credential is in the form of s small USB Token, which
can be carried on a key chain and used at school, home; or on any
computer with a USB port. The Digital Credential allows the kids
and teens to enter an age centered chat room, or conduct two way
communication, with confidence that everyone logged in will be who
they say they are -- chatters actual ages and genders can be confirmed
from the digital credential token. The digital credential helps to
safeguard the integrity of the child�s online experience.
The digital credential is distributed through the i-SAFE Safe School
Program at the time of enrollment (with parental consent) helping
confirm to parents that this program is offered through a trustworthy
source.
The schools database, which remains with the school, provides all the
necessary information contained on the digital credential and validation
is provided to assure that the token is valid at the time of usage.
Neither i-SAFE or Verisign has access to this information. The identity
of the student is never disclosed, just the students age and gender.
The program allows for easy revocation of the credential when the
student transfers, graduates or is not longer enrolled in the schools.
I am showing you screen shots of how this new tool will be deployed and
the interaction between the user and technology.
We currently use digital certificates to execute online financial
transactions. Businesses use this technology to protect their monetary
assets. In September of 2005 there was a deployment of a pilot project
that allowed parents to opt in to have their son/daughter be issued
their first digital certificated which is being deployed nationwide as
the " i-STIK.".
Protecting our children is at the very heart of this hearing. Thank you
Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Stupak for inviting me to testify
before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. In my testimony,
today, I addressed the paradigm shift that has occurred within our society
due the advancements in web technologies and the advent of two way
communications that could be deployed to facilitate the establishment of
an enjoyable environment for our nations youth. I have touched upon one
technological approach that i-SAFE is launching to empower our nations
youth with a "tool" to help protect our children from falling victim to
online predators.
In conclusion, there is no single solution for protecting our children.
However, the value of empowering our children - through "education" --
with the knowledge and critical-thinking skills that they need to be
able to independently assess the every-day situations they will
encounter, while online, cannot be overstressed. Children must be able
to effectively protect themselves from cyber predators, to recognize
potentially harmful or inappropriate actions, to actively disengage
from negative behaviors or compromising situations, and to seek help
when threatened. These lessons are learned. Education and empowerment
are key.
References:
NTIA and Economics and Statistics Administration. A Nation Online:
"How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet" published by
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Economics, and Statistics Administration
(02/02)
www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/html/anationonline2.htm
i-SAFE America student assessment data, 2005
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Ms. Schroeder, very much.
And Ms. Sullivan you are testifying also. Is that correct?
Ms. Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield. Well you are recognized for 5 minutes, Shannon
Sullivan who is a Teen Angel with WiredSafety.
Ms. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Shannon Sullivan. I am 14 and I live in New Jersey.
About a year and a half ago, my mom found me posting personal
information on a social networking site. My photos, address,
the school I attended was all up on myspace.com for 7 billion
people to see. I was oblivious at the time that it was not
just my friends looking at my page, it was anyone who wanted
to. So we got into contact with Parry and she came to my school
and she did a presentation on Teenangels and Internet safety and
immediately my friends and I wanted to help. We realized that
what we were doing was unsafe and was not going to help us in
the long run. So we wanted to reach out and prevent other kids
from doing what we did.
So we went through a long training session. It takes about a
year to become a Teen Angel and we are now Teenangels. We
graduated after we became Teenangels. And now we go out to our
high school and we form other chapters of the Teen Angel Program.
And our main goal is to spread Teenangels to as many places as we
can because the more people we have protecting kids, teens, and
teaching parents and adults about the dangers of Internet, the
safer the Internet will be. The Internet is everything nowadays.
It is like your car. You know, you can go anyplace you want on
the Internet and when it is used improperly, it can be a very
scary place.
So I saw that there was a big problem with Myspace.com so my
friends and I wrote a guide, a Teenangels guide to Myspace and
it is all in chat lingo. You probably did not understand it,
but it helped a lot of kids because it is a lot easier for
teens to understand what you are saying when a teen is saying
it to you. You know you do not want to listen to your parents,
you know, oh, do not go with that, do not go on the Internet
after 10:00. But if your friend is telling you how to be safe
on the Internet, you will listen a lot more.
I really wanted to become a Teen Angel because I thought it was
very important for me to reach out to those teens who are
oblivious as I once was. A lot of teens I see are posting very
explicit pictures of themselves on the Internet and they do not
realize how that can hurt them when they make goals or when they
apply for college. Something they did when they were 12 can come
back and bite them. And it is very scary so if we reach out to
them now, then things will be different in the future.
It is amazing how much Teenangels has impacted my life and other
people�s lives. As Parry said, I was nominated and honored by
Teen People as one of the top 20 teens who change the world. And
when I met the other teens who had changed the world, it was an
amazing experience because I realized that things I do just to
help one person be safer on the Internet can help a lot more
people.
YFly is a safe social networking site. I do have a Yfly. It is
basically like any other social networking site except it is only
for 13 through 18-year-olds. It is a step closer to preventing
kids from getting in trouble on the Internet. As Teenangels, we
work with many corporations such as AOL, Disney, Marvel Comics,
Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google, and we help them make the Internet and
other interactive games and cell phones, make them safer.
We are all unpaid volunteers and we do this from the bottom of
our heart. We want to help other teens. We are not just teens who
want to make a difference, we are teens who make a difference.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Shannon Sullivan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shannon Sullivan, Teen Angel, WiredSafety
Opening Statement:
Thank you for inviting me here today to share information about
Teenangels, WiredSafety.org and how we can protect everyone online.
My name is Shannon Sullivan, and I am 14 years old from New Jersey. I
have been a Teenangel for one year. I became one after my mother found
out I had a MySpace.
I have recently been honored by Teen People Magazine as a
representative of Teenangels for our role in helping change the world.
That is a big challenge. But it is one that teens can live up to.
Teenangels are more than teens who learn how to use the Internet and
other interactive technologies more safely. They are experts who
advise many leading corporations. They have become well-known for
their special insight into technology from a teen�s perspective.
Teenangels now advise major corporations on Internet and technology
uses, including Disney, the CTIA, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo!, Marvel and
others. They assist law enforcement agencies in designing more
effective undercover investigation methods. They work with large
industry groups, such as the Motion Picture Association of America,
in building educational programs and public service messages.
They have helped create safer interactive gaming technologies, safer
cell phone features and more secure social networking programs. They
have hosted briefings at the House of Parliament, conducted training
for law enforcement agencies and written articles for leading
magazines. They do presentations within their community for parents,
students and senior citizens on safe use of the Internet and new
interactive technologies. They spend a great deal of time on Internet
sexual predators issues, anti-piracy and cyberbullying. We teach
good cybercitizenship and responsible technology use, not only safety
and privacy.
Teenangels are 13-18 year olds who train in all aspects of Internet
and interactive technology safety, security and responsible use.
(Tweenangels is the younger and lighter version of Teenangels, comprised
of 9 to 12 year olds.) Once we are trained by Parry Aftab, leading
law enforcement agencies and industry leaders around the world, these
special teen experts create their own programs to teach safe and
responsible technology use.
Some Teenangels are technological experts, creating animations,
Flash applications, videos and computer games that help deliver
their messages. Others concentrate on law and policy. Many have
good public speaking, research or writing skills. The best thing
about Teenangels is that it helps young people develop their own
talents and help others at the same time.
We challenge teens and preteens, "Think you know more than most
adults about the Internet? Share what you know, and learn more
from the experts. Be part of the solution. Be a Teenangel!"
It is important that we teach young people that being safe isn�t
lame. That it�s not cool to pretend you were out drinking all
weekend, or to pose in your bra online. Many teens and preteens
are lying about their ages to use social networking websites.
And when they are there, they are often doing high risk things.
But, it�s important that parents understand that most teens and
preteens are using the technology safely and responsibly. We just
need to address them in our own language.
Recently, Teenangels began working with Nick Lachey. When Parry
wasn�t able to attend a luncheon with Teen People introducing me
(she was in Spain launching her new book), Nick came instead. He
learned that Internet sexual predators were using his name to lure
teens into sending sexual pics online. Since he first met Parry he
has donated his time to helping us keep kids safer. He is even
helping us with public service announcements and a fun new
animated educational series we are producing using Teenangels to
teach safer and more responsible technology use.
Teenangels is now working with Nick�s new site, YFly.com, to help
create a safer teen social networking site. We helped create Don�t
Be Stupid to teach teens that engaging in reckless behavior online
is stupid, not cool.
As Teenangels, we have the mission of helping make the Internet
safer. We need your help to do that. First I would like to thank
you for helping us by providing funding. We just received an
earmark from Congress, through the Department of Justice, for
$50,000. Since Teenangels hold bake sales and wash cars to raise
money for our programs, this will change our world. We cannot
thank you enough!
Next, I would like to share our wish list and thoughts about what
we can all do to help keep young people safer online.....
Thank you for your time and caring enough to hold this hearing.
And thank you for taking the time to listen to teens. It�s nice
to be included. And I will remember this day forever. On behalf
of all my fellow Teenangels and Tweenangels, thank you.
Shannon Sullivan, age 14
Teenangels.org
Appendixes
Appendix A: (from Teenangels.org)
Safety Tips From the Mouths of Teenangels ������������������� �������������������
(The Real Experts)...
While we have more extensive safety tip lists in Parry�s book, here
is a summarized version of the tips we thought were most important!
As Teenangels, safety is our biggest concern. So here are some tips
and ideas that we and others have to share. Some of the best
suggestions come from TEENS, just like you!
If you have a safety tip or story of something that has happened to
you and how you handled it, please send it to us. We would love to
hear from you! Email�Teenangels.
Thoughts for Parents, Teens & Kids from the Teenangels
Parents... Don�t be afraid of the Internet. It�s an extremely useful
tool & can�t be dismissed because it is new & sometimes confusing.
The Internet can be an excellent way for you & your children to bond
& share a common interest. Be open with your kids & get involved.
Most of all, learn all that you can about being safe, keeping your
child safe, & taking advantage of the Internet�s myriad uses. Tell
your children not to be afraid to come to you with problems of any
kind.
Teenagers...Although the Internet is a great way to meet new people,
do research, and chat with friends, there are dangers. Be aware of
these dangers. Always use common sense. Although you may think that
bad things won�t happen to you, they most certainly can. Be open with
your parents about what you do online. Don�t meet people offline that
you met online! Make sure a site is secure and trustworthy before
giving in your personal information. Obey the law and don�t steal
music, motion pictures and software! Balance the time you spend
online and offline. Remember your friends in real life and don�t take
them for granted. Go outside & enjoy life beyond cyberspace.
Kids... While it�s great to chat with people in kid-safe chat rooms
online, you should spend time with friends in real life. School,
family, & friends should always come before the Internet. Always
tell your parents about what you do online. Let them sit with you,
& teach them about the Internet. When they do sit with you, don�t get
mad at them. Just know they care about you & don�t want to see you hurt
in any way. Always remember that people online don�t always tell the
truth. Don�t give out a lot of information about yourself. If anything
bad ever happens to you on the Internet, always tell your parents or
someone you trust. Always remember that it�s never your fault.
Appendix B: Don�t Be Stupid!
For Teens:
Don�t Be Stupid!
What you need to know about cyberdating and staying safe
The Downers:
You never really know who someone is online. They may sound hot and
their pic may be even hotter, but they could be someone you don�t
expect. They could be your little brother�s snotty 12-year old friends
having fun at your expense. Or three 15-year old mean girls posing as
a heart throb to set you up for humiliation. Or they could be some 47
year old pervert. Either way, who needs it?
And even if it is a cute 16-year old guy or girl, there is no guarantee
that when things are over, that sexy pic you shared with them won�t end
up on some website or profile somewhere. Or they could use the password
you shared with them to change your profile, pose as you and harass
your friends or even lock you out of your own account. Or they could
cyberbully, flame, cyber-harass or cyberstalk you or your friends-When
you breakup, all bets are off!
The Buck Stops Here...You Need to Protect Yourself Online
Smart teens have been fooled by slimy adults posing as teens. There is
no safe way to meet someone you only know online, (with maybe from a
few phone calls to help), in RL. If you�re thinking about meeting
someone, think again. Talk to your friends. Check out Katiesplace.org
and learn about how others have been hurt by adults posing as teens.
Smart teens like you. Don�t do it!
We can�t emphasize this enough! But, we also know that if you are
convinced that this is a cute 16 year old boy or girl is the love of
your life and destined for you from birth, you may ignore this advice
and plan on meeting them in RL. If you are intent on taking this risk,
do what you can to minimize it. Make sure you follow these Don�t Be
Stupid tips:
1. Don�t disclose too much personal info. Start by assuming that the
person on the other end is a predator. That means no full names, street
addresses, RL schedules or telephone numbers that can be reverse
searched (check it out online or where you work, or similar info about
your friends that can be used to find you offline. It�s always a good
idea to use a disposable e-mail address or IM account, something you
set up just for this and that you can drop if things start going
downhill (like yahoo, hotmail or MSN.) Make sure that this new screen
name doesn�t give away any information about who you are in RL either
(Tiff1991@[fill in the blank]).
2. Play detective. Photos can give away more information than you ever
intended. Things in the background of the photo, like the license plate
on your car, your house, the store where you work, the school or camp
sweatshirt you�re wearing or a pic with you in front of your school
can be risky. So can photos posted by your friends. While you may be
very careful about what you are sharing online, they may not be as
careful. If you link to their profile and haven�t told anyone where
you live, but they post their best friends (including you), everyone
can now figure out what town you live in and where you go to school.
They just need to cross-reference a bit. The same thing happens with
everything you or your friends post. Look over your profile and the
profile of your friends. If you were a detective for Law & Order,
could you find yourself in RL? If so, change whatever is giving too
many clues away. Password protect it and guard your password, and ask
your friends to do the same. Start a rule - never post info about a
friend or their pic without asking first.
3. Say Cheese! There are three issues about pics online - posting
something you�ll regret, shooting a lame pic or posting a pic that
can be abused or misused by others. Sometimes to get attention, teens
pose in provocative ways or snap a pic when they are doing things
their parents would not want to see. Unfortunately, parents do see
them. And so do principals and predators (and shortly college
admission staff).
We all know that lame "MySpace" pose - bad lighting, cheeks sucked in,
lips pursed, head tilted up, with a flash in the mirror. :-) Is that
really how you want to be remembered?
Putting your best foot forward and using a good pic or a fun one is
much better than doing the "I am so hot I can�t stand it" pose. Boys
posing shirtless and trying to make their pecs look bigger by
crossing their arms underneath them, or girls posing in a bikini top
(or worse) or very low cut pants will get you attention. But not the
attention you may want. And cyberharassment where an innocent G-rated
pic is manipulated and used to make you look bad or to morph your
head on someone else�s naked body is commonplace. You can avoid that
by using photo-editing software to pixilate or blur the image, turn
it into a sketch or cartoon, sepia or black and white. This makes
your photos harder to abuse and less attractive to the harasser or
a predator.
Our new Best Food Forward (BFF) tips teach you how to make the
impression you want to make, without being lame or stupid. You can
read about them at Teenangels.org or at our Don�t Be Stupid tips at
YFly.com. These will help you come across the way you want to
online.
4. Look for the red flags. Beware of others online who:
ask too many questions
post things that don�t make sense
move too fast
promise you ridiculous things (if it seems too good to be true, it�s
not true!)
like everything that you like, exactly the way you like it
know too much about you
engage in cybersex
just don�t feel right or make you uncomfortable
are evasive
can�t keep their story straight
initiate sexual conversation or innuendo
don�t know the things most teens know (just know the experienced
predators make it their business to know these things)
pressure you to send sexy pics or meet in RL
give you the creeps
5. ThinkB4UClick. It�s so easy to do things online that you would
never do in RL. You don�t have to look the other person in the eye.
No one else is there to tell you to cool it. You are stronger,
smarter, more empowered and braver online. You may not like your
coach, principal or former best friend or boy or girl friend.
You take their pic and morph it onto someone else�s naked body. You
post sex ads using their name and contact info. Maybe you take a pic
of them with your cell phone in a locker room, bathroom, at a slumber
party or in the changing room at the Gap. You build a profile telling
everyone what a slut they are, or post these pics online anonymously.
Or you send sexual images of yourself to someone you like, thinking
they will want to go out with you if they see how sexy you are. They
don�t, but share the pic with their fifty nearest and dearest
friends - who show it to their friends and so on and so forth....
You think no one can find you, trace you or figure out who you are
(you�re wrong!). There is nothing between your impulse and your
click...no time to think about it, no time to calm down. No time to
use the "filter between your ears."
You are also typing fast and aren�t proofreading your text-messages, IM
or posts, and often send it to the wrong person on your buddy list or
misspell their screen name. You may forget to type in "jk" or the word
"not." You may find yourself in trouble without knowing why. Think
R-E-S-P-E-C-T! (Now do it like Aretha, with lots of style!) Taking that
extra second to make sure you send it to the right person, aren�t
misunderstood and are willing to be accountable for what you are doing
and saying online is crucial. It will save you lots of grief later!
Appendix C
For Teens:
Finding Love in all the Cyberplaces...Don�t Be Stupid! If you decide
to meet someone in-person, and ignore everything we taught you -- at
least follow these tips and trust your gut. If something feels wrong,
get out of there and report it. And remember that about 30% of the
victims are boys. They just don�t report it. So be careful! 1. Go
public. Find out what they will be wearing and arrange for a place to
meet. Then get there early and stake things out. The idea is to spot
them before they spot you. Make sure that you meet in a well-lighted
public place. It should be big and public enough so you can he help if
you needed it, but not so big, crowded and noisy that you wouldn�t be
heard or couldn�t get help. Don�t meet in an amusement park, where
screaming is part of the scenery. A mall is a good choice, but sit
back and watch and see who shows up. If they are not what was promised,
run...do not walk...home, to the security office or to the local
police department. Make sure someone calls the police.
Never meet at your place or theirs. Never get in a car with them. Go
with lots of friends (preferably Sumo wrestlers). Ignoring these tips
could cost you your life. Really. Several smart teens have been killed
in the US over the last four years by people they met online. Don�t
become a victim. 2. Bring backup. If you are going to meet, bring a
lots of friends (preferably big ones :-)), and someone where you are
going. Leave information about the person you are meeting. The bad
guys will try and get you to erase the e-mails or bring your laptop or
hard drive with you, so they can destroy the evidence. Best case
scenario, trust your parents or another adult family member. This has
saved more than one teen from being kidnapped, raped or killed.
3. Find your own ride. Don�t accept a ride from them or offer a ride
to them...even if they appear to be cute and cuddly. Stay in control
of where you go and how you are going to get there and back. Bring a
cell phone and make sure it�s charged. Have others check in on you
too.
4. Take it slow. Even if that�s not your style, make it your style for
any cyberdating situations. Just because they have told you their
favorite bands, movies and food doesn�t mean you have any idea who they
really are. Treat it like a first date. It will feel weird at first.
You feel closer than you would on a first date. They will know lots of
things about you that you have shared. Often very personal things. But
start from scratch. Don�t move faster than you are comfortable doing
and don�t feel pressured. Keep others around for awhile as you get to
know each other and trust your instincts.
5. Rat on the Creep! Your parents will kill you if they found out you
met someone from the Internet in RL. But if you don�t report it to
someone, this creep may kill some teen in reality! Most of the time
when police arrest an Internet sexual predator, they find lots of
e-mails on their computer threatening to call the police if they
bothered the teen one more time. Had someone actually called the
police, another teen might have been saved. Even if you won�t tell
your parents, find a way to report the creep. Check out Katiesplace.org
for ways you can do that and more safety tips and real stories about
real teens.
copyright 2006, Parry Aftab, all rights reserved. For permission to
reprint this, contact Parry at [email protected].
Appendix D
For Teens:
Finding a Better Faith
A fictional account
I thought I had met my dream guy. I really did. Now, I see where my
mistake was, sure. It was in believing what I saw in the movies and on
television. Believing what I read in magazines about true love and soul
mates. I believed in the Madison Avenue picture of love, romance and
happily ever after, and glossy views of happiness and popularity. I was
taught these things my whole life by my everyone I knew and from books,
movies, and songs. I was told that if I were good enough, thin enough,
charming enough, pretty enough, and exciting enough my life would be
fulfilling, happy and exciting. But no one ever tells you how dangerous
this blind belief can be.
When I was a freshman in high school, I was miserable. I lived in one of
those towns where the same kids are in your grade all the way through
school, so everyone gets to know each other pretty well. They knew me in
middle school when I had acne and bad clothing and was shy and
self-conscious. And then I grew out of that, but no one much noticed. I
know I was pretty in the year or two before I died because people started
noticing me -- people who didn�t go to my school, who didn�t remember how
I used to be awkward.
And it felt good. I felt different and happy and hopeful. I thought to
myself that maybe now I would have a boyfriend. Maybe he just couldn�t
find me before because I was shy and awkward, and it�ll definitely happen
now that I�m in high school and all the older boys can see how pretty I
had become in the last few years. But it didn�t. No one looked at me any
differently than they ever had and I got depressed. I thought to myself
that high school might just be middle school again "that maybe nothing
would be different and I would have to go through three more years of
being lonely and waiting until something better happened. For a while, I
got resigned myself to this fate and then something changed and I got up
one morning and said no. I think I said it out loud, actually, it�s kind
of funny to think of now. I decided that I would say no to this fate"
that I wouldn�t be alone and I wouldn�t be miserable -- not anymore. I
decided that I would meet someone and I would have a boyfriend within a
month or two "do or die" that I would take my life into my own hands.
And that I did.
I started going online and searching for people to talk to people who
would be more mature and would understand me. I sorted through people�s
profiles on Friendster and Xanga.com and set up my own. And then I met
someone, and it was just as easy as I ever dreamed it could be. We IMed
for hours, about everything and I felt, for the first time, that someone
really understood me. Sounds pretty silly now. We talked about our
families, our dreams, books that had changed us everything. I thought
I was falling in love. I knew I had found "the one." I was the lucky
one, and had found my soul mate early.
When he asked me if I wanted to meet, at first I said no, that I didn�t
know him well enough. He didn�t push it, and instead, we started talking
on the phone. He had a very deep voice, which didn�t surprise me because
he said he was 18, but it probably should have. Anyway, a month later he
said he had to meet me. He said he couldn�t� stand it anymore "that he
loved me" and said that if I wouldn�t meet him he would come find me
because if he didn�t see me he�d die. In the end, it didn�t quite work
that way, though.
I realized that my parents would kill me if a random guy showed up at
the house looking for me. I couldn�t have that happen, so I agreed to
meet him. It was stupid, I know, but I was told more time than one that
it�s okay to do stupid things when you�re in love.
I met him at the mall, in the food court. He was 37, not 18. I started
crying and told him that he lied to me and I never wanted to see him
again. I felt betrayed, and confused. He handed me the rose he had
brought and a book of poems. I just stared at them, having problems
separating the 18 year old I knew so well, form this man standing in
front of me with tears rolling down his cheeks.
While he cried quietly, he told me that he loved me so much -- that he
knew I would never date him if I knew how old he was, which is true. I
worked up the courage to leave. But he started making a big scene --
pleading with me not to leave him. Telling me how much he loved and
appreciated me, when no one else did. I was afraid someone I knew or
who my family knew might see so I agreed -- his last request -- to go
outside to talk.
He said he had a present for me in his car, and could he just give it
to me. I said ok, probably the stupidest thing anyone�s ever done. He
clamped his hand over my mouth so no one could hear the screams. Then
he pushed me in his car, throwing a blanket over me and holding me
down so no one could see. He poured some smelly chemical over the
blanket near my face. At first I held my breath, but finally had to
take a breath. I knew I was in trouble, and felt dizzy immediately. I
must have passed out. I don�t know how long it was before I woke up,
and realized this wasn�t a horrible dream. It was real. He took me
someplace in the woods, dragged me from the car and tied me up. He
beat me, while he raped me, crying and telling me he loved me the whole
time. I felt like my insides were being ripped out. That was how I lost
my virginity. And my innocence. And more.
I still feel like its all my fault. Why did I believe him? Why did I
believe that anybody normal could be that into me? Even after all this
time, the only answer I can come up with is that I had believed in
make-believe. If I hadn�t wanted to fall in love so badly, if I hadn�t
needed someone wanting me to validate how I felt about myself, I wouldn�t
have let my judgment get clouded. I would probably be alone in my room,
depressed, but I�d be better off than I am now.
So believe in happily ever after, but reality too. It�s okay to be
hopeful because life would be too hard without it. But don�t let it
cloud your better judgment. Have faith in yourself and don�t waste it on
people who may or may not love you or save you or complete you. And don�t
trust people � at least for a while, at least till you know who they
really are and what they are capable of. And never just because you talk
with them online and on the phone and think you know them. Love and
loneliness don�t excuse stupid behavior, and they certainly don�t buy
you another chance to fix it.
I will never know what could have happened in my life � who I could have
met or what I might have done, because he killed me before leaving my
body for some hikers to find weeks later. I was almost unrecognizable.
My parents had to identify me, and the hair, clothes and complexion I
worked so hard to make perfect weren�t even identifiable anymore. I was
ashamed that I had done this to my parents, and my little sister, and
most of all to myself.
My friends didn�t envy my "kewl" new life. They, instead, mourned me,
and even my dearest friends talked about how "stupid" I was.
My little sister couldn�t stop sobbing. She held my hand, and clung to
the casket when they tried to take it out of the church. I tried to hold
her hand back, but nothing happened. I wanted to reach out and comfort
her. But from now on, she wouldn�t have a big sister to do that anymore.
She couldn�t climb into my bed and tell me about her kitten and why she
wanted to be "just like me" when she grew up.
I hope she wouldn�t be just like me. I hope she is smarter than I was,
and not as trusting. Not as naive
I wish I had a second chance. I wish I could warn others about this
kind of thing. But I can�t. I�m dead.
This "love of my life", my "soul mate" didn�t only rob me of my innocence
and any chance at happiness -- I�ll never know if I could have made it.
I never got a fair shot. If you�re in the same situation I was in, I
can�t say if it�ll ever get better, or if you�ll ever be successful,
or rich, or pretty, or lose the weight, or get the guy, but I can say
you better hang around and try, because I�d do just about anything for
the second chance. A chance to find someone real. A chance to know if I
could have been happy.
Appendix E
About Teenangels from a school technology director in Wisconsin:
About 5 years ago, I got a phone call from one of the parents in our
school district asking that her daughter�s Internet and email privileges
be revoked. She decided that her daughter would no longer be allowed to
be part of the "Cyber World."
When I spoke more with this parent, I learned that the daughter had been
harassed online. She had given out personal information and was now
receiving inappropriate emails and phone calls at her home.
I immediately looked for resources online to help this family. The
Internet is such an incredible resource -- wanted to find a way to
convince the family that education regarding Internet use was a better
solution than instituting a complete ban for their high school daughter.
As a result of my searches, I happened on information about Parry -- I
contacted her and she agreed to speak at a school assembly with a parent
information meeting to follow. After Parry�s talk, I literally had a
line of students in my office -- these students wanted to help other
teens to be safe online. From that group, our TeenAngel chapter was
started.
The Teens devoted an entire Spring Break to intensive training and the
rest is history. Our TeenAngel chapter works to educate Teens (and
parents) about online safety. We have a "Tech" division that works on
programming and helps community members with problems ranging from P.C.
trouble to instructions on virus removal.
Our teens are highly motivated and highly technologically savvy. Among
other things, our group has attended the Wired Kids Summit in Washington
D.C. working with legislators and corporate executives to help make the
Internet a safer place for kids. One of our teens was featured on "The
John Walsh Show" in their "Hometown Hero" segment. Locally, our teens
have presented to numerous school, church, and parent groups as well as
presented at state conferences focusing on issues relevant to Teens.
This is a great program. In our high school, it has become a place and
program for our "Tech" guys to devote their energy and talent.
Appendix F
From Katiesplace.org, written by one of our Teenangels who wants to teach
others how to avoid being victimized in the way she had been.
When Your Mentor Becomes Your Tormentor - Alicia�s Story
You never notice yourself growing. It�s so gradual, so smooth a process
that the daily or even monthly changes are simply undetectable. Mirrors
don�t help -- its only in comparing photographs, in seeing yourself at
different stages, that one can notice the differences.
My relationship online with Mac grew just that slowly. When we were
first introduced online, he was courteous and interested and subtle,
none of those childish IMs which are so common, among young teens,
flaunting their new-found sexuality like so many new toys. He didn�t
try to have cyber sex with me, didn�t make crude comments or ask me to
go on the webcam. It doesn�t work like that. He was thoughtful and
gentle and nice, and, of course, entirely deceptive, and so we became
friends. Just friends. And it was all very innocent - for a time.
It was in the slowest, least noticeable way that he eased me into a more
intimate relationship online. He was an expert, but, of course, I didn�t
know that at the time. The way the conversation moved into more
personal territory never felt threatening because it moved so slowly. We
would talk for a few minutes more each day, about something a little
more personal each day, and some days we could talk about nothing
personal at all. He never pushed, never insisted and so convinced me
that I wanted to tell him personal things, or �parrot� those things
that he so wanted to hear from me. And I did.
So we talked about everything -- not just the sexual stuff. He was
interested in me, as a person -- my thoughts, my goals, my relationships
with friends and family members. He gave me adult advice and always
took my side. He was my advocate, unconditionally, at a time in my
early teenage life where that was just what I needed. School was: well
it was school, mean girls and nasty boys and everyone trying to be all
that they�re not- And my family and I, were very close, but we didn�t
always see eye-to eye about everything, sometimes they just seemed to
think that I was still a child. But there was always Mac, and I could
count on him to see things my way Always online. Always ready to talk.
Always on my side. It was the most comforting thing imaginable.
Soon enough, he wasn�t just someone that I could trust, he became the
someone I needed � I began to believe that he was the only one I could
depend on to understand the real me, which is exactly what he wanted,
of course. Somehow, in this process, this grooming of me, he had changed
me, had destroyed my ability to reason. Imagine, I walked out the door,
right out of my own front door into the darkest iciest winter night, with
no money and no coat, to meet a madman who I thought was my best friend.
Was I crazy? No. Was I duped? Entirely. When I review it all, comparing my
mental photographs of our relationship at different times, I think, how
could it have happened? How could my sanity, my reason, my mental state
have decayed like that -- how did he make me shrink away to nothing? How
could I have gone from being a smart, sane girl having casual
conversations with an online friend to doing something I would have sworn
I could never do "who" shy timid little me?--never!!!!- meeting a total
stranger in the dark, cold night -- leaving home in the middle of a happy,
loving, family holiday meal? My only answer is that I wasn�t crazy - I
was just under the spell of an incredibly skillful manipulator who knew
that slow and steady wins the race -- or at least the hearts of young
girls. He took me apart and put me back together and bit by bit, day by
day, byte by byte, he became the focus of my life and the one who
understood me best. Why wouldn�t I want to meet someone like that
IRL? It felt right.
And yet it was so wrong. The moment he persuaded me into the car, I
immediately knew that I was in trouble. I knew. I had this terrible
sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach as we drove down my street,
out of my neighborhood, and then, onto the turnpike. Trapped "Quiet"
he said. "Let�s keep the trunk empty." I kept my eyes cast down,
stealing quick furtive glances up at him from the corners of my eyes.
Somehow, I instinctively knew that he was like a savage beast, and that
I had only to make full eye contact to engage his anger, to force him
to attack. I stared down at his shoes as we drove. At his pants, his
socks, I studied them, eyes cast down. I could describe it all to you
today -- that image, that feeling, trapped -- t will haunt me forever.
Those hours sitting there, the waiting.
What terrible fate awaited me when we arrived at his home? I never
envisioned anything as terrible as the reality. When we arrived at his
home it was -- worse than even I had imagined it could be. It was way
worse than a bad after-school movie. It was Friday the 13th and Texas-
Chainsaw-Massacre! And he had it planned -- days before, maybe months
before, maybe the first time we ever spoke. I was stripped, tortured,
beaten. --. Raped. Those words still stick to the roof of my mouth and
are glued thickly to my tongue. I listened through the windows to cars
passing by, to the voices of neighboring families going out for lunch
and to the mall and coming home again at night, yet there I remained,
collar around my neck, chained to a post, naked. This was me at age 13.
Waiting for death. How would he do it? Would he stab me, would I bleed
to death, my blood adding yet another stain to the filthy carpet--
Would he beat me to death with whips and fists, chained helpless, unable
to defend myself?
Into this morbid fantasy, unbidden, a fairy tale that my mother had read
to me while tucked warm and safe into my silken little �blankie� kept
flashing into my mind. The one of an Arabian slave girl held captive by
her master. The tale unfolds that at the moment her stories ceased to
entertain him, to amuse him - then he would kill her, with this in mind,
the helpless slave fought for her life with the only weapon she had -
her mind... And she became my inspiration. I would persevere, I would
not die. My captor would not win this battle. I knew that my family
loved me, that they would move heaven and earth to find me. But I had
to stay alive until they did. So I struggled, silently, determined to
win back the life I had left behind. My life that somehow had seemed
to become so empty, so sad� why? I understood now, in those cold hours
alone, waiting for the monster�s return, it all began to come clear.
I wanted my life back! I wanted to feel my mom�s gentle kisses
good-night and my dad�s crushing hugs, I wanted to run outside into the
sun, to add my voice to the other happy children�s, far, far away from
the dark coldness of his dungeon. I wanted to experience anything--
anything - except what was happening to me. I desperately wanted to
live!
So I waited it out. I prayed. It might not seem, to you, like the most
courageous thing to do -- I didn�t fight him, didn�t engage his anger.
But, somehow, I knew that he would kill me, throw me away like trash in
some cold shallow grave if I resisted anymore. He enjoyed my pain. So,
I just wasn�t there I left -- mentally anyway. This wasn�t happening to
me. I escaped into my head and tried desperately to hang on to my
sanity. It took my whole being to merely breathe. One breath at a time
I waited for my death. I knew that one wrong move would cost me my life
and so I simply waited, telling myself "today, yeah today they�ll find
me "rescue me," convincing myself that this would not be how it all
ends, that my parents would not find their only daughter�s dead and
battered body in this evil man�s filthy house. I couldn�t, I wouldn�t,
let it end that way. So I resolved to live. Breath by breath. Moment by
moment.
And I did. I made it through, a miracle of survival, when so many other
girls have been less fortunate. And I can�t say if it was faith, or luck,
or personal resolve that saved me. And it doesn�t really matter. I truly
feel that something greater than myself has directed me. I am alive. I
was given the second chance that so many others had been denied.
I promised myself in those dark and painful days and endless nights that
if I were spared, if I were given a second chance at life, I would share
my horror, to teach others - maybe you - how to avoid becoming his next
victim. I would help them understand that the mentor you thought you
found online might become the tormenter who steals your heart, your
innocence and your faith in mankind. And ultimately, your life".. Mac
failed. While the emotional and physical scars may last a lifetime,
he didn�t shake my faith in myself or in mankind. He may have stolen
days, weeks, months, he may have taken my childhood, but the rest of my
life is mine. And I have reclaimed it. I will not allow him to torment
me anymore. Only I have the power to control my future. I refuse to be
defined by his betrayal of my trust, by his cruel sadistic acts or by
those dark days, however devastating they may have been. I have a
mission and an important role to play. I want to inspire others to move
on, past their exploitation, to find their own life mission. I was
spared and given a second chance. And I don�t intend to waste it. I
will continue to speak to young people and dedicate my life to helping
catch criminals, like Mac. I am also helping, here, to build
KatiesPlace.org and as a volunteer with WiredSafety.org and others.
So, please don�t remember me as the girl who was torn, twisted,
confused, lured abducted and abused. Remember me for what I will
accomplish. Please don�t let this tragedy define me. I am so much more
than that. And so are you. Join me in this mission. Together we can
change the world, one child, and one life at a time. You can read about
miraculous rescues and the dedicated and courageous men and woman
responsible for bringing victimized children to safety here at
KatiesPlace.org. And you can e-mail me through this site. Please, be
safe "be aware"
Mr. Whitfield. Well thank you very much Ms. Sullivan, we
appreciate your testimony and look forward to asking you some
questions later on.
Mr. Sallam, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening
statement and thanks for being with us today.
Mr. Sallam. Thank you, sir.
As you know, my name is Moni Sallam. I am a ninth grader at
Riverdale High School in Howard County. The Internet has opened
up a new world of opportunity and dangers for kids today. On the
plus side, we have instant access to any information, music,
cultures, and opportunities that probably would have taken you
months to access if at all when you were a kid. On the negative
side, kids can talk to anyone they know or do not know at any
time of the day or night. Kids are contacted on a daily basis
by people they do not know. School bullies do not just find you
at recess, they taunt you at any time of the day or night and
they get others to join in too.
The major problem is that due to a lack of education, kids make
bad decisions while online. Kids give out their personal
information, they share pictures of themselves with people they
do not know, and they download music illegally. That is the
reality of kids today. Online predators know this and use the
Internet to lure kids to danger.
It is all about education. Just like other safety issues like
bike and water safety, education is the only way to help kids
behave responsibly online. A perfect example is if you ask kids
or teens if they would ever get into a car with a stranger,
probably 100 percent of them would say no. The reason is that
we are told from the time we are old enough to play outside never
to talk to strangers, never to get near a car with strangers.
Kids know to look both ways before crossing the street. They
know to wear helmets when riding a bike because we are taught
these things from an early age. On the other hand, if you ask
kids or teens if they would ever meet a stranger in person who
they met online, an alarming number of them would say they saw
nothing wrong with it.
Although informed people know that the Internet is a new way
predators lure kids to danger and there are plenty of examples of
tragedies that have happened to kids who met predators online.
In my county alone, predators have been arrested for pretending
to meet kids and trying to lure other kids to meet them. This
is happening across the Nation. Internet safety education from
an early age is required to change attitudes and behavior.
Internet safety education is key to changing if you are going to
be online. That is why i-SAFE is doing an amazing job. i-SAFE
empowers kids like me with the decision tools we need to keep us
safe and act responsibly online.
Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Sallam. How old are you
by the way?
Mr. Sallam. I am 14.
Mr. Whitfield. Oh, yeah.
And Ms. Sullivan, you have graduated from high school or--
Ms. Sullivan. No, from grammar school. I am 14 also.
Mr. Whitfield. You are 14. So having--
Ms. Aftab. Very articulate.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah, I almost felt guilty asking them how old
they were after our subject matter here today, but how did you
two come in contact with WiredSafety and i-SAFE? Ms. Sullivan,
how did you become aware of WireSafety?
Ms. Sullivan. Well my mom is a computer teacher at the grammar
school I attended and she got in contact with Parry and Parry
came to my school to do a presentation on Internet safety because
a lot of my friends were posting personal information on the
Internet using Myspace.com. So once she came, she told us very
frightening stories about kids who listed personal information,
who talked to strangers on the Internet, and she made us aware of
the dangers that we were putting ourselves in.
Mr. Whitfield. So were you shocked from what she said?
Ms. Sullivan. I was sitting on the edge of my seat.
Mr. Whitfield. Were you?
Ms. Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield. Do you feel like or do you or some of your friends
maybe had been contacted by predators but you had not really
proceeded with them or--
Ms. Sullivan. None of my friends have but I have many stories of
people who have so I think that is why it is our job to aware these
teens of what they are doing and how to keep themselves safe.
Mr. Whitfield. And did you make contact on the Internet with
people you really did not know or--
Ms. Sullivan. No, I only used the Internet to talk to my friends.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. Mr. Sallam, what about you? How did you
become aware of i-SAFE?
Mr. Sallam. I first became aware of i-SAFE when I was in seventh
grade. I was watching TV actually and I happened to come across an
i-SAFE professional development program just like Ms. Schroeder
talked about in her presentation. And I watched it and I just
realized that this is a huge problem and it could affect people that
I know. And I was actually first worried about how my sister would
be reacted by this big issue.
Mr. Whitfield. Do you think that any of your friends or classmates
have viewed child pornography online?
Mr. Sallam. No, sir, I do not think.
Mr. Whitfield. You do not.
Ms. Schroeder, I know that you all have been quite successful in
Kentucky with these programs that you have talked about and it is
my--is it--am I correct that you are teaching this program now in
every school district in Kentucky or is that right?
Ms. Schroeder. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield. Now how were you able to accomplish that and how
many other States do you teach in every school district in the
State?
Ms. Schroeder. What we did this past year was Microsoft
actually provided funding for us and we took our professional
development online so we created I-learnonline and they provided
funding for the professional development for educators, as well as
the youth for the mentor side and they are just now providing
funding for the parents, as well as for 50 plus. So what happens
is, the way that we are able to do this now is that educators on
their own can actually go in and review our module. And when they
are through completing the module, they get professional
development credit and then a gateway opens up and they have access
to all the curriculum and the activities, the workbooks for the
kids electronically.
Mr. Whitfield. Well we thank you for the great job you are
doing in Kentucky and elsewhere and how old is i-SAFE? How
old is it?
Ms. Schroeder. We were formed in 1998.
Mr. Whitfield. Ninety-eight, okay.
And Ms. Aftab, how do you identify students to be Teenangels?
How do you go about that?
Ms. Aftab. The Teenangels identify themselves.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay.
Ms. Aftab. They share a belief that every child has something to
offer. And when they see me on television, if I do Dateline or
Good Morning America, or something often the kids will see that.
We are in magazines. I do eight interviews a day sometimes. And
so when kids see us or they see us in person or they want to make
a difference, they will reach out to us. The program is free
along with everything else we do. We who run it are also unpaid
volunteers. I have one of them from Stone Ridge School here in
Bethesda, Maryland, who is sitting back there with one of her
Teenangels. The training is we email it out to them and help
them do it and the kids come to us. And what we find is some
kids are really great at public speaking. Others may be shy but
they are terrific at research. And part of Teenangels,
Teenangels is a little different from I-Mentor in that the kids
who are Teenangels have to undergo extensive training and
independent research. They have actually developed new product.
They have to go out and research new interactive devices. They
developed safer cell phone settings that are now being adopted
by Disney. They have come up with safer interactive gaming for
X-Box Live. So when they learn and we have all of the experts
teaching them about everything they need to know, they develop
things.
The Motion Picture Association of America honored one of my
Teenangels who came up with a 30 second PSA--he is 15--called
use it and lose it. It�s about bringing your video camera into
a movie theater and what is going to happen. This 15-year-old
had social anxiety disorder and his mother came to me and asked
if he could be a Teenangel. And I said well we work in chapters
generally but she asked me if would make an exception and he has
done extraordinary things. And a young girl from Pittsburgh who
is 13 who had met an Internet sexual predator in their live, who
was rescued 4 days later by the FBI where she was found chained
to the floor, came to us and she wanted to be a Teenangel too.
So the kids who come to us and want to make a difference, we
give them a way to do it.
Mr. Whitfield. All right.
Ms. Schroeder would you or Mr. Sallam explain the mentor program
at i-SAFE?
Ms. Schroeder. What happens with the mentor program is they
actually go through a training. We have our own mentoring
network. And so what the kids actually learn to do is they
become a little bit different than what the cyber angels do
because this is--
Ms. Aftab. Teenangels.
Ms. Schroeder. I am sorry, Teenangels. This is in school. So
for instance as you saw with the Kentucky kids, high school kids,
they will actually get service learning credits. We have service
learning curriculum and they actually decide to adopt a class and
they will actually go in and train that class and/or they may go
into a lower division school and then they work the kids for the
younger kids say K, first, or second grade and they may go in and
do learning with them because we have a literacy curriculum as
well. So there are various things that the kids can do from
peer-to-peer in terms of being able to help promote Internet
safety. We also have school assemblies so the kids actually
participate in the school assemblies.
Mr. Whitfield. And how many mentors are there around the
country?
Ms. Schroeder. Right now we have 156,000 I think that are
actual certified mentors.
Mr. Whitfield. One hundred fifty-six thousand?
Ms. Schroeder. One hundred fifty-six thousand that are certified
mentors. Now those are, the certified mentors, are the ones that
actually conduct the training.
Mr. Whitfield. I see.
Ms. Schroeder. So every single student that goes through the
curriculum, they actually become mentors because it is part of
the curriculum that they do in the classroom.
Mr. Whitfield. And how many Teenangels, Ms. Sullivan or
Ms. Aftab?
Ms. Aftab. We are a different program. Ours is a train-the-
trainers program so the Teenangels reach out and train others.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay.
Ms. Aftab. We have 450 certified Teenangels who are the right
age right now, a lot of them have grown up. And we have about
3,400 in the pipeline. Until recently, I had actually
hand-trained all of my Teenangels. It was the most fun I have
had. Now their training is put onto CDs so that anywhere we are
not, the Teenangels can. And we are working with the scouts and
with other organizations. In fact, we have got a new Teenangels
chapter that is starting with Camp Fire Girls and Boys in
Anchorage, Alaska.
Mr. Whitfield. Really?
Ms. Aftab. Yeah.
Mr. Whitfield. Do you operate in other countries as well?
Ms. Aftab. Seventy-six countries around the world.
Mr. Whitfield. And what about i-SAFEty?
Ms. Schroeder. Fifteen countries and schools.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. And how many Teenangels are back here in
the corner this morning?
Ms. Schroeder. One and one want to be.
Mr. Whitfield. One and one want to be, okay. Well--
Ms. Aftab. They have to miss school to do this. But they are
now. The interesting thing is they are doing hard consulting
for big corporations. They are working on the inside with
Myspace and Facebook and with Yahoo! and Google and Disney and
Microsoft where they are helping advise on new product and ways
that they can be misused and used by kids.
Mr. Whitfield. So all of our mentors and Teenangels, they are
all quite proficient and we know they will do well in whatever
they decide to pursue.
Ms. Aftab. And we are lucky to have them.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah, absolutely.
I want to thank you all for the great job that you are doing for
these programs and the good work that you are doing. And
particularly want to thank the Teenangels and the mentor and
mentors for their assistance you are doing with other students.
And at this time, I recognize Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you.
Ms. Sullivan or Mr. Sallam, what do you feel these sites--Myspace
and there is another one we saw today Spotlife and Buddypicks--
now what do you think of those as a general rule? Are they
useful or helpful?
Ms. Sullivan. They are a good way to keep in touch with your
friends. Many teens are enticed by social networking sites
because you can make it all about you. Sites like Myspace, you
can change the background to whatever you want, whatever font you
want, you can put funny pictures, you can put pictures of
yourselves and your friends, you can comment on your friends�
pages. It is very teen orientated. So they really enjoy it. It
can be useful because it is different than just IM you friends it
is more like staying in touch with your friends, more extensive,
but they can be misused. You can post personal information.
Mr. Stupak. Well, do you think the benefits outweigh the risk?
Ms. Sullivan. Excuse me?
Mr. Stupak. Do you think the benefits of these sites outweigh the
risk?
Ms. Sullivan. No, I do not. There is too many risks because
many--
Mr. Stupak. Then why have them?
Ms. Sullivan. Because--
Mr. Stupak. I mean you are the experts. I mean I have never been
on the Internet and I could not tell you from the bottom, but I
guess I am just trying to get your own feelings on it because it
has been a tragic story what we have heard about today and
unfortunately it is being repeated time and time and time again in
this country and more offshore and everything else. So I just want
to learn the value of these sites and if we cannot monitor them or
police them better than what we are doing.
Ms. Aftab. And how can you use them safely I guess.
Ms. Sullivan. Yeah. It depends how the teen or the child is using
it.
Mr. Stupak. Sure.
Ms. Sullivan. If someone has their profile set on private for only
their friends to see and they are not talking to strangers or people
they do not know, then it is safe. It is a good place for them to
be. But otherwise if they are letting anyone who has a myspace or
commenting, people they have never met, and people they never will
meet, then it can be dangerous. So it depends on how you look at
it. If you see that your child or teen is being safe on it and
they are using it to contact their friends then it can be safe and
it does have benefits. But otherwise, if they are posting too
much personal information and they are talking to people they do
not know, then it is dangerous.
Mr. Stupak. So I bet you a month does not go by here where there
is an embarrassing email that came out of some office here. The
issue is not when the sender sent that email to the other office
probably thought it would go no further but somehow inadvertently,
however, it gets sent all over and suddenly my privacy is
everybody�s public knowledge and not only is it embarrassing for
the office that originated the email but it just, I think sort of
reminds us that what we may think and what we believe and sitting
behind that desk and doing your emails or going to your myspace,
while we think it is private, it is really not and that is why I
think we are all vulnerable and not just young people and us too
with our emails. So I was just wondering about that.
Mr. Sallam, let me ask you this, the Chairman asked you and you
sort of said no but these porn sites, there has been gregarious
talk about sitting home or you are surfing the net. Do you have
discussions with your friends about the fact porn sites are out
there? As you surf you may hit them, things like that?
Mr. Sallam. That is a tough question.
Mr. Stupak. Yeah, I mean what I wanted to get at is--
Mr. Sallam. When you are surfing the Internet, the fact that
stuff is out there and we do like stumble upon it and it is
especially with myspace like some people post pornographic
images on their myspace so it is sort of people who have
myspace, it is sort of easy to stumble upon something like
that.
Mr. Stupak. Do you talk about it with your friends?
Mr. Sallam. Not really.
Mr. Stupak. Couldn�t that be a deterrent in the programs you
are doing? I mean, we all know they are out there, acknowledge
they are out there and discuss it, why you are not to go there
and the dangers involved in it?
Mr. Sallam. Yeah, of course there is always a bad aspect of
looking at these pornographic images, the factor of getting a
virus, but it does not really come up in discussion with my
peers.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. Ms. Schroeder, would you submit the FCACY
study on the i-SAFE Program? I would be interested in learning
a little bit more about that. And you said it has been around
since about 1998. Has there been some studies as to the
effectiveness of the program?
Ms. Schroeder. Yes. MIJ did a 2 year study on i-SAFE and they
presented it to me about 2 months ago so, absolutely, I will
request that study.
Mr. Stupak. The 2 year program you said or 2 year study, I am
sorry, has there been anything else who have measured the
effectiveness of i-SAFE?
Ms. Schroeder. Well we do pre-polls and delayed assessments and
actually we have our national assessment center so we are
providing assessment data. We even provide it to the FBI because
we do trainings for them as well and I would be happy to provide
that to you.
Mr. Stupak. You mentioned the FBI, do you work with local law
enforcement and things like--
Ms. Schroeder. Yes, we do. We have--
Mr. Stupak. There is at least one more. Maybe three more. It
looks like a new agenda, three more. Okay.
Ms. Schroeder. We have our i-SAFE Task Force and our i-SAFE Task
Force actually is a partnership with local law enforcement, FBI,
the Attorney General�s office. School resource officers from
around the country actually are trained and they participate, as
well as FBI and their outreach department, so they are actually
teaching the classes, as well as in schools.
Mr. Stupak. In your testimony, I think you mentioned something
about 30 minutes once a week for 5 weeks. Do you have any
follow-up with that because I would think there may be more to
this?
Ms. Schroeder. Yes, we do.
Mr. Stupak. Well what is that? What does that consist of follow
up?
Ms. Schroeder. What happens is is that the classroom curriculum
actually is comprised of a 30 minute segment because you have to
fit it into a class day. So once it is implemented into a school
district and/or a classroom, it really is up to that teacher in
terms of that. We create and we have five core modules and then
we have supplemental modules. So what the teachers usually do
is they always do the five core modules and then after that they
go and they do the supplemental modules. The way that we follow
up with them is the fact that we are always supplementing the
information. For instance when cyber bullying came out, we
created a cyber bullying curriculum. So they go online, they
request that curriculum. It has its own life within that school
district in terms of its being taught all the time. And then
students too as well, they have their school assemblies that they
are doing as well and then that involves, they will bring local
law enforcement in and we have our parent nights.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. You just mentioned cyber bullying again.
Explain that for us for the record so we know what is cyber
bullying.
Ms. Schroeder. Yes. What that is is you know you would be
bullied on the school grounds? Well now what kids have done is
they have taken it online. So for instance if I am a student
and I have something to say about you I will blog it or I will
go and maybe post different pictures about you, crop them, then
I will go and call attention to them. So for instance for me
as a student when I come back to school the next day everybody
knows about it not just a few kids that on a school ground it
would just be one on one. One situation that was such a tragedy
was a student in Vermont and actually his father was an IBM
executive and they contacted us. IBM did and said this is what
is happening to one of our executives and that is when we really
looked into this. In this particular situation, this boy was
bullied at his school, it then went on and on and he ended up
taking his own life. Ms. Teen New Jersey who is a spokesperson
for us, her parents moved her three States when she was bullied
online as well.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. You are also promoting the digital
certificate technology for children.
Ms. Schroeder. Correct.
Mr. Stupak. And one of the requirements to obtain such a
certificate is they have a government-issued photo ID, do I
understand it? Do many students have such a photo ID? I do not
usually think that the school IDs are accepted as a government
ID cards or government-issued ID cards. Where would students
use them?
Ms. Schroeder. The way that this technology works is it is
called the i-STIK.
Mr. Stupak. Okay.
Ms. Schroeder. On the first day of school when parents actually
sign the acceptable use policy, they will say yes my son or
daughter can have an i-STIK. So next to biometrics it is actually
authenticated there at the school.
Mr. Stupak. I see.
Ms. Schroeder. So we did a study with ten States and most kids
took their i-STIK and went to the school administrator, they had
their ID there, they knew that that was Susie Brown and Susie
Brown was issued that i-STIK and so that, it is just very simple.
It is actually like an ATM card. It can be used anywhere on the
Internet. Right now it is empowered by VeriSign and also eBay;
Yahoo! was actually participating in this study as well. And we
are looking at this being a place where if you are a student, you
would be able to go to these areas online and it would be able to
authenticate you so it only knows in terms of male, female, age
range, and demographics in terms of West Coast, East Coast.
Mr. Stupak. And that is a pretty safe, secure site so no one can
access this information?
Ms. Schroeder. Well, the goal is that you are educated so when
you are actually getting into an area if I am going to go chat or
communicate, then it will only allow other people within those
parameters to chat or communicate with me. So it really empowers
the students quite a bit because now they choose where they want
to go.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Stupak.
I am going to just ask one other question of Ms. Aftab and then we
will conclude the hearing. But and you had a lot of experience with
this. You were a lawyer prior to getting involved in WiredSafety.
And do you find that parents� perceptions of what their children are
doing online differ significantly from the reality of what their
children are doing online?
Ms. Aftab. Yes, and Mr. Chairman, I have actually written all of the
leading books for parents on Internet safety in the United States and
around the world. And WiredSafety, the volunteers before me have been
doing this for 11 years so it was a long track record here. Parents
are clueless, totally clueless. And even the parents who use the
Internet are clueless. And it is interesting, we have been talking
about this for years and I will go out and I address 1,000 parents a
month and 5,000 students myself in person and every single month,
and when I go out to them, the parents keep saying not my kid. And
I say your kids are communicating with strangers, no. Twenty-four
percent of the teens that were polled by family PC magazine, teen
girls admitted to meeting strangers off line that they met online,
24 percent. And 60 percent of the survey that we did with the
University of Southern Florida in 1999, 60 percent of the teen
girls, 11,000 teen girls between the ages of 13 and 16 engaged in
cyber sex, admitted to it. One of the girls said that she would
not, she had cyber sex but she did not go all the way. I always
joke, that means she did not use punctuation. But these kids are
doing this because they can and the parents have always said not
my kid. And then myspace became popular. And myspace has put fear
in the hearts of parents everywhere and I think it is seriously
overblown. They have the most liberal law enforcement, pro-law
enforcement policy on the Internet today. So they get it but the
parents do not. So now the parents are saying not my kid, my
cherubic 13-year-old, 14-year-old would never do those things and
they go onto their site and they see them posing in their bra, or
licking their lips and arching their back and they are thinking oh
my goodness. And a lot of these kids who are home coloring with
their 5-year-old niece over the weekend are pretending that they
were out drinking last weekend. So they are not really a
drunken slut, they are just playing one on myspace. And their
parents have no idea. And so what we now need to do is awaken
parents, get them to open their eyes at the same time they do
not throw out the Internet which all of our children need. We
have hearings about the dangers online and the terrible things
that can happen to children but the greatest single risk our
children face in connection with the Internet today is being
denied access. We have got a solution for everything else.
Mr. Whitfield. Ms. Aftab, I thank you very much. And
Ms. Schroeder for the good work that you are doing. And
Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Sallam, we really appreciate your being
here and the great leadership that you are providing.
Before concluding, I would ask unanimous consent that we enter
into the record the letter from the Department of Justice from
Mr. Ryan regarding Justin Berry�s--both letters to and from.
And oh, yes, Ms. Schroeder, we would like to put your overheads
in the record as well. Do you have problem with that?
[The information follows:]
Ms. Schroeder. Not at all.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay.
Ms. Schroeder. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. With that, the record will remain open for
30 days and I think Dr. Burgess may have some additional
questions and if he does we will get them to you all. But that
concludes today�s hearing and thank you very much for your
patience.
[Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET: WHAT PARENTS, KIDS
AND CONGRESS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CHILD PREDATORS
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 2322 of
the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (Chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Bass, Walden, Ferguson,
Burgess, Blackburn, Barton (ex officio), Stupak, DeGette,
Inslee, and Whitfield.
Staff Present: Mark Paoletta, Chief Counsel for Oversight and
Investigations; Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel for Oversight
and Investigations; Kelli Andrews, Counsel; Karen Christian,
Counsel; Michael Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Edith Holleman,
Minority Counsel; and David Nelson, Minority
Investigator/Economist.
Mr. Whitfield. This hearing will come to order, and today marks the
second day of hearings that the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
is having on child pornography and sexual exploitation of children over
the Internet.
Today, as I said, this is our second day of hearings on the sexual
exploitation of children over the Internet. Today, we hope to
gain a better understanding of how U.S. law enforcement is
working to combat the horrifying and growing commercial business
of sexually exploiting children over the Internet, and what is
being done to put those online child predators behind bars.
The testimony we heard on Tuesday was disturbing. For example,
in this $20 billion a year business of commercially exploiting
children, the images of child victims are increasingly younger
and increasingly more violent. I cannot fathom who these people
are that seek to view these images of children being sexually
abused and, frequently, being abused on demand. As one witness
on Tuesday described it, these images are digital crime scenes,
and it sickens both our heart and soul.
Some of the most disturbing testimony at Tuesday�s hearing came
from Justin Berry, a victim of online predators. Justin�s
testimony about the Department of Justice�s handling of his case
was particularly troubling. Justin testified that he himself
has no faith in the Department of Justice�s Child Exploitation
and Obscenity Section. This is a section of prosecutors in the
Department that are supposedly experts in handling cases like
Justin�s. When a victim witness has no faith in the people that
are supposed to be his advocates, there is clearly something
wrong with the process.
While I am sympathetic to the Department�s concern over
discussing ongoing investigations, the allegations raised by
Justin Berry�s testimony on Tuesday raise important process
questions that need to be addressed by the Department. We have
some specific questions for the Department of Justice at today�s
hearing. These questions include: why has it taken so long for
the Department to act and rescue children in imminent danger of
being molested; why Justin�s father, Knute Berry, a man who
allegedly profited off of the sexual exploitation of his son, has
not been charged or arrested; why there have been no arrests from
the over 1,500 names of subscribers to Justin�s website, that
featured images of children being sexually abused, and which he
supplied to the Department of Justice; why Aaron Brown, the
person who ran a credit card processing company called Neova.net,
that processed the orders for sexually exploitive images of
children, has not been arrested and charged in connection with
Justin�s case; why Ken Gourlay has not been charged or arrested
in connection with the alleged money he made hosting Justin�s
own website, nor for his alleged sexual abuse of Justin while
Justin was still a minor; and finally, why the Department of
Justice allowed an affidavit to be unsealed and remain unsealed
for 6 months, and still is unsealed today, in a criminal case
that had the effect of putting Justin Berry�s life in danger?
We do not want these disturbing details about the handling of
Justin�s case to go unanswered by the Department, and hope that
some insight will be gained through this hearing today, and
that is one of our clear intents.
I would like now to briefly turn to the other witnesses that we
will hear from today. Law enforcement has a very difficult task
ahead, and is fighting an immense criminal enterprise of online
child predators. We need to give law enforcement the necessary
resources to save our children from online predators. I look
forward to hearing from the various law enforcement witnesses
today about their successes in the field, as well as concerns
and problems they face. Child predators on the Internet are
using all technological means available to avoid law enforcement
efforts, and law enforcement must respond in an effective way.
Finally, it is critical that we have an understanding of what is
going on in the various State legal systems. About 70 percent of
all prosecutions involving child pornography are handled at the
State and local level. Therefore, the State laws regarding the
illegality of possession, manufacturing, distribution, and
enticing of minors in child pornography need to be as strong as
the Federal laws. My home State of Kentucky, as an example,
recently passed legislation that will make possession of child
pornography a felony instead of a misdemeanor. I look forward
to hearing from witnesses, including Mr. Weeks from PROTECT,
about sentencing issues surrounding these cases involving the
sexual exploitation of children over the Internet.
And at this time, I will recognize Mr. Stupak of Michigan for
his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Ed. Whitfield, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations
GOOD MORNING.
TODAY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS BEGINS
ITS SECOND DAY OF HEARINGS ABOUT SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN
OVER THE INTERNET. TODAY WE HOPE TO GAIN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING
OF HOW U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT IS WORKING TO COMBAT THE HORRIFYING
AND GROWING COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OF SEXUALLY EXPLOITING CHILDREN
OVER THE INTERNET AND WHAT IS BEING DONE TO PUT THESE ON-LINE
CHILD PREDATORS BEHIND BARS. THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD ON TUESDAY
WAS DISTURBING. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS 20 BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR
BUSINESS OF COMMERCIALLY EXPLOITING CHILDREN--THE IMAGES OF CHILD
VICTIMS ARE INCREASINGLY YOUNGER AND INCREASINGLY MORE VIOLENT.
I CANNOT FATHOM WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE THAT SEEK TO VIEW THESE
IMAGES OF CHILDREN BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED AND IN MANY INSTANCES--
ON DEMAND. AS ONE WITNESS ON TUESDAY DESCRIBED IT--THESE IMAGES
ARE "DIGITAL CRIME SCENES". IT SICKENS MY HEART AND MY SOUL.
SOME OF THE MOST DISTURBING TESTIMONY AT TUESDAY�S HEARING CAME
FROM JUSTIN BERRY--A VICTIM OF ON-LINE PREDATORS. JUSTIN�S
TESTIMONY ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE�S HANDLING OF HIS CASE
WAS PARTICULARLY TROUBLING. JUSTIN TESTIFIED THAT HE HAS NO
FAITH IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE�S CHILD EXPLOITATION AND
OBSCENITY SECTION. THIS IS A SECTION OF PROSECUTORS IN THE
DEPARTMENT THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY EXPERTS IN HANDLING CASES LIKE
JUSTIN�S. WHEN A VICTIM WITNESS HAS NO FAITH IN THE PEOPLE THAT
ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HIS ADVOCATES--THERE IS SOMETHING CLEARLY
WRONG WITH THE PROCESS. WHILE I AM SYMPATHETIC TO THE
DEPARTMENT�S CONCERN OVER DISCUSSING ON-GOING INVESTIGATIONS,
THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY JUSTIN BERRY�S TESTIMONY ON TUESDAY
RAISE IMPORTANT PROCESS QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY
THE DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT TODAY�S HEARING. THESE QUESTIONS
INCLUDE--
WHY HAS IT TAKEN SO LONG FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO ACT AND RESCUE CHILDREN
IN IMMINENT DANGER OF BEING MOLESTED?
WHY JUSTIN�S FATHER-KNUTE BERRY-A MAN WHO ALLEGEDLY PROFITED OFF OF THE
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF HIS SON HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED OR ARRESTED?
WHY THERE HAVE BEEN NO ARRESTS FROM THE OVER 1500 NAMES OF SUBSCRIBERS
TO JUSTIN�S WEBSITE THAT FEATURED IMAGES OF CHILDREN BEING SEXUALLY
ABUSED?
WHY AARON BROWN, THE PERSON WHO RAN A CREDIT CARD PROCESSING COMPANY --
CALLED NEOVA.NET-THAT PROCESSED THE ORDERS FOR SEXUALLY EXPLOITATIVE
IMAGES OF CHILDREN, HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED AND CHARGED IN CONNECTION
WITH JUSTIN�S CASE?
WHY KEN GOURLAY HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED OR ARRESTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ALLEGED MONEY HE MADE HOSTING JUSTIN�S WEBSITE AND FOR HIS ALLEGED
SEXUAL ABUSE OF JUSTIN WHEN JUSTIN WAS STILL A MINOR?
AND FINALLY-WHY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ALLOWED AN AFFIDAVIT TO BE
UNSEALED---AND REMAIN UNSEALED FOR OVER SIX MONTHS-- IN A CRIMINAL CASE
THAT HAD THE EFFECT OF PUTTING JUSTIN�S LIFE IN DANGER?
WE DO NOT WANT THESE DISTRUBING DETAILS ABOUT THE HANDLING OF JUSTIN�S
CASE TO GO UNANSWERED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND HOPE THAT SOME INSIGHT WILL
BE GAINED THROUGH THIS HEARING.
I WOULD LIKE NOW TO BRIEFLY TURN TO THE OTHER WITNESSES THAT WE
WILL HEAR FROM TODAY. LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS A VERY DIFFICULT TASK
AHEAD AND IS FIGHTING AN IMMENSE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE OF ON-LINE
CHILD PREDATORS. WE NEED TO GIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT THE NECESSARY
RESOURCES TO SAVE OUR CHILDREN FROM ON-LINE PREDATORS. I LOOK
FORWARD TO HEARING FROM THE VARIOUS LAW ENFORCEMENT WITNESSES
TODAY ABOUT THEIR SUCCESSES IN THE FIELD, AS WELL AS, CONCERNS
OR PROBLEMS THEY SEE IN INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTING THESE
CASES. CHILD PREDATORS ON THE INTERNET ARE CLEARLY USING ALL
TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS AVAILABLE TO AVOID LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT MUST RESPOND.
FINALLY, IT IS CRITICAL THAT WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS GOING
ON IN THE VARIOUS STATE LEGAL SYSTEMS. ABOUT 70% OF ALL PROSECUTIONS
INVOLVING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ARE HANDLED AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL.
THEREFORE, THE STATE LAWS REGARDING THE ILLEGALITY OF POSSESSION,
MANUFACTURING, DISTRIBUTION AND ENTICING OF MINORS IN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
NEED TO BE AS STRONG AS THE FEDERAL LAWS. MY HOME STATE OF KENTUCKY
RECENTLY PASSED LEGISLATION THAT WILL MAKE POSSESSION OF CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY A FELONY INSTEAD OF A MISDEMEANOR. I LOOK FORWARD TO
HEARING FROM WITNESSES, INCLUDING MR. WEEKS, FROM PROTECT, ABOUT
SENTENCING ISSUES SURROUNDING THESE CASES INVOLVING THE SEXUAL
EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET.
THANK YOU.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
April is Child Abuse Awareness Month, and so, it is appropriate
we are holding these hearings. As we learned Tuesday, this
problem has many sordid faces: commercial websites, predator
seduction over peer-to-peer networks, pedophile groups that
demand and trade new materials as the price of admission to
complete their set of pornographic photos, and sex tourism, which
are trips organized by American men to foreign countries for the
purpose of sexually molesting and filming sex acts with young
people.
We learned other disturbing facts too numerous to list here, but
a few that are noteworthy. Victims of this disgusting trade are
28 times more likely to become prostitutes 86 percent of the
victims develop serious, long term mental illness. Eighty percent
of these predators have material depicting victims under the age
of 12, 40 percent under the age of 6, and 20 percent under the
age of 3. Unfortunately, yesterday�s news revealed that a Deputy
Press Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security had been
arrested by authorities who were posing as a 14-year-old girl.
The arrest occurred as the officer portraying herself as a
14-year-old girl was to pose nude for him on a webcam.
As Mr. Justin Berry testified, there is no reason for a 13 or
14-year-old to have a webcam. Mr. Chairman, the committee staff
has spent many hours interviewing key Federal officials who
investigate child pornography every day. Unfortunately, they
are not here to testify today. Today, we will hear from a few
frontline law enforcement officers, and some witnesses purporting
to represent the frontline prosecutors and the Federal law
enforcement officers. I say purportedly, because I don�t
believe that the most experienced witnesses are here today.
On Tuesday, we heard a withering indictment of the Child
Exploitation and Obscenity Section at the Department of
Justice, CEOS. CEOS are the prosecutors responsible for
coordinating these horrible cases nationwide. Unfortunately,
the head of CEOS is not here. Instead, Justice sent us a U.S.
Attorney from the State of Montana to present its testimony. I
hope this individual has some knowledge in this area he will be
talking about today.
The Department of Justice is not the only agency that did not
provide its most knowledgeable staff as a witness today. Both
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, have incredible,
underfunded cybercrime operations with great expertise in
working these cases nationally and internationally. These
critical law enforcement agencies have two of the most
articulate and committed special agents working on child
exploitation. These talented and dedicated supervisors, Arnold
Bell of the FBI�s Innocent Images Unit, and Claude Davenport of
the Child Exploitation Section of the ICE Cybercrime Center,
have not been permitted to give testimony today. Instead, the
individuals who will appear here have job titles bestowed upon
them by bureaucratic politicians. Again, I suspect that they have
little recent law enforcement experience in the dirty world of
Internet child pornography and sexual exploitation.
That makes our job extremely difficult, for us here in Congress
to do oversight work when agencies do not send the witnesses we
request. I will be pressing for answers as to why those that
labor so hard to protect our children from the worst of all
crimes are denied adequate personnel and critical technical
resources. The agents that actually work these cases need much
more recognition and support in what they receive from their
superiors. These men and women are overwhelmed by the size of the
problem, and handicapped by timid prosecutions, at least on the
Federal level. The FBI, ICE, and the Inspectors of the U.S.
Postal Service have brought down networks involving tens of
thousands of criminals that have, or likely will physically
molest children, yet despite their efforts, the Federal
prosecution of these perpetrators is rare.
On the State and local level, the story is different but widely
variable. We are aware of a county district attorney in New
Hampshire that averages one prosecution every 10 days of these
predators. He says he could do one a day if he had more
attorneys on staff. He does have the assistance of the ICAC,
coordinated Federal and State local computer crime specialists,
assisting him in developing the necessary cases and evidence,
but he still needs the manpower to present the cases in court.
I find the ICAC�s testimony about the Internet service providers
being a major obstacle to the investigation of child exploitation
over the Web particularly troubling. I can�t help but believe
that the credit card companies and PayPal accounts also have
responsibility to police their clients who are accessing these
child pornography sites.
Yesterday, I was pleased that our colleagues unanimously
accepted my amendment in the Telecommunications markup to crack
down on Internet child pornography. My amendment orders the
Federal Communications Commission to devise regulations that
require both cable service and phone companies offering cable
service and technologies to prevent child pornography from being
conveyed over Internet networks. This will serve as a good start
at curtailing child pornography on the Internet, but we also need
stepped up law enforcement at all levels, Federal, State, and
local.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal prosecution effort is far less vigorous
than that found on the State and local level. As I noted Tuesday,
in a major case where 20,000 verified American child sex
offenders are out still walking our streets, prosecutors have
been able to convict less than 2 percent of the identified
perpetrators, while law enforcement in Australia obtained
convictions of over 55 percent of their countrymen identified in
the same international bust. If Australia can do 55 percent, I
am sure we can do better than 2 percent here in this country.
We, Congress, have a long way to go to assist law enforcement to
help in this fight. I hope that we don�t stop with this hearing
today. As a former law enforcement officer, I will use every
opportunity to crack down on illegal Internet activity, bank card
transactions, and inadequate Federal statutes that tie law
enforcement hands when pursuing child pornography perpetrators.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I thank you for
having this hearing.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Stupak, thank you, and I want to also thank
you for raising this issue of the witness from the Justice
Department today. Of course, we are glad to have Mr. Mercer
here. He is a U.S. Attorney from Montana, and I know he has
experience in these child pornography cases, but we specifically
asked for Raul Roldan, who is the FBI�s cybercrimes expert, and
we also asked for Drew Oosterbaan, who is the Director of CEOS,
and neither one of them is here, but I did notice that Raul
Roldan was on CNN today on the Today Show, so he had time to go
on television, but he didn�t have time to be here with us.
At this point, I would like to recognize the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Ferguson, for his opening statement.
Mr. Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding
this second hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I, too, think it is outrageous that we have law
enforcement agencies that are willing to, and perfectly happy,
to send some of their most knowledgeable representatives to do
interviews on national media, but they can�t come before a
subcommittee in the Congress to share their expertise and their
thoughts and strategies with the Congress and the American
people. I think it is outrageous.
I certainly appreciate the witnesses for being here today. I
appreciate the expertise and the insights that they will lend to
these hearings. But I think it is a very, very serious issue,
and I hope that we will follow up on that. I want to thank you,
Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Stupak, for your leadership on this issue.
I am happy to see that as parents and as Members of Congress who
are serving on this committee, that we are making a concerted
effort to get to the bottom of an industry which so horribly
affects many children in our country. I also want to thank the
witnesses for testifying and helping us get to the real causes
of this problem, and why it is so pervasive in our society.
I am sure that it is safe to say this past Tuesday�s hearing
touched and shocked every one of us who was there in that room,
or who got to watch it on television. Although we have been
aware of this problem, many of us have been aware of this
problem, I think it is doubtful that prior to Tuesday, that any
of us genuinely knew the details of this sordid world that so
many children find themselves victims of.
The question running through everybody�s minds and my mind is
how, how could this happen to so many children? How could it
be so easy for a sexual predator in today�s world of advanced
crime fighting and investigative techniques? And how is it
that we, as a society, seem to be incapable of putting a stop
to it? I can�t thank enough organizations like WiredSafety
and i-SAFE, people like Kurt Eichenwald from the New York Times,
who is here again today, who have brought national attention to
this issue. We must recognize that it is our job as Members of
Congress to give these organizations and our law enforcement
officials the tools they need to fight this unbelievable crime.
With yesterday�s revelations about a high ranking DHS official
being charged with online seduction, and yesterday�s announcement
of 27 people being charged in an international child pornography
ring, it is clear that we are just beginning to scratch the
surface of this industry, and we have a long, long way to go.
Recently, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
reported that 39 percent of people who are caught with images of
child sexual abuse had images of children younger than 6 years
old. We have a 6-year-old daughter. Nineteen percent of people
who have been caught with these images, one in five, were caught
with images of children under three years old. We also have a
3-year-old daughter. This evil is beyond our comprehension.
As proven by these hearings, my colleagues and I have made a
commitment to do everything in our power to fight this problem,
and to punish offenders to the fullest extent of the law. These
people are not normal criminals. Their offences go above and
beyond typical crimes. They steal the innocence of a child, and
leave in their wake emotional and physical scars that will affect
these young victims for their entire lives. After hearing
Justin�s heart-wrenching testimony on Tuesday, it became
apparent that it is a problem within our justice system that
allows this industry to continue and remain profitable. Justin
told us that these predators laugh at law enforcement, but an
estimated $20 billion industry that makes it profits by
violating children is absolutely nothing to laugh at.
I am anxious to hear the testimony of our witnesses, and to have
an opportunity to question them regarding what needs to be done
by lawmakers and parents and teachers and law enforcement
officers, to put an end to this industry, and to find out how we
have fallen so sadly short of our goals so far.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Stupak, for
your commitment, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. At this time, I will
recognize the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. DeGette, for her
opening statement.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this is a little unusual for this committee, because
having jurisdiction over telecommunications and the Internet, we
are usually always jumping at the chance to talk about the wonders
of the Web. And the Internet has been one of the most incredible
creations of the last century. At the beginning of the new
millennium, we look forward to a future of untold promise and new
innovation that we can�t even imagine today, and I think what we
are seeing this week, sadly, is sometimes this innovation can
move in ways that are horrific to us.
The Internet has changed the way we do business, conduct
research, play, and communicate with each other, and it has made
many day-to-day activities like shopping so much easier. Those
of us who have teenage children know that young people often are
the ones who figure out the ways to use the Internet in new and
different, but that is the problem is the activities that have
been made easier by the Internet are being used now to commit
crimes against humanity in a much more facile way, and that is
the sexual exploitation of children.
That is what we are faced with when we conduct these hearings
today. Our technological pride and joy has been hijacked. It
has enabled a plague of proportions that none of us here today
every imagined. Cloaked in anonymity, and enabled by
technological innovation, this blight has been growing to extreme
conditions under our very noses. How do we preserve the things
that we value about the Internet? Can we find the right balance
between privacy and freedom, in eradicating this heinous
epidemic? I don�t think we have the answers today, but that is
what we are here to determine, and I would say we have a very
difficult job ahead of us. We can�t stand idly by and let our
young people be devoured by this terrible use of technology.
One thing that is clear to me, after hearing Justin�s testimony
and reading the newspaper articles and other materials, is that
these terrible predators are working a lot faster than we are,
and government, for a change, needs to thing about working faster
than the people who are taking advantage of our kids.
All of us agree that these hearings have been a horrific eye
opener. Mr. Ferguson talked about his young children, 3 and 6.
Well, I have two girls, who are age 12 and 16, and I don�t think
any of us realized how pervasive this child exploitation over
the Internet is. I will tell you this, I certainly intend to
go home and talk to my two daughters about this problem, and
what they can do, when I go home tomorrow.
We have learned that it is now an industry that now nets a
profit close to the gross product of some small countries, and
so I, too, am glad, Mr. Chairman, that you and Mr. Stupak are
holding these hearings, because it is an issue that would be
easy for us to try to sweep under the rug. But I think it is
too important for that, and so, I think every member of this
subcommittee needs to make a commitment right now to accomplish
three things as the result of these hearings: first, to
identify the problems with the Federal response to this crisis;
second, to figure out how we are going to address this scourge;
and third, to pledge that by the end of the 109th Congress,
which is about 15 weeks away, we will have made an impact on
this.
What we should not do is have these hearings, make ourselves feel
better, go home and talk to our kids ourselves, and then breathe
a sigh of relief that we fixed the problem, because that is not
going to fix the problem. This scourge is just a mouse click away
from directly impacting us, our families, and our communities, and
so, I would say we have a moral imperative to take action.
I share the disappointment that everyone else has, that the
witnesses that were requested from the FBI and the other agencies
are not here today. If there was ever an issue that the executive
branch should work with the legislative branch on, it was this
issue. This is an investigative hearing, and with all due
respect, we need facts, not generalized policy statements.
And so I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, as Americans, we should
be disgusted that our country is the number one consumer of child
pornography. How did we get here, and how are we letting this
happen to our children? We cannot let this issue go away. We
can�t be a do nothing Congress, and if we can make an impact on
this issue, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that everybody on both
sides of this committee can go home and hold our heads up very
proudly.
So, I think let us commit together to get to work. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Ms. DeGette, and you raise some
penetrating questions, and we hope to get those answers. Ever
since Kurt Eichenwald wrote the first articles in the New York
Times about this issue, our committee has been focused on it,
and no one has been more focused on it than our full committee
Chairman of Energy and Commerce, Joe Barton of Texas, and at
this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Barton for his opening
statement.
Chairman Barton. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield.
I do have a formal opening statement, but I have to get
something off my chest. We have been working on this
subcommittee, and Mr. Dingell and I, the full committee on this
issue for 6 months or so, maybe longer, and we keep trying to
cooperate with the Justice Department and the FBI, and you
folks seem bound and determined to be as uncooperative as
possible.
This is the opening statement time, so I am not going to ask
any questions, but I want you to know, Mr. Mercer, that I am
going to call the Attorney General one more time, and we had
better get the people we want to testify. Not that you are not a
credible witness, but I didn�t hear of all of Ms. DeGette�s
statement, but my guess is, having scanned your testimony, that
she has scanned it too, we don�t need to know specifics of case
investigations. That shouldn�t be public. But on behalf of the
people of the United States of America who we represent, as the
most closely elected officials to the people, we do deserve to
get the witnesses that they are supposedly hands on, trying to
solve these problems, and we are not doing it. You are not
giving them to us. Your Department is not giving them to us,
and the FBI is not giving them to us.
Now, I am told half the room are FBI agents, and when the second
panel comes, I am going to have some pretty straight questions
for the FBI. But we are going to get the facts one way or the
other. This is just too important an issue to let bureaucratic,
I am trying to think of the right word, turf wars impede it.
And when you have a Republican majority in the Congress and a
Republican President, we ought to be able to work on a
bi-branch basis, if that is the right term, to get the facts
out, and that is not happening.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that my entire statement,
formal statement, be put into the record. But this is probably
the most important investigation. We have got all the
investigations going on in all the other bodies and other
committees, but child pornography is the most pernicious thing
that is affecting our society at its very roots, and we need to
root it out, and we need to put an end to this Internet child
pornography system that is growing like a weed on our society,
and one way or the other, we are going to get our executive
branch officials to cooperate with us and testify. That is
just going to happen.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back. But I
want to thank you and Mr. Stupak for your perseverance on this
issue.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on
Energy and Commerce
Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, for holding this second day of hearings
on sexual exploitation of children over the Internet.
Just two days ago, we heard testimony from witnesses who described the
sickening world of Internet child pornography. As repulsive as
Tuesday�s testimony was regarding the magnitude of the child pornography
problem, I was just as troubled by the opinion shared by some of the
witnesses that the fight against child pornography in the United States
is, if not a losing battle, one that is not being won.
Only one conclusion could be drawn from the witnesses� testimony: the
sexual exploitation and abuse of children over the Internet has reached
a crisis point. Today, we are here to learn about what is being done to
find, prosecute, and convict these child predators.
I look forward to learning whether the witnesses from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and
the United States Postal Inspection Service share this opinion and what
they believe must be done to bring child predators to justice. In
particular, I hope to hear more about the role of Internet Service
Providers and credit card companies in these investigations, and whether
more should be required of them with respect to retaining data and
conducting due diligence of those who use their servers and financial
networks to distribute child pornography.
I also look forward to learning more about state efforts to prosecute
those who commit crimes related to the sexual exploitation of children.
While the federal government is actively pursuing investigations of
child predators, the vast majority of investigations and prosecutions of
these crimes are being conducted at the state and local level.
Unfortunately, penalties for child sex crimes in some states are the
equivalent of a slap on the wrist. It is inconceivable to me that some
who possess, create, or distribute child pornography go home on
probation. Their victims don�t get off so easily. They suffer for the
rest of their lives.
Finally, I believe this hearing should address some of the concerns
raised by Justin Berry at Tuesday�s hearing. Justin, Kurt Eichenwald,
the New York Times reporter who investigated and reported Justin�s
story, and Justin�s lawyer, Stephen Ryan, all testified that the Justice
Department has failed to adequately pursue investigations against the
men who molested Justin and the customers who sexually exploited him over
the Internet. I have personally talked to Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales about these concerns, and he has assured me that his department
is serious and is actively pursuing this investigation. I don�t doubt
his word, but I do hope the testimony offered today by the Department of
Justice will provide further information about the status of the
investigation.
In closing, I want to commend the law enforcement agents who are here
today as well as their colleagues in the field. I believe all my
colleagues join me today in saying that we are prepared to do everything
possible to help you put an end to the child pornography industry and
bring child predators to justice.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we look
forward to continue working with you as we attempt to get the
key witnesses before the committee.
However, your opening statements in their entirety will be
placed in the record without objection. And at this time, I
will recognize Dr. Burgess of Texas for--oh, I am sorry--
recognize Mr. Inslee for his opening statement.
Mr. Inslee. I just want to follow on Chairman Barton�s
statement that this country really is enraged, and is demanding
answers, and ultimately, we will obtain them, and we hope that
the message that is delivered is that we need to move forward
together quickly. The country is not going to wait any longer.
Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. At this time, we
recognize Dr. Burgess of Texas.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the interests of time, too, I am going to submit a statement
for the record, because we do have a full day ahead of us, but I
just can�t help but observe that the one piece that I took away
from Tuesday�s lengthy hearing was the comment that the
perpetrators were laughing at law enforcement, and law
enforcement is in this room today. They are laughing at you on
the Internet about this problem, and I want you to take that
very, very seriously.
I wanted to also take a moment of personal privilege, and once
again, recognize don�t tell anyone home in my district, but I
want to recognize the New York Times reporter for doing the
right thing, and I think if he had not stopped and picked up the
person at the side of the road, they might not be with us today.
So Mr. Eichenwald, again, I want to congratulate you, and thank
you for doing the right thing when you were faced with a situation
that you probably didn�t completely understand right at the
beginning.
I, myself, have to wonder why it has gotten to this point. I
mean, we are a society that puts warning labels on airplanes that
says danger, you may die if this crashes. Why don�t we put a
warning label on a webcam, not age appropriate for those under
18 years of age to use by themselves in their bedrooms for
longer than 12 hours at a time. I wonder about America�s legal
system.
We have heard testimony in this committee on multiple occasions
about the abuses of the class action system. Where are the
lawsuits against the payment companies that allow this to
happen? Why have they not stepped up to protect America�s
children, but mostly, I am embarrassed by the Federal agencies,
and by the fact that we haven�t taken definitive action in
Congress. I know it is going to be difficult. I want all of
us in the Federal government, those in Federal agencies and
those in Congress, to muster the institutional courage to do
the right thing.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Dr. Burgess. And at this time, I
will recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the
work that you and the staff have done on this hearing, and the
series of hearings, and I thank you also, say thank you to our
witnesses for continuing to work with us, to be here and work
with us on the issue, as we seek to crack down on child
pornography and sexual exploitation and abuse.
This past Tuesday, the subcommittee did hear testimony from
Justin Berry on the pervasiveness of child predators on the
Internet. He described to us how the predators help to lure
teenagers, to setting up the websites, the webcam situation,
as Dr. Burgess just mentioned, and then, gradually lure them
into sexual acts for money.
He also told this committee that the Department of Justice�s
CEOS has failed to act on information he provided to them at
the risk of his own life, to find over 1,500 child predators
and distributors of child pornography. And I am looking forward
to hearing from the Department of Justice on
why this happened. It is incomprehensible to me that there are
people who are employed by the Federal government of this Nation
who will hide, arrogantly hide behind bureaucracy, stonewall
behind bureaucracy, and allow this to happen. That is
inexcusable. It is absolutely inexcusable.
The Federal budget should reflect our main priority, to defend
the citizens of our country. To protect our children from those
who would abuse them clearly falls into this area.
I look forward to hearing from law enforcement on their efforts
to shut down this industry, and send a message to these
despicable, despicable people that this country will not tolerate
those who knowingly, who willingly, who seek to abuse our
children.
Chairman Whitfield, I yield back my time. I thank you for
looking into this delicate issue, and I hope to see some
positive results from the hearing.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. And thank you, Mrs. Blackburn. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have read through the testimony from our witnesses today,
last night, and I will tell you, after sitting through the
hearing last week, or earlier this week, I guess, and listening
to what occurred there, I have got to tell you, my confidence is
pretty shaken in the Justice Department, and I hope we will hear
today that something is happening, more than what Mr. Berry
indicated, and his attorney.
I want to know about the affidavit, why it was unsealed, why
wasn�t it resealed. I think this case, to me, would send
certainly, a chill across the land, that if you are caught up
in one of these things, coming forward may not produce the
results that you think it may. I mean, when Justin Berry sits
here and says he wouldn�t necessarily recommend that others
bring their cases forward, something is broken, and I realize
you have got an open case, you may not be able to get into all
the details of the case. My concern is looking at the system,
and to figure out if it is working, how is it working that we
don�t understand, and if it is not, how do we fix it? And I hope
we hear that today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. I think that concludes all the opening
statements, so the first panel consists of one witness, and that
is Mr. William Mercer, who is the Principal Associate Deputy
Attorney General, and also, U.S. Attorney for the District of
Montana, of the U.S. Department of Justice, and we do welcome
you, Mr. Mercer, and I guess it is clear to everyone now, you
are not our first choice, but we know that you are a prominent
prosecutor, and we do look forward to your testimony.
You are aware that the committee is holding an investigative
hearing, and when doing so, we have the practice of taking
testimony under oath. Do you have any objection to testifying
under oath this morning?
Mr. Mercer. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Under the rules of the House and rules of the
committee, you are entitled to legal counsel, but I am assuming
that you don�t need legal counsel. Is that correct?
Mr. Mercer. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. If you would, then, raise your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much. You are now under oath,
and you may proceed with 5 minutes for your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. MERCER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MONTANA, PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Mercer. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stupak, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify before you today about the Department of
Justice�s efforts to protect children from sexual exploitation
on the Internet.
Unfortunately, the Internet can be used to facilitate the sexual
exploitation of children. Accordingly, the Department of
Justice is unequivocally committed to enforcing Federal laws in
these areas, and particularly, the possession, production, and
distribution of child pornography, and the use of the Internet
to coerce and entice minors to--
Mr. Stupak. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure his microphone is on.
Mr. Mercer. Oh, I am sorry. I don�t have--now I do.
Let me turn to child pornography. Unfortunately, the very term
we commonly use to describe these awful images, child
pornography, does not adequately convey the horrors these images
depict. A more accurate term would be images of child sexual
abuse, because the production of these images involves the
sexual abuse of a child. These images are, thus, permanent
visual records of child sexual abuse. In the past several
years, the children we have seen in these images have been
younger and younger, and very regrettably, the abuse depicted
has been increasingly more severe, and is often sadistic.
As if the images themselves were not harmful enough, the sexual
abuse inherent in child pornography is increasingly exacerbated
by pedophiles who choose to disseminate these images to
millions of people over the Internet with a few clicks of a
computer mouse. Once on the Internet, the images are passed
endlessly from offender to offender, and perhaps used to whet
the appetite of another pedophile to act out the deviant
fantasies of the image on yet another child, thereby continuing
the cycle of abuse.
The Department of Justice is absolutely committed to obliterating
this intolerable evil. We are equally concerned about the number
of online predators who lurk in chat rooms in search of kids who
they hope to meet in person, for the purpose of engaging in
sexual activity.
I would like to focus on what the Department of Justice has done
to address this problem in the last 5 years. Prosecutors in
the Criminal Division�s Child Exploitation and Obscenity
Section, in conjunction with Assistant U.S. Attorneys and FBI
agents with our Federal partners in the Bureau of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, the United States Postal Inspection
Service, and the Secret Service, and our partners in State and
local law enforcement, work continuously to identify the
vulnerabilities of the child pornography industry, and to attack
them at every angle, both domestically and overseas.
We are focusing our efforts on everyone, from the consumer to
the website operator to the facilitators, including those who
provide credit card processing and the subscription services.
For agents and Assistant U.S. Attorneys assigned to these cases,
and for the prosecutors in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity
Section who do this work every day, we do not take lightly the
fact that their work revolves around review of the most
troubling and graphic material, depicting children of all ages
engaged in illegal sexual acts. They are engaged in this
effort because they know, from their professional experience
and a number of studies, that their efforts are essential to
the prevention of future sexual abuse of children. The leaders
in the Department of Justice are truly grateful for their
efforts.
A concrete reflection of our intensified efforts is the fact
that the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section within the
Department�s Criminal Division has generated a more than 445
percent increase in its caseload, including child pornography
cases and investigations, over the past 4 years. In addition
to increasing the sheer number of investigations and
prosecutions brought by the Department�s prosecutors, the
quality and import of the cases have increased substantially,
with a focus on the producers, commercial distributors, and
other high impact offenders. The Department�s prosecutors in
the 94 United States Attorney�s offices are critical to the
efforts to enforce Federal laws prohibiting crimes against
children. According to the Executive Office of the U.S.
Attorneys, total Federal prosecutions of child pornography and
abuse cases rose from 344 cases in fiscal year 1995 to 1,576
cases in fiscal year 2005, a 358 percent increase during that
time period. The number of Federal investigations of crimes
against children continues to increase at an exponential rate.
Since the late 1990s, through the Department of Justice�s Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Congress has
funded Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces. The ICACs
have played a critical role in law enforcement�s efforts to stop
Internet criminal activity which poses harm to children. In just
the first 6 months of calendar year 2005, ICAC investigations
resulted in 3,423 State charges and 563 Federal charges. Moreover,
the Attorney General has made very clear his and the Department�s
commitment to protecting children from sexual exploitation over
the Internet. On March 15, he announced a new Department
initiative, Project Safe Childhood, aimed at combating the growing
threat of children being exploited online through child pornography
and enticement offenses.
As this initiative is implemented in the coming months, it will
provide for even better coordination by law enforcement at all
levels in investigating and prosecuting child exploitation cases.
It will enable us to bring even more Federal prosecutions in the
area. It will make more training available for officers and
prosecutors, and will further ongoing community education and
awareness efforts. Through this comprehensive initiative, the
Attorney General has made clear that this is an important
priority for the Department. Project Safe Childhood is a true
partnership. It involves the key entities in this battle,
Federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, the ICACs, our
other partners in State and local law enforcement, the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and other nonprofit
organizations dedicated to the protection of children.
As part of our strategy to focus on the most pervasive and
detrimental forms of child pornography distribution, CEOS is
currently coordinating 16 multidistrict operations involving
child pornography offenders. These investigations of national
impact have the potential for maximum deterrent effect on
offenders. Nearly each one of the 16 investigations involve
hundreds or thousands, and in a few cases, tens of thousands of
offenders. It is our hope and desire to use the Project Safe
Childhood initiative to ensure that the number of leads created
from these major investigations are coordinated, pursued, and
prosecuted in State or Federal courts.
The Department of Justice is also working to identify and
rescue victims depicted in child pornography. Seven of these
previously unknown adult subjects appearing in child pornography
images have been profiled by America�s Most Wanted and with the
assistance of tips from viewers, six have been identified. More
importantly, 35 victims so far, in Indiana, Montana, Texas,
Colorado, and Canada, have been identified as a result of this
initiative. All of the victims had been sexually abused over a
period of years, some since infancy. The Department will
continue to ensure that this program is utilized to its maximum
potential.
Finally, at the end of successful prosecutions, it is essential
that the purposes of punishment established by the Congress in
the Sentencing Reform Act are met. Sentences in child
pornography cases, and coercion and enticement of minors for
sexual purposes cases, must deter others from committing these
crimes. They must also protect the public, promote respect for
the law, and incapacitate.
Early last year, the Supreme Court issued a decision in United
States v. Booker, which altered Federal sentencing law. Before
Booker, Federal judges were required to sentence pursuant to
the sentencing guidelines. The guidelines are now merely
advisory. Recently, I testified before the House Judiciary
Committee on this subject, and noted the importance of making
the guidelines binding again. In this area, child pornography
and coercion and enticement, the Sentencing Commission reports
the year after the Booker decision, Federal courts imposed
sentences below the applicable guideline range in 26.3 percent
of the cases involving possession of child pornography, and
in 19.1 percent of the cases involving trafficking in child
pornography. We believe that these non-guideline sentences
jeopardize the purposes of punishment established by the
Congress.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. As you noted,
Mr. Chairman, I have worn the hat of a U.S. Attorney for 5 years.
I have been the Chief Deputy to the Deputy Attorney General of
the United States now for about 10 months. I have been very
involved in the development of the Project Safe Childhood
initiative, both during my time as Chairman of the Attorney
General�s Advisory Committee, and now, as the Principal
Associate Deputy Attorney General, and I am confident that I
can be helpful to this committee, in terms of understanding
what the Department has done, the tremendous efforts made on
behalf of CEOS, and by a number of line prosecutors and
agents, and certainly want to help the committee in its
essential oversight function.
I thank you for the opportunity to be here.
[The prepared statement of William W. Mercer follows:]
Prepared Statement of William W. Mercer, United States Attorney for
the District of Montana, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General,
United States Department of Justice
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stupak, and distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today
about the Department of Justice�s efforts to protect children from
sexual exploitation on the Internet. While we recognize that the
Internet can deeply enrich our lives by greatly increasing our access
to all types of information, we also know that it can be exploited
for criminal activity and can cause grave harm, including by
facilitating the sexual exploitation of children. Accordingly, the
Department of Justice is unequivocally committed to enforcing federal
laws in these areas.
The Attorney General himself has made very clear his and the
Department�s commitment to protecting children from sexual exploitation
over the Internet. On February 15th, he announced a new Department
initiative, "Project Safe Childhood," aimed at combating the growing
threat of children being exploited online through child pornography
and enticement offenses. As this initiative begins to be implemented
in the coming months, it will provide for even better coordination by
law enforcement at all levels in investigating and prosecuting child
exploitation cases; it will enable us to bring even more federal
prosecutions in this area; it will make more training available for
officers and prosecutors; and it will further ongoing community education
and awareness efforts. Through this comprehensive initiative, the
Attorney General has made clear that this is a priority for the
epartment.
Federal law, codified at Chapters 1 10 and 11 7 of Title 18, United
States Code, prohibits all aspects of the child pornography trade,
including its production, receipt, transportation, distribution,
advertising, and possession, as well as the enticement of children to
engage in unlawful sexual activity.
Unfortunately, the very term we commonly use to describe these awful
images - child pornography -does not adequately convey the horrors these
images depict. A more accurate term would be "images of child sexual
abuse," because the production of these images involves the sexual abuse
of a child. These images are thus permanent visual records of child
sexual abuse. In the past several years, the children we have seen in
these images have been younger and younger, and, very regrettably, the
abuse depicted has been increasingly more severe and is often sadistic.
As if the images themselves were not harmful enough, the sexual abuse
inherent in child pornography is increasingly exacerbated by pedophiles
who choose to disseminate these images to millions of people over the
Internet with a few clicks of a computer mouse. Once on the Internet,
the images are passed endlessly from offender to offender and perhaps
used to whet the appetite of another pedophile to act out the deviant
fantasies of the image on yet another child, thereby continuing the
cycle of abuse. The Department of Justice is absolutely committed to
obliterating this intolerable evil.
The Department of Justice works continuously to identify the
vulnerabilities of the child pornography industry and to attack them
at every angle, both domestically and overseas. We are focusing our
efforts on everyone, from the customer, to the website operator, to
the facilitators - including those who provide credit card processing
and subscription services. A concrete reflection of our intensified
efforts is the fact that the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
(CEOS) within the Department�s Criminal Division has generated a
more than 445% increase in its caseload, including child pornography
cases and investigations, handled in the past four years. In
addition to increasing the sheer number of investigations and
prosecutions brought by the Department�s prosecutors, the quality
and import of the cases has increased substantially, with a focus
on the producers, commercial distributors, and other high-impact
offenders.
The Department�s prosecutors in the 94 U.S. Attorney�s Offices are
critical to the efforts to enforce federal laws prohibiting crimes
against children. According to the Executive Office for United
States Attorneys, total federal prosecutions of child pornography
and abuse cases rose from 344 cases in FY 1995 to 1,576 cases in
I?Y 2005, a 358% increase. The number of federal investigations of
crimes against children continues to increase at an exponential rate.
Because child pornographers continue to find ways to employ the
everevolving technology of the Internet and computers to commit their
deviant crimes, we in law enforcement must respond to these
technological advances in order effectively to combat these crimes.
In order to ensure our ability to do so, the Criminal Division
created the High Tech Investigative Unit (HTIU) within CEOS in August
2002. The HTIU consists of computer forensic specialists who team
with expert prosecutors to ensure the Department of Justice�s capacity
and capability to prosecute the most complex and advanced offenses
against children committed online. HTIU computer forensic specialists
render expert forensic assistance and testimony in districts across
the country in the most complex child pornography prosecutions
conducted by the Department. Additionally, the HTIU regularly receives
and reviews tips from citizens and non-governmental organizations,
such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and
initiates investigations from these tips.
It is important to know that the Department�s specialized expertise in
this area housed at CEOS and its HTIU is disseminated nationwide,
greatly enhancing federal law enforcement�s fight against child
pornography. CEOS conducts advanced training seminars on the
investigation and prosecution of child exploitation cases attended by
Assistant United States Attorneys and federal law enforcement agents
from all over the country. CEOS also provides critical expert
assistance to the field in a variety of other ways. CEOS attorneys
are on call to answer questions from prosecutors in the field about
how best to investigate or prosecute their cases. CEOS also keeps
field agents and prosecutors abreast of current legal and technological
developments through such mechanisms as its quarterly newsletter.
Most importantly, CEOS� expert resources are widely employed by the
United States Attorncys� Offices to resolve the most difficult issues
presented in child exploitation cases and to ensure a successful
prosecution.
Child pornography is distributed over the Internet in a variety of ways,
including: online groups or communities, file servers, Internet Relay
Chat, e-mail, peer-to-peer networks, and commercial websites. The
Department of Justice investigates and prosecutes offenses involving
each of these technologies. Sophisticated investigative techniques,
often involving undercover operations, are required to hold these
offenders accountable for their crimes. For example, an investigation
of a commercial child pornography website requires us not only to
determine where the servers hosting the website are located and who
are the persons responsible for operating the website, but also to
follow the path of the financial transactions offenders use to
purchase the child pornography, whether by credit card or other means.
Such cases require detailed information about all aspects of the
transaction in order to determine the identity and location of the
offenders. Additionally, many of these cases require coordination
with law enforcement from other countries. It is essential that these
complex cases be handled by law enforcement agents and prosecutors
with the necessary specialized expertise.
To defeat the misuse of these various technologies, however, the
Department must demonstrate equal innovation to that being shown by
the online offenders. For example, CEOS� HTIU has developed a file
server investigative protocol and software programs designed to
identify quickly and locate individuals distributing pornography using
automated file-server technology and Internet Relay Chat. Because
file servers, or "f-serves,"
provide a highly effective means to obtain and distribute enormous
amounts of child pornography files, 24 hours a day and 365 days a
year, with complete automation and no human interaction, this
trafficking mechanism is a premier tool for the most egregious child
pornography offenders. The protocol recommends standards for
identifying targets, gathering forensic evidence, drafting search
warrants, and making charging decisions. It is designed for both
agents and prosecutors to ensure that all aspects of these relatively
complex investigations are understood by all members of the law
enforcement team. The software program written by the HTIU automates
the process of stripping from the computers used as file-servers all
of the information necessary to make prosecutions against all of the
individuals sharing child pornography with the file-server computer.
In addition, law enforcement has launched several national enforcement
initiatives against the use of peer-to-peer networks to commit child
pornography offenses. These initiatives encompass operations by the
FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), and state and local Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Forces, which are funded through the Department�s Office of
Justice Programs. To give you a sense of the scope and impact of federal
law enforcement�s operations, FBI�s "Operation Peer Pressure," as of
January 2006, has resulted in over 300 searches, 69 indictments, 63
arrests; and over 40 convictions.
In addition, in recognition of the growing threat to children posed by
the Internet, as part of the fiscal year 1998 Justice Appropriations Act
(Pub. L. No. 105-1 19), the Department�s Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) created a national network of state and
local law enforcement cyber units to investigate cases of Internet
crimes against children. The result is the Internet Crimes Against
Children (ICAC) Task Forces. The ICAC Task Force program helps state
and local law enforcement agencies develop an effective response to
cyber enticement and child pornography cases. The help consists of
forensic and investigative components, training and technical assistance,
victim services, and community education. Forty-six task forces have
been established throughout the nation. The ICAC program was developed
to address the increasing number of children and teenagers using the
Internet, the proliferation of child pornography, and heightened online
activity by predators searching for unsupervised contact with underage
victims.
ICACs have played a critical role in law enforcement�s efforts to stop
Internet criminal activity which poses harm to children. In FY 2003,
ICACs received 3,741 reports of Internet crimes against children,
including but not limited to traveler. enticement and child pornography
complaints. In FY 2004, that number rose to 24,138. I n FY 2005, ICACs
received 198,883 complaints of Internet crimes against children. The
largest number of complaints (1 54,545) were reports of child pornography
distribution, and the second largest number (34,062) were complaints of
child pornography manufacturing. The dramatic increase from FY 2004 to
FY 2005 in the number of child pornography manufacturing and
distribution complaints is linked to ICAC undercover operations in
Internet based file sharing applications (i.e., peer-to-peer networks).
ICAC Task Forces efforts are resulting in the prosecution of many cases.
For example, in the first six months of calendar year 2005, ICAC
investigations resulted in 3,423 state charges and 563 federal charges.
Also, as part of our strategy to focus on the most pervasive and
detrimental forms of child pornography distribution, CEOS is currently
coordinating 16 multidistrict operations involving child pornography
offenders. These investigations of national impact have the potential
for maximum deterrent effect on offenders. Nearly each one of the
sixteen investigations involves hundreds or thousands, and in a few
cases tens of thousands, of offenders. The coordination of these
operations is complex, but the results can be tremendous. By way of
example, the FBI is currently investigating the distribution of child
pornography on various Yahoo! Groups, which are "member-only" online
bulletin boards. As of January 2006, the FBI indicated that the
investigation has yielded over 180 search warrants, 89 arrests, 162
indictments, and over 100 convictions.
The Department of Justice is also working to identify and rescue victims
depicted in images of child pornography. One method for achieving this
goal is already underway. The FBI Endangered Child Alert Program (ECAP)
was launched on February 21, 2004, by the FBI�s Innocent Images Unit,
and is conducted in partnership with CEOS. The purpose of ECAP is
proactively to identify unknown offenders depicted in images of child
pornography engaging in the sexual exploitation of children. Since
ECAP�s inception, seven of these "John Doe" subjects have been profiled
by America�s Most Wanted, and with the assistance of tips from viewers,
six have been identified. More importantly, 35 victims (so far) in
Indiana, Montana, Texas, Colorado, and Canada have been identified as
a result of this initiative. All of the victims had been sexually
abused over a period of years, some since infancy. The Department
will continue to ensure that this program is utilized to its maximum
potential.
The Department recently has had significant success in destroying
several major child pornography operations. Three examples are an
operation announced by Attorney General Gonzales on March 15, 2006,
in which 27 individuals in four countries have been charged with
child pornography offenses, the case of United States v. Mariscal
(S.D. Fla.), and the Regpay case, which was followed by Operation
Falcon (D.N.J.).
In the recent operation announced by the Attorney General, a private
Internet chat room was used by offenders worldwide to facilitate the
trading of thousands of images of child pornography - including
streaming videos of live molestations. The chat room was known as
"Kiddypics & Kiddyvids," and was hosted on the Internet through the
WinMX software program that also allowed users to engage in peer-to-peer
file sharing. The chat room was infiltrated in an undercover
investigation, resulting in charges against 27 individuals to date in
the United States, Canada, Australia, and Great Britain (13 of these
27 have been charged in the United States). One of the 27 charged
defendants is a fugitive. Seven child victims of sexual molestation
have been identified as a result of the investigation, and four
lleged molesters are among the 27 defendants charged to date in the
continuing investigation. This investigation underscores the
tremendous scope of many child pornography offenses and the necessity
of an international law enforcement response. Demonstrating our
ability to work together effectively to fight these crimes, the
Department of Justice, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
state and local authorities, Internet Crimes Against Children Task
Forces, and international law enforcement agencies have cooperated
successfully in this investigation.
In the Mariscal case, Angel Mariscal received a 100-year prison
sentence on September 30. 2004 in the Southern District of Florida,
after he was convicted on seven charges including conspiracy to
produce, importation, distribution, advertising, and possession with
intent to sell child pornography. Mariscal traveled repeatedly over
a seven-year period to Cuba and Ecuador, where he produced and
manufactured child pornography, including videotapes of Mariscal
sexually abusing minors, some under the age of 12. As a result of
Mariscal�s arrest, his customers across the country were targeted in
Operation Lost Innocence, which was coordinated by the U.S. Postal
Inspection Service and CEOS. To date, Operation Lost Innocence has
resulted in 107 searches, 55 arrests/indictments, and 44 convictions.
The Regpay (D.N.J.) case, which led to Operation Falcon, is an example
of how one child pornography investigation into the activities of
individuals involved in a commercial website operation can lead to the
apprehension of thousands of other offenders. Regpay was a Belarus-
based company that provided credit card processing services to hundreds
of commercial child pornography websites. Regpay contracted with a
Florida company, Connections USA, to access a merchant bank in the
United States. In February 2005, several Regpay defendants pled guilty
to various conspiracy, child pornography, and money laundering offenses
in the District of New Jersey. Connections USA and several of its
employees also pled guilty in connection with this case. The Regpay
investigation spawned the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement�s
"Operation Falcon," an international child pornography trafficking
investigation that, as of February 2006, has resulted in 372 open
investigations, 579 search warrants, 341 domestic and approximately
703 foreign arrests, and 254 indictments, generating 241 convictions.
In addition to these efforts to protect children from online sexual
exploitation, the Department is also involved in two key efforts to
protect children from commercial sexual exploitation. The first of
these is the "Innocence Lost Initiative," which combats domestic
child prostitution. The Innocence Lost Initiative is conducted by
CEOS in partnership with the Violent Crimes and Major Offenders
Section of FBI Headquarters and the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, and has so far resulted in at least 139 open
investigations, 505 arrests, 60 complaints, 70 indictments, and 67
convictions. The second is our initiative to protect children from
child sex tourism. Since the passage of the PROTECT Act in April
2003, which facilitated the prosecution of these cases, there have
been approximately 50 sex tourism indictments or complaints and at
least 29 convictions. While investigations of these types of cases
are harder to track, we believe the number of active sex tourism
investigations is roughly 60.
Conclusion
In these brief comments, I hope to have given you a sense of the
Department of Justice�s efforts to protect children from sexual
exploitation on the Internet. We consider this a critically important
task and will continue to do our utmost to protect children as well
as society at large by enforcing these statutes.
Mr. Chairman. I again thank you and the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to speak to you today, and I would be pleased to answer
any questions the Subcommittee might have.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Mercer, I want to get a better understanding of the
layers of organizational supervision over the CEOS section in
decision-making at the Department, and it is my understanding
that Drew Oosterbaan is the head of the section. Is that
correct?
Mr. Mercer. He is the head of CEOS, yes.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. And that section is part of the Criminal
Division. Is that correct?
Mr. Mercer. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And Mr. Oosterbaan reports to the Deputy
Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division.
Mr. Mercer. That is also correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And her name is Laura Parksy.
Mr. Mercer. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And Mrs. Parsky reports to the Assistant
Attorney General for the Criminal Division, who is Alice
Fisher, is that correct?
Mr. Mercer. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And Alice Fisher reports to Paul McNulty, the
Deputy Attorney General.
Mr. Mercer. That is correct, and that is who I work for.
Mr. Whitfield. And you work for McNulty.
Mr. Mercer. Correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And McNulty reports to the Attorney General,
Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Mercer. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. And that is the line of review for any
decisions made by the Chief of the CEOS section?
Mr. Mercer. That is an accurate description of the hierarchy
that the Department of Justice has for that section. That is
correct.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, could you explain what your role is as
Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, as it relates to
the decision-making at CEOS, the Child Exploitation and
Obscenity Section?
Mr. Mercer. Yeah, and in fact, if I can give a little additional
context, obviously, the Deputy Attorney General has general, as
sort of a chief operating official for the Department of Justice.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is part of the Department of
Justice. Many other components are part of the Department of
Justice. There are occasions where the Office of the Deputy
Attorney General is asked to referee various conflicts, and in
this area, our office would get involved, to the extent that
there were different issues that needed to be resolved, where
say, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, or a U.S. Attorney challenged
the way a case was being worked, to the extent that there was a
conflict with another section of the Department.
So, it is important, I think, for the committee to understand that
CEOS plays a crucial role in coordinating cases, in leading these
multi-jurisdictional investigations, providing advice, training,
and counsel, but you also have within the United States, 93 U.S.
Attorneys and 94 districts, and you have a number of Assistant
U.S. Attorneys around the country that are also responsible for
prosecuting these cases. As is reflected in my statement, that
is how we have been able to charge such a large number of cases.
We have charged 1,500 cases involving child pornography and
coercion and enticement just in fiscal year 2005.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay.
Mr. Mercer. So, that is the role that we play, and I mentioned
this Project Safe Childhood initiative. The Deputy Attorney
General has worked very closely with the Attorney General in
shaping that initiative, which we believe is going to lead to
even greater production in this area the committee is so
interested in.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, today, one of the focuses of this hearing
relates to information that came out of Justin Berry�s testimony,
and that, particularly, relates to CEOS and their decisions,
because he provided them with a lot of information regarding
1,500 people that were using his website, credit card numbers,
whatever whatever. And so, I would like to ask you, do you have
any decision-making authority over CEOS yourself?
Mr. Mercer. No. CEOS reports to the Assistant Attorney General
for the Criminal Division, but I think, given my role as a U.S.
Attorney, what I have seen in the country, what I have seen in
my work in the Deputy Attorney General�s Office, I can be helpful
to the committee, not in terms of talking about this specific
investigation, which the Department wouldn�t do.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah.
Mr. Mercer. If the committee had said we want to ask about why a
person was charged, why a case was declined, why an investigation
was pursued this way, that isn�t something we are going to do
during the pendency of a case, but I think I can be helpful, in
terms of understanding how these cases are made, and it would be
of value to the committee.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, I do hope that you will report back to them
that, since you don�t have any decision-making over CEOS at all,
and you do have a broad background in criminal justice and
prosecution, but we were specifically interested in the CEOS
decision-making as it relates to this case, and I hope you would
convey our disappointment about that.
Now, did you have any involvement in Justin Berry�s immunity
agreement?
Mr. Mercer. No.
Mr. Whitfield. All right.
Mr. Mercer. But again, Mr. Chairman, it wouldn�t matter who the
Department�s witness was. The Department doesn�t participate in
ongoing discussions when we have a case that is pending. That is
something that certainly would not advance the purpose--
Chairman Barton. Would the Chairman yield on that point?
Mr. Whitfield. Yes, sir.
Chairman Barton. What is the appropriate title that I should
call you, Mr. Deputy, or Mr. Attorney General, or Mr. Associate
Principal Deputy? I mean, I am a little confused here.
Mr. Mercer. I wear two hats. I am the U.S. Attorney in the
District of Montana, and I am also the Principal Associate Deputy
Attorney General, so--
Chairman Barton. What do you want me to call you?
Mr. Mercer. Mr. Mercer is fine.
Chairman Barton. Okay, Mr. Mercer. Have you ever actually led
an investigation or prosecuted a case?
Mr. Mercer. Oh, yeah. I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for
7 years before I became a U.S. Attorney.
Chairman Barton. All right. When you were leading this
investigation or prosecuting this case, I assume that you wanted
to talk to the witnesses, if possible, if you knew who they were,
to the crimes that were committed. Is that true or not true?
Mr. Mercer. Well, actually, the role of investigating cases is
typically carried out by investigative agencies, so in the FBI--
Chairman Barton. Well, let us say the investigative agency that
you were working with, you said this is the investigation. Here
is who you need to go see. They went out and came back, said oh,
those people don�t want to talk to us. But their best friends,
or their boyfriend or their girlfriend, who they talked to the
case about, will talk to us, how did you take that?
Mr. Mercer. I am not sure I understand the question.
Chairman Barton. Well, let me be clear. We didn�t ask for you.
Okay? We have asked for Laura Parsky, who is in the direct line
of chain of command. We didn�t get her. We have asked her for
Alice Fisher. We didn�t get her. We have asked for Drew
Oosterbaan. We didn�t get him. We got you. Now, you are a
fine gentleman, but you are not even in the line of command.
You are staff. You have no control over this. You probably
had to be briefed to come testify. Now, let me be straight. I
am calling the Attorney General, my friend from Texas, who I
know personally. We are going to get the people we want, one
way or the other. Do you understand that? Not that I am not
impressed with your background, but when you are conducting your
investigations, you don�t talk to secondary people. You talk to
the people you want to talk to. When the FBI is conducting an
investigation, they talk to the people they want to talk to.
They don�t talk to, well, we can�t talk to you, but go see the
neighbor down the street. Mr. Whitfield is much more polite than
I am, but I am fed up with this. I had to call the Attorney
General to get you here, and it is not that we are not impressed
with you, don�t misunderstand me, but you are not the people that
are doing this. We want to work with you, but in order to do
that, we have got to get the people that are actually doing the
work. We could have picked somebody at random in the audience,
and gave them a 30-minute brief, and they could have testified
to what you testified to.
Mr. Mercer. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am confident that I can be
helpful to the committee.
Chairman Barton. Well, you had better start.
Mr. Mercer. Not only because I have done this work as an
Assistant U.S. Attorney, and then a U.S. Attorney, and then as
Chair of the Attorney General�s Advisory Committee.
Chairman Barton. Your credentials are not at risk. We are not
questioning your credentials as an admirable citizen, but we are
questioning the judgment of the Justice Department of the United
States of America, who seems to think they can thumb its nose at
the Congress of the United States.
Mr. Mercer. Well, we--
Chairman Barton. And that will not happen. I am going to tell
the Attorney General straight, but you go back and tell him for
me, or report to the Deputy Attorney General, who will report to
the Attorney General, that we are going to hold another hearing,
and these people are going to be here. Now, if you want to sit
out in the audience, that is fine. If you want to stand up
beside him and hold their hand, that is fine. They are going to
be here, and hopefully, the cameras will be here, and the
committee will be here, and we will finally get this
investigation going.
I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think
Mr. Mercer gets a clear understanding of how we feel about this
issue, and there is a lot of cynicism about the Congress in a lot
of different areas, but in this area of child pornography, when we
do request certain people from the Justice Department, who are
involved in the investigations, they can talk to us specifically
about issues, and then they just thumb their nose and do not
attend the hearing, it does upset all of us, and it particularly
upsets us that in the Justin Berry case, when 1,500 names were
given to the Justice Department, to the CEOS section, and
individual names and pictures of young children being molested,
in danger, given to the Department, and still no action has been
taken, it is something that we find particularly upsetting
And let us see, my time has expired as well now, so I will
recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Stupak. Mr. Chairman, in light of not having the witnesses
we need, why don�t we just adjourn this hearing until we get
the witnesses we need? We have subpoena power on this
committee. I urge that we use our subpoena power. And we have
next panel, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven people,
that I don�t think are going to able to provide us any i
nformation. I mentioned two other people in my opening statement
I would like to see here. They are not here.
You went through a list of people you requested. They are not
here. I think on this side, on both sides of the aisle here,
we are frustrated with not having the people who can answer
questions.
Chairman Barton. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Stupak. Yes, sir.
Chairman Barton. We may want to release Mr. Mercer, but some of
the other witnesses that are here on the second panel, from the
Postal Service and the Immigration Service have been working
with the committee, and I think we need to give them a chance
to testify. I am not at all opposed, if it is the will of the
committee, to--
Mr. Stupak. Then I would move we let Mr. Mercer go until we get
the people from Justice we need, and then, let us bring the
other witnesses up and do their opening statements. We will
have votes here in a few minutes, and let them do their openings,
and let us go move on, because we don�t want to waste everyone�s
time with a witness that can�t answer questions.
Mr. Whitfield. Is there any objection to releasing Mr. Mercer?
Well, then, Mr. Mercer, you are released, and thank you for
being here today.
At this time, I will call the second panel: Mr. William Kezer,
who is the Deputy Chief Inspector for the U.S. Postal Inspection
Service; Mr. Raymond C. Smith, Assistant Inspector in Charge for
Child Pornography and Adult Obscenity, the U.S. Postal Inspection
Service; Mr. John Clark, Deputy Assistant Secretary for U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security; Mr. James Plitt, Director, Cyber Crimes Center, Office
of Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at
the Department of Homeland Security; Mr. Frank Kardasz, Sergeant,
Phoenix Police Department, Project Director for the Arizona
Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force; Mr. Flint Waters,
Lead Special Agent of the Wyoming Division of Criminal
Investigation, Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force; and
Mr. Chris Swecker, who is the Acting Assistant Executive Director
for the FBI, U.S. Department of Justice.
I want to thank all of you gentlemen for being with us here today,
and as you know, this is an Oversight and Investigations hearing,
and it is our practice to take testimony under oath. Do any of
you object to testifying under oath, and do any of you have a
need for an attorney today?
Then, if you would please stand, and I would like to swear you
in. Raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much. All of you are now under
oath, and Mr. Swecker, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF CHRIS SWECKER, ACTING ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JAMES PLITT,
DIRECTOR, CYBER CRIMES CENTER, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS, UNITED STATES
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; DR. FRANK KARDASZ, SERGEANT, PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT, PROJECT
DIRECTOR, ARIZONA INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FLINT WATERS, LEAD SPECIAL AGENT, WYOMING
DIVISION OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
TASK FORCE TECHNOLOGY CENTER, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
JOHN P. CLARK, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
WILLIAM E. KEZER, DEPUTY CHIEF INSPECTOR, UNITED STATES POSTAL INSPECTION
SERVICE; AND RAYMOND C. SMITH, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR IN CHARGE, CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY AND ADULT OBSCENITY, UNITED STATES POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE
Mr. Swecker. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate the
opportunity to come here today to talk to the committee.
Let me talk a little bit about our Innocent Images Initiative,
and define the scope of the problem, as you already know. As
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has
reported, one in five children will be solicited while online.
Unfortunately, only 10 percent of these children will ever report
it. In its 8 years of operation, the Cyber TipLine has generated
over 385,000 leads, and reports of online enticement have
increased by 400 percent.
The FBI�s Innocent Images Initiative, formed in 1993, is comprised
of 36 undercover operations nationwide. These operations involve
FBI agents working online in an undercover capacity to seek child
predators and individuals responsible for the production,
dissemination, and possession of child abuse images. This is
accomplished by using a variety of techniques, including
purchasing child abuse images from commercial websites, creating
online personas to chat in predicated chat rooms, and co-opting
predators� email accounts. Our primary focus is addressing child
pornography or documented child abuse websites, where predators
are featured abusing children and profit from these terrible
crimes. These investigations always span multiple jurisdictions,
and usually expand beyond the borders of the United States. The
FBI has taken a global approach in addressing this problem, by
closely partnering with several countries, who work side by side
with FBI agents in a task force setting. As I sit here today,
officers from Norway, Thailand, the Philippines, and Belarus are
working with our agents just a few miles from where we are here.
Additionally, task force membership includes officers from 11
other countries and Europol.
Other priorities include persons or groups who engage in
production of child abuse images, as the production of this
material signifies the violent rape or sexual abuse of a child.
We also investigate sexual predators who travel from one
jurisdiction to another to engage in sex with minors. These
persons are particularly dangerous, as they have gone beyond
merely looking at images, and have now engaged in activity to
make contact with a child. However, these predators often find
a cadre of agents and task force officers on the other end.
Persons with large collections of child abuse images also
represent a danger, as we find a large percentage of those we
arrest for possession are also committing contact offenses with
minors.
Over the past 10 years, the Innocent Images program has grown
exponentially. Between fiscal years 1995 and 2005, there has
been a 2050 percent increase in cases opened, from 113 to 2,500.
During this 10-year period, the program has recorded over 15,556
cases opened, over 4,700 criminals charged, over 6,100 subjects
arrested, over 4,800 convictions obtained. These cases, which
led to these statistics, were multi-jurisdictional with no
geographical boundaries, and both national and international in
scope.
We have come a long way from the early electronic bulletin
boards that predated the Internet. Today, an estimated
21 million teenagers use the Internet, with 50 percent online
daily. As these children use the computer more and more, online
predators take advantage of emerging technologies to facilitate
their unimaginable criminal activities.
Today, this program is an intelligence-driven, proactive,
multi-agency initiative that pursues offenders who utilize
websites, chat rooms, peer-to-peer networks, instant messaging
programs, eGroups, newsgroups, fileservers, and other online
services. To address all of our priorities, this program readily
draws on the resources of State, local, and Federal, and now
international law enforcement partners.
While conducting these investigations, agents have found
documented child abuse to be readily available using the most
basic of search terms. As an example, child abuse images were
easily available when innocuous search terms, such as "Britney
Spears" or the word "young" were used.
Through the use of covert techniques and administrative subpoenas,
agents can determine which individual users possess and distribute
these images over the Internet. Using search warrants, interviews,
and computer forensic tools, our agents can strengthen their cases
to eventually arrest and prosecute the criminals.
As you may have noticed, I have not used the word "child
pornography," because it does not adequately describe the type of
crime that we are talking about today. To some people, pornography
may imply adult models posing for the camera. "Child pornography"
does not describe the reality of the crime problem we are facing
today. This crime deals with the violent rape and sexual
exploitation of young children, some as young as a few months old.
Therefore, each image represents evidence of the criminal reality
of a violent rape or sexual abuse.
The FBI has partnered with the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children in a significant and meaningful way.
Currently, there are two Special Agents and four FBI analysts
assigned full time at the Center, and in March of 2005, we merged
our database, the Child Victim Identification Program, with that
housed at the Center. The merger has drastically increased the
number of known victims in the database, and has made the data
available to all other law enforcement agencies that investigate
these violations. Ultimately, this partnership benefits both the
FBI and the Center, but more importantly, it benefits the public
and the children we serve.
I am not sure about time here, sir. How much time do I have?
Mr. Whitfield. You are about 10 seconds over.
Mr. Swecker. Okay. All right. Well, I would just rest on the
rest of the data in my opening statement.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay.
Mr. Swecker. And I would just say that I am, first and foremost,
I am a Special Agent. I have come through the ranks. I have
supervised investigations of this nature. I hope I can help you
today.
[The prepared statement of Chris Swecker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Swecker, Acting Assistant Executive Director,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice
Good Morning Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Stupak, and other members
of the Subcommittee. On behalf of the FBI, I would like to thank you for
this opportunity to address the FBI�s role in combating the sexual
exploitation of children through the use of the Internet.
As the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has
reported, one in five children will be solicited while online.
Unfortunately, only ten percent of these children will report it. In
its eight years of operation, the Cyber tipline has generated over
385,000 leads and reports of online enticement have increased by four
hundred percent.
The FBI�s Innocent Images National Initiative is comprised of thirty
six under-cover operations nationwide. These operations involve FBI
Agents working on-line in an undercover capacity to seek child
predators and individuals responsible for the production, dissemination,
and possession of child abuse images. This is accomplished by using a
variety of techniques, including purchasing child abuse images from
commercial web sites, creating on-line personas to chat in predicated
chat rooms, and co-opting predators� e-mail accounts. Our primary focus
is addressing commercial child abuse image websites where predators are
featured abusing children and which profit from their terrible crimes.
These investigations always span multiple jurisdictions and usually
expand beyond the borders of the United States. The FBI has taken a
global approach in addressing this problem by closely partnering with
several countries who work side by side with FBI agents in a task-force
setting. As I sit before the Subcommittee today, officers from Norway,
Thailand, the Philippines, and Belarus are working with our agents just
a few miles from here. Additionally, task force membership includes
officers from 11 other countries and Europol.
Other priorities include persons or groups who engage in the production
of child abuse images, as the production of this material signifies the
violent rape or sexual abuse of a child.
We also investigate sexual predators who travel from one jurisdiction to
another to engage in sex with minors. These persons are particularly
dangerous as they have gone beyond merely looking at images and have now
engaged in activity to make contact with a child. However, these
predators often find a cadre of FBI agents and task force officers on the
other end of their travel. Persons with large collections of child abuse
images also represent a danger as we find a large percentage of those we
arrest for possession, are also committing contact offenses with minors.
Over the past 10 years, the Innocent Images program has grown
exponentially. Between fiscal year 1996 and 2005, there has been
a 2050% increase in cases opened (113 to 2500). During this
ten-year period, the program has recorded over 15,556 cases
opened; 4,784 criminals being charged; 6,145 subjects being
arrested; and 4,822 convictions obtained. The cases which led
to these statistics were multi-jurisdictional with no
geographical boundaries, and both national and international in
scope.
We have come a long way from the early electronic bulletin boards that
pre-dated the Internet. Today an estimated 21 million teenagers use the
Internet, with 51 percent online daily. As children use computers more
and more, online child predators take advantage of emerging technologies
to facilitate their unimaginable criminal activities.
Today, this program is an intelligence-driven, proactive,
multi-agency investigative effort, that pursues offenders who
utilize websites, chat rooms, peer-to-peer networks, Instant
Messaging programs, eGroups, NewsGroups, File Servers, and other
online services to sexually exploit children. To address all of
our priorities, this program readily draws on the resources of its
federal, state, local, and now international law enforcement
partners.
While conducting these investigations, FBI agents have found child sexual
abuse images to be readily available using the most basic of search terms.
As an example, child abuse images were easily available when innocuous
search terms were used, such as "Brittney Spears" or the word "young."
Through the use of covert investigative techniques and
administrative subpoenas, FBI agents can determine which
individual users possess and distribute child abuse images over
the Internet. Furthermore, utilizing search warrants,
interviews, and computer forensic tools, our agents can
strengthen their cases to eventually arrest and prosecute
these dangerous criminals.
As you may have noticed throughout my presentation, I have not used the
phrase "child pornography," because it does not adequately describe the
type of crime we are talking about today. To some people, pornography
may imply adult models posing for the camera. Child pornography does
not describe the reality of the crime problem we are facing today.
This crime deals with the violent rape and sexual exploitation of young
children, some as young as a few months old. Therefore, each image
represents evidence of the criminal reality of a violent rape, or sexual
abuse of a child.
The FBI has partnered with NCMEC in a significant and meaningful way.
Currently there are two FBI Special Agents and four FBI support personnel
assigned full time at the Center. Further, in March of 2005, the FBI
merged its Child Victim Identification Program (CVIP) Database with
that housed at the National Center. This merger has drastically
increased the number of known victims in the CVIP database and has made
FBI data available to all other law enforcement agencies that investigate
these violations. Ultimately this partnership benefits both the FBI and
the National Center, but more importantly it benefits the children we
serve.
In June of 2003, the FBI, along with our partners in the Department of
Justice, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, and NCMEC implemented
the "Innocence Lost National Initiative" to address the growing problem of
child prostitution. Initially, the FBI identified 14 field offices with a
high incidence of child prostitution. In FY 2005 and through the first
quarter of FY 2006, an additional ten field offices were identified as
areas in which these criminal enterprises were operating. These criminal
enterprises use the Internet to advertise the children they have forced
or tricked into prostitution, often masquerading as escort services,
which leads to further victimization of the children.
These investigations are manpower intensive, intelligence driven and
make use of sophisticated investigative techniques such as Title III
wiretaps. To date, five FBI field offices have utilized Title III
wiretaps in these investigations. As a result, since FY 2004, 166 cases
were opened, 28 criminal enterprises disrupted, 16 enterprises
dismantled, 101 individuals indicted, 75 subjects convicted and 80
seizures claimed. Since the inception of Innocence Lost, over 300
children have been recovered.
According to NCMEC, in FY 2005 there were 7,000 reports of endangered
runaways and 774 reports of children involved in or suspected of being
involved in child prostitution. FBI personnel assigned to the NCMEC
review these intake reports daily and disseminate the information to
the appropriate FBI field office for investigation.
Conclusion
In closing, the FBI looks forward to working with other Law Enforcement
agencies, private industry, and the Department of Justice�s prosecutors
in continuing to combat this heinous crime problem. The protection of
our children requires the combined efforts of all sectors of our society.
I would like to express my appreciation to the Subcommittee for
addressing this very serious problem, and I would also like to thank
Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Stupak, and the Subcommittee for the
privilege of appearing before you today.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much. And Mr. Plitt, you are
recognized for your 5 minutes, and you are Director of the Cyber
Crimes Center at the Homeland Security.
Mr. Plitt. Yes, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to present some
additional information about the Cyber Crimes Center today, its
responsibilities with respect to investigating child exploitation.
Our Cyber Crime Center is C3, recognized nationally and
internationally as a leader in the investigation of international
criminal activities conducted or facilitated by the Internet.
Created in 1997, C3 brings the full range of ICE�s technical
services, such as digital media forensics, and cyber investigative
services together in a single location to investigate the cyber
aspects of violations of immigration and customs law. Contrary
to general perceptions, C3 does not currently investigate what
would be termed as more traditional cyber crimes, as hacking,
denial of service, or phishing. In addition to trans-border
child exploitation crime, C3 investigates other trans-border
crimes, such as international money laundering, illegal cyber
banking, illegal arms trafficking, derivative pharmaceuticals
sold over the Internet, intellectual property rights violations.
C3 essentially serves as the mission control for ICE�s
Internet-related investigations by refining investigative leads
generated by domestic and international sources, validating those
leads, that constitute immigration and customs violations, and
working in partnership with the ICE field offices to implement
the various investigations through national training, best
practices. Meeting with our foreign counterparts and more than
50 attach� locations, C3 builds strong international partnerships
that are crucial to the trans-border category of investigations.
ICE derives its trans-border child exploitation investigative
authorities from its customs responsibility to prevent the
smuggling of contraband, such as child pornography, and its
immigration responsibility, to investigate and administratively
remove foreign nationals guilty of crimes of moral turpitude.
As a result, ICE limits its child exploitation investigations to
two situations: one, when there is a reasonable nexus to the
U.S. border; and when, as a second situation, when ICE�s
assistance is specifically requested by international, Federal,
State, or local law enforcement prosecutors. Currently, ICE
participates in approximately 60 of the Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Forces across the country, to assist their State
and local law enforcement officers with the trans-border
component of their investigations.
Through this trans-border specialization, ICE is able to focus
its resources to achieve better resource efficiency and develop
investigative projects that maximize the international
partnerships. C3�s Child Exploitation Section coordinates their
responsibilities through Operation PREDATOR, the program that
organizes trans-border child exploitation investigations,
including those of criminal alien child predators, international
child sex tourists, international smugglers and traffickers of
children for sexual purposes, and Internet child pornographers.
ICE, through the Crimes of Exploitation Section, has achieved
notable operational efficiencies. For example, with less than
3 percent of ICE�s worldwide investigative resources, ICE manages
more than 1,000 investigations annually, concerning international
child sex tourism, and international Internet child pornography
cases alone.
Previous testimony from Mr. Clark is going to detail some of
those accomplishments. C3�s Child Exploitation Section is also
responsible for managing and implementing all phases of the
systems development life cycle for the National Child Victim
Identification System. Mr. Clark will go into more detail about
that, as well.
And C3 is responsible for maintaining partnerships with
non-government organizations. Some of the non-government
organizations would include the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, ECPAT, i-SAFE, and World Vision. With respect
to the Internet portion of ICE�s international child exploitation
investigations, C3 supports the ICE offices, and upon request,
foreign law enforcement operations, by providing training and
investigative support. While prudence recommends that the
details of C3�s technical investigative methods perhaps not be
communicated in a public forum, some appropriate examples would
include the development of undercover websites, making undercover
purchases of websites, and communicating through undercover
methods with investigative targets. C3 provides these services on
investigations involving all Internet technologies, including
commercial and noncommercial websites, peer-to-peer groups,
newsgroups, and Internet Relay Chat channels.
C3 will continue patrols on all these Internet environments for
the trans-border aspect of individual illegal downloads, criminal
conspiracies, and illegal commercial operations, through its
presence in public areas and court-ordered intercepts. C3 draws on
ICE�s renowned international money laundering prowess to trace
associated financial transactions, including the new e-currency
methods, and of course, to seize instrumentalities and proceeds.
C3�s latest endeavor involves the development and implementation
of systems, telecommunications, and operational processes that
directly link to the international Internet child exploitation
investigative organizations of other countries. The end result
is innovative, collaborative project, maybe the implementation of
the first non-investigation-specific virtual, worldwide law
enforcement task force on trans-border child exploitation.
In summary, ICE investigations focus on the trans-border aspect of
child exploitation over the Internet. These investigations are
organized under Operation PREDATOR, and coordinated by ICE C3.
ICE is honored to work with any individual or organization that
is interested in protecting children, making the Internet a safe
and enjoyable place. ICE C3 knows that it cannot alone
substantially impact the macro problem of Internet child safety.
A coordinated, cooperative approach between all the aforementioned
participants is vital, and the most important participants on
these teams are parents. Parents are physically and emotionally
closer to teach and guard the potential victims, the children.
Parents, in addition to the children, are also the most impacted
by the offline consequences of online behavior.
Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. Dr. Kardasz, you are recognized for
5 minutes, and you are Project Director of the Arizona Internet
Crimes Against Children Task Force, and we welcome you.
Mr. Kardasz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the
committee, thank you for permitting me to speak today.
Arizona joined the ICAC, you will also hear it called ICAC, Task
Force Program in the year 2000. We work cooperatively with our
law enforcement colleagues from the FBI, ICE, Postal Inspection
Service, and the Secret Service. Although the names of our
agencies differ, we share the common goal of trying to keep
children safe from Internet sexual predators and child
pornographers.
The Arizona ICAC Task Force has recorded over 2,000 investigations
and over 200 arrests. Although Arizona has the toughest laws in
the Nation against child pornography, this has not stopped the
trafficking of unlawful images, and like all of our colleagues
nationwide, we have many more solvable case files at the ready
than we have personnel and resources to bring in the offenders.
Sadly, while these cases await investigation, children and teens
continue to suffer at the hands of Internet sex offenders.
I have had the opportunity to speak with many citizen groups
about Internet crime, and at the end of each presentation, there
is often some senior individual in the group who raises his hand
and says: "Why don�t they just shut that dang Internet thing
off?" As if we have a control panel somewhere with a dial that
we can turn, and it will regulate Internet misconduct.
Your legislation is the closest thing we have to an Internet
control dial, and although opponents of controls argue that
regulations are costly, imperfect, and violations of
Constitutional freedoms, I sometimes wonder what the framers of
the Constitution would have thought if they had known what we
know now about computers and the Internet. Would they have
permitted the Internet crimes against children that we are
witnessing today?
I would like to talk about two things today, the threat from
those predators who are using social networking sites, and the
legal help we need regarding data retention by Internet service
providers.
The luring of minors for sexual exploitation remains a
continuing threat to our youth. Beyond the chat rooms that
predators have always frequented, social networking sites are
now wildly popular, and there are dozens of such free sites,
including MySpace, Xanga, Friendster, Facebook, and others.
Curious young people visit the sites every day, and post images
and personal information about themselves. They can browse and
search for others, according to age, sexual preference, zip
code, and school name. They can communicate with one another,
and then arrange to meet in person, and as you might imagine, the
sites are also popular among sexual predators.
We received a phone call a few months ago from an Arizona woman
who said that her young daughter, while using a social networking
site, was contacted by a man from their neighborhood who she knew
as a registered sex offender. We found the man�s webpage, where
he described himself as a kindly lover of poetry, plants, and
flowers, who was seeking female friendship for dating. Fourteen
other young people were listed on his profile as friends, with whom
he had networked through the site. There was no mention, of course,
in his profile that he is a high risk registered sex offender in
Arizona. Now, since that time, the original webpage is no longer
available at the site, but there is nothing stopping him from
re-subscribing to the same site, or one of the many other sites,
under another assumed name. The use of the sites by sexual
predators remains a serious threat to our safety and the safety of
our children.
Now, this problem will likely get worse before it gets better, as
kids flock to the sites and more communities, schools, libraries,
and businesses provide unrestricted Internet access through
wireless access points that sometimes leave law enforcement
investigations at a dead end. My written attachments contain
some suggestions for improving the social networking site
environment, but in the interest of time, I don�t want to
review them all now.
I would like to talk about an item of great importance to my
investigative colleagues nationwide. Last week, I sent a
survey to Internet crimes against children investigators at all
of our nationwide affiliates throughout the United States. The
survey asked one question: what law could be created or revised
to assist investigators who work cases involving Internet
crimes against children, and the most frequent response
involved data storage by Internet service providers, and the
retrieval of data from Internet service providers. What our
people are telling us is that investigators need ISPs to retain
subscriber and content information so that when legal process,
in the form of a subpoena or search warrant, are served, there
is data remaining with the ISP that the investigator can use
to find the offender.
Now, most ISP organizations are operated by conscientious and
professional business people who are equally horrified, as are
we all, by Internet crimes against children. Some ISPs have
graciously extended themselves to help investigators. Some
reluctant ISPs will only assist to the extent that the law
mandates them to assist.
Mandating that ISPs retain data is not a privacy violation.
Law enforcement only needs the data preserved, but not disclosed
to us, except in response to legal process.
Internet industry professionals may cite the financial burden of
data storage, but consider the potential cost of not retaining
data. For example, when law enforcement is seeking a predator
identifiable only by the information associated with a screen
name, but the responsible ISP did not preserve the information,
the investigation ends, while the predator roams free.
Based on the requests of my colleagues, I respectfully ask for
two improvements to the law: one, that Internet service
providers be mandated to retain information about subscribers
for at least 1 year, with penalties for noncompliance; and two,
that Internet service providers be mandated to respond to
subpoenas involving crimes against children investigations
within 1 week of receiving a subpoena, and more quickly under
exigent circumstances, where a child is missing.
I will conclude by saying that investigators need your help in
order to navigate those dark alleys of the Internet, where they
work diligently to help protect children. I recognize that
turning the Internet control dial comes with a cost, but
failing to turn the dial carries a greater human cost to our
young people.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Frank Kardasz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Frank Kardasz, Sergeant, Phoenix Police
Department, Project Director, Arizona Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Force, United States Department of Justice
Congressman Stupak and distinguished members of the sub-committee,
thank you for permitting me to speak today. Arizona joined the
Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program in 2000.
We work cooperatively with our law enforcement colleagues from the
FBI, ICE, Postal Inspection Service and the Secret Service. Although
the names of our agencies differ, we all share the common goal of
trying to keep children safe from Internet sexual predators and child
pornographers.
The AZ ICAC Task Force has recorded over 2,000 investigations,
with over 200 arrests. Although Arizona has the toughest laws
in the nation against child pornography, this has not stopped
the trafficking of unlawful images, and like all of our
colleagues nationwide, we have many more solvable case files
at the ready than we have personnel and resources to bring in
the offenders. Sadly, while these cases await investigation,
children and teens continue to suffer at the hands of sex
offenders.
I have had the opportunity to speak with many citizen groups
about Internet crime, and at the end of each presentation there
is often some senior individual in the group who raises a hand
and asks: "Why don�t they just switch that whole dang Internet
thing off!"...as if we have a control panel somewhere with a
dial that we can turn and it will regulate Internet misconduct.
Legislation is the closest thing we have to an Internet control
dial. Although opponents of controls argue that regulations
are costly, imperfect and violations of constitutional freedoms,
I sometimes wonder what the framers of the Constitution would
have thought if they had known what we now know about computers
and the Internet. Would they have permitted the Internet crimes
against children that we are witnessing today?
I would like to talk about two things today: the threat from
those predators who use social networking sites, and the legal
help we need regarding data retention by Internet service
providers.
The luring of minors for sexual exploitation remains a continuing
threat to our youth. Beyond the chat rooms that predators have
always frequented, social networking sites are now wildly
popular. There are dozens of such free sites, including MySpace,
Xanga, Friendster, Facebook, and others. Curious young people
visit the sites every day and post images and personal
information about themselves. They can browse and search for
others according to age, sexual preference, zip code or school
name. They can communicate with one another and then arrange to
meet in person. And as you might imagine, the sites are also
popular among sexual predators.
We received a phone call a few months ago from an Arizona woman
who said that her young daughter, while using a social
networking site, was contacted by a man from their neighborhood
who was know to her as a registered sex offender. We found the
mans web page where he described himself as a kindly lover of
poetry, plants and flowers who was seeking female friendship
for dating. Fourteen other young people were listed on his
profile as friends with whom he had networked through the site.
There was no mention on his profile that he is a high-risk
registered sex offender in Arizona. Since that time the mans
original web page is no longer available at the site, but there
is nothing stopping him from re-subscribing to the same site or
one of the many other sites under another assumed name. The use
of the sites by sexual predators remains a serious threat to
the safety of our children.
The problem will likely get worse before it gets better as kids
flock to the sites and more communities, schools, libraries and
businesses provide unrestricted Internet access through wireless
access points that sometimes leave law enforcement investigations
at a dead end. My written attachments contain some suggestions
for improving the social networking site environment, but in the
interest of saving time I do not wish to review them all now.
I would like to talk about an item of importance to my
investigative colleagues nationwide. Last week I sent a survey
to Internet crimes against children (ICAC) investigators at all
of our nationwide affiliates throughout the United States. �The
survey asked one question: What law could be created or revised
to best assist the investigators who work cases involving Internet
crimes against children? The most frequent response involved
data storage by Internet service providers and the retrieval of
data from Internet service providers. What our people are telling
us is that investigators need ISP�s to retain subscriber and
content information so that when legal process in the form of a
subpoena or search warrant are served, there is data remaining
with the ISP that will help the investigator find the offender.
Most ISP organizations are operated by conscientious and
professional business people who are horrified by Internet crimes
against children. Some ISP�s have graciously extended themselves
to help investigators. Some reluctant ISP�s will only assist to
the extent that the law mandates them to assist.
Mandating that ISP�s retain data is not a privacy violation. Law
enforcement only needs the data preserved but not disclosed to
us, except in response to legal process.
Internet industry professionals may cite the financial burden of
data storage, but consider the potential human cost of not
retaining data.� For example, when law enforcement is seeking a
predator identifiable only by the information associated with his
screen name, but the responsible ISP did not preserve the
information, the investigation ends while the predator roams
free.
Based on the requests of my colleagues I respectfully ask for two
improvements to the law:
That Internet service providers be mandated to retain information about
subscribers for at least one year, with penalties for non-compliance.
That Internet service providers be mandated to respond to subpoenas
involving crimes against children investigations within one week of
receiving a subpoena, and more quickly under exigent circumstances where
a child is missing.
I will conclude by saying that investigators need your help in
order to navigate those dark alleys of the Internet where they
work diligently to help protect children. I recognize that
turning the Internet control dial comes with a cost, but failing
to turn the dial carries a greater human cost to our young
people.
Thank you again.
Supplemental Materials to the Testimony of Dr. Kardasz
Internet Social Networking Sites�
Recent disturbing incidents involving Internet crimes against children
have been prominent in the media. In some incidents, the crimes have
involved suspects and victims who met each other via Internet social
networking sites. Social networking sites are places on the Internet
where people can meet one another, communicate and interact.�
Social networking and communication are normal parts of the human
experience. The Internet has become an important venue for people to
network and interact. Young people are naturally curious about
themselves, about others, and about the world. The sites permit them
to reach out to others from around the globe, sometimes with tragic
results.�
There are many social networking sites. Some of them are listed
below:
Myspace.com -Livejournal.com --Facebook.com -Friendsfusion.com --
Friendster.com -Intellectconnect.com --Dittytalk.com
-Prisonpenpals.com --Cozydating.com --Zogo.com --Interracialsingles.net
Why are the sites popular?
Most of the social networking sites are free and supported by
advertisers who hope users will buy products or services advertised
on the sites. Young people who are curious and seeking relationships
and new experiences visit the sites to find others.�
How do the sites work?
Any computer with Internet access can be used to permit someone to
join a site. Some sites require only that the registrant provide an
email address and often there is no verification process to check the
truthfulness of any of the information that a registrant provides. Most
sites require that users abide by conditions and terms of use meant to
thwart improper conduct, but enforcement is often lax. Once a registrant
becomes a member, he or she can post personal information, images or
other information depending upon the features available at the site.
Unless a user chooses to enable privacy options, all the information
posted may be visible to all other users of a site.�
What are the dangers?
Those who misuse the sites may do so in many ways including:
Luring / enticement -- Internet sexual predators and know sex offenders
have used social networking sites to locate and lure victims.
Identity theft -- Criminals steal the identities of those who post
personal information.
Cyberbullying / harassment Agitators post derogatory, hurtful or
threatening information about others.
Stalking -- Stalkers can use personal information posted to the sites to
locate and pursue victims.
Fraud schemes -- Criminals who wish to defraud others of money or
property can�locate victims, gain their trust, and then take advantage
of that trust for criminal purposes.
Inappropriate sexual content -- Some users post sexually explicit
information that is inappropriate for young computer users.
Prevention
What can you do to protect yourself from those who misuse social
networking sites?
Do�s and Don�ts
Don�t -
post personal images
post your true full name
post your home or cellular phone number
post your true age or date of birth
post your true home or business address
post your school name or the grad that you are in
post your calendar of upcoming events or information about your future
whereabouts.
Do
discuss Internet risks with your child
enter into a safe-computing contract with your child
enable computer Internet filtering features if they are available from
your Internet service
consider installing monitoring software or keystroke capture devices on
your family computer that will help monitor your child�s Internet
activity
know each of your child�s passwords, screen names and all account
information
put the computer in a family area of the household and do not permit
private usage
report all inappropriate non-criminal behavior to the site through their
reporting procedures
report criminal behavior to the appropriate law enforcement agency including
the NCMEC Cybertip line or the Internet Fraud Complaint Center
contact your legislators and request stronger laws against Internet crime
contact the corporations who place advertisements on the sites and let them
know that their advertising is helping to support inappropriate Internet
behavior. Also, let the corporations know that you intend to boycott or
discontinue using their product or services because of the behavior they
are� supporting.
visit the NCMEC Netsmartz Workshop at http://www.netsmartz.org for more
information
remember that every day is Halloween on the Internet. People on the Internet
are not always as they first appear.
Making Social Networking Sites Safer
The following suggestions would make social networking sites safer for users
and more law-enforcement friendly.
On every social networking site web page, display a clearly visible
hyperlink permitting users to easily report misconduct.
For new users, make the default settings for viewing and sharing all
account information �private�. This means that new accounts would be
automatically set to exclude others and to not share information. The new
subscriber would have to actively choose to share account information by
checking the appropriate boxes in the account settings section.
On every web page, display a link to the national sex offender registry.
Proprietors of social networking sites should install filtering software
to eliminate users from posting obscene words.
Require that all new users enter verifiable credit card information when
first subscribing.
Require that all subscribers pay a nominal monthly fee.
Include a provision in the social networking sites terms of use that
notifies users that they have no expectation of privacy with regards to
any of the content they post and that law enforcement may obtain any and
all of their postings through the use of a subpoena only - without a
search warrant.
Retain profile information for deleted accounts for 90 days.
Remove the browse and search functions that permit users to locate one
another.
On every social networking site page, display a link to the Internet Crime
Complaint Center for incidents of theft or fraud. Their link is www.ic3.gov
Include an admonition on social networking sites profile pages advising
users that revealing personal information could lead to identity theft or
victimization by offenders who are intent upon harassment, stalking, fraud
or identity theft.
Preserve changes to user�s pages and the Internet protocol address
associated with the changes for 90 days.
Selected ICAC Case Studies -- Arizona ICAC Task Force
Milwaukee Boy Found in Phoenix Home of Sex Offender From the Arizona
Republic, Aug. 23, 2005, Reported by William Hermann
Phoenix police say the experience of the 13-year-old Milwaukee boy they
found Monday night in the company of a man they suspect of using the
Internet to lure the child to town is one that parents need to take to
heart. Phoenix Police Sergeant Kardasz said Milwaukee police on Aug. 17
had received a missing persons report from the boy�s mother.
Investigators went into her son�s computer and found that he had been
communicating regularly with a person using a Phoenix wireless Internet
site. "We went to the address of the wireless user and pretty quickly
found he was an innocent person whose wireless service was being used by
someone else," Kardasz said. "Through investigative work my staff
established who was using the wireless connection, we watched his house,
and soon the man drove up with the boy in his car."
At about 11:30 p.m. police arrested Vernon Monk, 31."The suspect had no
ID and was using a false name and a fictitious license plate and
pretending to be the boy�s father to people in the neighborhood," Kardasz
said. Monk was arrested for custodial interference and booked into a
Maricopa County Jail. Police also learned that there is an outstanding
arrest warrant on Monk from Seminole County, Okla., for a sexual offense
against a minor. The boy was taken to the county�s Juvenile Court Center
to stay until his mother could arrange for his return home.
Internet Sexual Predator / Traveler Arrested and Imprisoned Offender:
David Jackson Donan, w/m, age 61
In September 2003, an investigation began involving an unidentified
person using the Internet screen name "Brasshatter." Investigators learned
that "Brasshatter" intended to travel via commercial aircraft from
Austin, Texas to Phoenix, Arizona for the purpose of meeting a minor to
engage in unlawful sexual intercourse. "Brasshatter" was later identified
as David Jackson Donan, age 61, with residences in both California and
Texas. On October 20, 2003 Donan boarded a commercial aircraft and
traveled from Texas to Arizona. To groom and entice his intended victim,
he brought several packages of the candy - Skittles. To aid in his
intended unlawful sexual acts he brought nine sexual aide devices, KY
Jelly, a male sexual enhancement drug, a prescription for Viagra, and a
digital camera - all in his carry-on baggage. Donan was arrested without
incident upon his arrival at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. He made no
statements and was booked.
Arizona ICAC investigators and FBI agents in Arizona, California, and
Texas worked cooperatively in the subsequent investigation and search of
Donan�s residences for evidence. They uncovered computer evidence,
firearms and other sexual aid devices belonging to Donan. Later
forensics examinations of his computer also revealed a collection of
child pornography. Computer evidence indicated that Donan had bragged
during Internet chat conversations about having victimized children while
he had visited Thailand many years ago. Donan waived his right to trial
plead guilty to one count of the Federal offense: Travel with intent to
engage in a sexual act with a juvenile (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 117,
2423b). Donans� presentence report was not favorable with indications
that he had prior "hands-on" offenses with as-yet unidentified victims.
On September 29, 2004, he plead guilty in U.S. Federal District Court
(Phoenix). Honorable Earl H. Carroll presided. Judge Carroll sentenced
Donan to 7 years, 3 months prison, followed by one year residence in a
transitional facility, $25,000 fine and lifetime supervised release.
International Cooperation Leads to Child Pornography Trafficker Offender:
Lee McCulloch, w/m, age 26, resident of Gwent, South Wales, U.K.
Occupation: Factory worker, Marital status: single Arrest Location:
Abertillery, Gwent - South Wales, United Kingdom Charge: Distributing
Indecent Photographs of Children (United Kingdom) Sentence: Eight months
prison, Sex offender registration for five years. Agencies involved:
Arizona ICAC Task Force, Phoenix P.D., Phoenix F.B.I., Heddlu Gwent P.D.
South Wales, U.K.
In April 2003, an investigator from the Arizona Internet Crimes
Against Children Task Force / Phoenix P.D. initiated an
investigation into an unidentified child pornography trafficker.
the investigation led to an unknown suspect in the United Kingdom.
Working with the FBI and the Heddlu Gwent (UK) Police Department,
investigators assembled a case that led to the identification and
arrest of 26 year old Lee McCulloch in South Wales, UK. McCulloch,
a factory worker, used computers at his home in the United
Kingdom to collect and traffic images of child pornography with
other nefarious Internet associates.
McCulloch, who is unmarried, was arrested on November 28, 2003.
Investigators in the UK developed further information leading to twenty
(20) other suspects there with whom McCulloch traded unlawful images of
child pornography. On August 26, 2004, McCulloch was sentenced to 8
months in prison in the UK and five years of sex offender registration
status.
David Mojica Santos -Internet Sexual Predator Arrest Date/Time:
October 8, 2003, 1530 hours. Offense: Luring a Minor for Sexual
Exploitation
On October 8, 2003, David Mojica Santos, age 65, was arrested for
luring a minor for sexual exploitation in northwest Phoenix. Santos
first came to the attention of law enforcement in July 2003, when he
used the Internet to solicit sexual conduct with a minor. Santos traveled
from his residence in Mesa to a location in Northwest Phoenix where he
intended to meet a minor for sex. He was arrested, booked, and subsequently
released on bond. He later plead guilty to the court.
SENTENCING HEARING -- STATEMENT OF SGT. KARDASZ
(The recent trend among judges in Maricopa County is to sometimes sentence
such offenders to probation only, with no jail time. Anticipating this,
we prepared a detailed statement to the sentencing judge. Here is an
excerpt):
...Your Honor, the innocent children we struggle to protect are unable to
appear here today. They are children whose innocence was stolen by
Internet sexual predators like this defendant. Most of those children
will never come forward due to fear or a misplaced sense of guilt. A few
of them, like 13 year old Kasie Woody of Arkansas, and 13 year old
Christina Long of Connecticut, were forever silenced by Internet sexual
predators. According to reports from the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, one in five girls and one in ten boys will be sexually
victimized before they reach adulthood, and less than 35% of these crimes
will ever be reported.
The Internet provides an unparalleled opportunity for criminals to unearth
themselves and victimize unwary young people. Research indicates that of
the estimated 24 million child Internet users, one in five received a
unwanted sexual solicitation, but only one in four told a parent. Curious
and innocent youngsters are flocking to the Internet seeking friendship
and information but are instead finding sexual deviants and predators. My
undercover investigators and I have witnessed no shortage of adults
chatting on the Internet with the stated intention of sexually victimizing
minors. �
Over the past few years our caseload has skyrocketed while our resources
have not. Our investigation of this defendant revealed that his Internet
chat was not an isolated incident but part of a series of ongoing offenses
occurring against multiple victims over an extended period of time. He
was not the unfortunate victim of a "sting" caught at the wrong place at
the wrong time. He is a practiced Internet sexual predator. Forensics
analysis of his computer revealed that he did not spend his idle time
enjoying normal retirement hobbies or mentoring his family or community
. This former missionary spent his day prowling cyberspace in search of
young sexual prey.
We discovered Internet chat conversations he had with four as yet
unidentified girls aged fifteen, fourteen and eleven. In each of the
chats he quickly turned the conversation to sex and began to manipulate
each girl towards meeting him for sex. I am going to read brief excerpts
of the chat conversations the defendant had with various young girls he
contacted on the Internet. Much of the language is so sexually graphic
that I will not repeat it verbatim.
"Do you like older guys?" "Have you had sex yet?" "Are you curious about
having sex?" "Do you think you would like to have sex sometime soon?" "I
wish I was next door to you....and then maybe not. I might rape you."
"What city do you live in....I was just wondering if there is a large
airport nearby." "You just don�t know how badly I want to (expletive
deleted) you right now."
And I will stop there your Honor because the conversations deteriorate
graphically from there. Your Honor, I have watched defendants in similar
circumstances appear in these courtrooms arguing that everything they
did was fantasy role-playing and that they were the unfortunate victims
of zealous police operations. That�s hogwash. Was it fantasy when this
defendant drove over 20 miles from Mesa to Northeast Phoenix for the
expressed purpose of meeting a minor for sex? Was it fantasy when the
defendant brought condoms with him to the meeting? Condoms that he
admitted that he does not use with his wife.
Apologists for this defendant may look at his age and surmise that he
has little capacity for future offenses - I disagree. This defendant had
the physical capacity to proudly display on the Internet, graphic sexual
images of himself, captured with a computer web camera and in a variety
of poses. In similar cases my colleagues and I have watched defendants
receive minimal sentencing by other courts, only to re-offend later.
In one recent case the defendant mocked the court by continuing to
solicit minors for sex while the defendant was out on bond only days
after his original arrest. In another of our cases, the convicted
defendant, while free on probation, immediately began producing, acting
in, and trafficking child pornography, including images of himself
sexually abusing three young children under shocking and horrifying
circumstances.
The Arizona law as it stands permits the court to exercise wide
discretion in sentencing this offense. We trust that this court will
act in the best interest of our community and send a strong message to
this and all other Internet sexual predators. Finally your honor, we
request that this court�s judgment provide a message of reassurance to
the children unable to appear in your courtroom today that their rights
are being defended at this, the highest level of County justice.
SENTENCE - On June 18, 2004, Santos was sentenced before Judge Hotham of
the Maricopa County Superior Court. He received ten months jail and
lifetime probation.
Contact:
Dr. Frank Kardasz, Sergeant / Project Director
Phoenix P.D. / Arizona ICAC Task Force
620 W. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Desk: 602 256 3404
Email: [email protected]
http://www.kardasz.org
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much. Our next witness is the
Lead Special Agent of the Wyoming Division of Criminal
Investigation, and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task
Force. Mr. Waters, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Waters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stupak, and the
distinguished members of the subcommittee.
I welcome this opportunity to appear before you, and discuss how
the Internet is being used to commit crimes against children,
and how the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force is
responding to that threat.
First, I would like to speak to the issue of child pornography.
Now, in Wyoming, I am one of four investigators that are handling
this. We are the cops on the beat doing this. This isn�t about
a movie or a picture. This is ongoing sexual abuse of a child.
This is not about pornography. These are not baby in the bathtub
movies. These are not consenting adults. Let us be clear, these
are images that are crime scenes depicting the sexual abuse of
children, starting as young as infants. These are not innocent
images. These are images depicting the complete destruction of
innocence.
I would like to provide you with a little background information
about the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The ICAC
includes 46 regional task forces, State and local police officers,
sheriff�s deputies, spending time at the computers, doing the
chat, working the crime scenes. Through funding from the Office
of the Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, we are able to bring these together with
a common goal, and we are able to have contacts in each
jurisdiction, as these investigations cross boundaries.
We have a strong relationship with our Federal colleagues, and
we collectively strive to bring to bear the strengths of each
entity, in our mutual goal to protect children. In fact, in
Wyoming, the ICAC that I represent, we have been active for 5
years. We work very closely under the authority of the Attorney
General, and we present frequently to the United States Attorney
for prosecution.
I heard a citation earlier that 25 percent of these cases are
being prosecuted federally, 75 percent of these cases were taken
to our State prosecutors, our DAs, and we are getting some
support. We are getting outstanding support, in fact. We work
very closely with them to try and assure that we bring the best
tools to bear. We are facing quite a few new challenges.
The ICAC Task Force Program designed a methodology to
investigate peer-to-peer file sharing environment. We were
seeing a lot of these images showing up during our forensic
examinations of computers, originating from peer-to-peer. Five
years ago, we were working a lot of paid websites. Now, coming
from the peer-to-peer, I started to write software to try and
find out how bad this problem was, and we were amazed. In under
24 months, our investigators, there are about 400 around the
world using this software, have identified over 4.4 million
transactions involving the trafficking of movies and images
depicting the sexual abuse of very young children. I focused
on images 8 years old and younger when I designed the system.
By country, Germany, 262,000 transactions; Canada, 294,000; the
United Kingdom, 305,000; and the United States, 1.9 million
transactions in under 24 months. Over a million IP addresses.
These file sharing networks have created an efficiency level
unprecedented in previous distribution technologies. In
Wyoming, the smallest state by population, we have over 250
search warrants that we could request if manpower permitted.
Our investigators are averaging over 70 hours a week very
frequently working on these investigations. We are hitting
as hard and as fast as we can.
In addition to the ICAC investigative efforts in the
peer-to-peer environment, we are proactively working to put
ourselves between child predators and the children in our
care. We sit in the chat rooms. We pose as little boys,
little girls, maybe adults. These are my two youngest. In
2001, my wife sent this to me to work, to put on the wall. I
was having a little bit of trouble dealing with some of the
bad guys we were facing, and I kept this on the wall. This
was our Christmas card, 2001. Next please. On December 31,
while I was online posing as a 13-year-old girl, I was
contacted by a man who requested to meet me at a nearby mall
for sexual acts. He was very descript. I received this
picture of him. Look at his eyes. Go back. It is the same
man. A week after Christmas, we walked the mall, and watched
this individual for two and a half hours, waiting for him, so
that we could arrest him in a safe manner, and eventually, we
placed him into custody. This is one of two times where my
undercover operations have revealed an offender who had exposed
contact to my own children.
The investigators in Wyoming are in these rooms, were
speaking to these individuals, and were pursuing arrests.
Through our undercover chat operations and file trading
investigations, the ICAC investigators are executing
arrests and search warrants throughout the Nation. These
investigations often lead us to homes where children are
being physically and sexually abused, often starting at
an early age. The most recent one in Wyoming, the abuse
was an act of abuse of a four year old, and we had no
other leads. The individual had no criminal history, no
priors, no other indication until his trafficking of images
on the peer-to-peer networks took us into his home, and
fortunately, in that case, we were able to rescue the child.
I would like to speak again briefly about the images that we are
running into, and this speaks to what Dr. Kardasz spoke. During
undercover operations, an ICAC investigator in Florida received a
movie depicting the rape of a 2-year-old child. In accordance
with our policy, the movie was sent to the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children. The abuse was so horrific it
even shocked the seasoned analysts at the Center. The ICAC
investigator received this movie in August of 2005. Drawing on
our efforts on the peer-to-peer environment, we were able to
look back and trace this movie to a computer in Colorado, where
it had been made available for distribution in April of 2005,
several months prior to any other known existence on the Internet.
Just as the ICAC investigators thought they were getting close to
the potential origin of this movie, all hope was destroyed. The
Internet service provider responded to us that they did not
maintain records related to this account. Efforts to find this
child fell short, and there was nothing that we could do about
it. The safety of our children cries out for each of us to
take all steps necessary to eliminate this problem. Technology
has allowed us to more accurately gauge the scope of the
societal problem of child sexual abuse. The Internet is serving
as the great connector for people who seek to harm children and
take pleasure in watching children being sexually abused.
Better cooperation from the Internet service providers would
result in us being able to take more children out of the hands
of the predators.
Mr. Whitfield. Conclude, Mr. Waters. Your statement has been
fascinating.
Mr. Waters. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to
speak, and I will be happy to answer any questions now, or in
the future, later.
[The prepared statement of Flint Waters follows:]
Prepared Statement of Flint Waters, Lead Special Agent, Wyoming Division
of Criminal Investigation, Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
Technology Center, United States Department of Justice
Congressman Stupak and distinguished members of the sub-committee, I
welcome this opportunity to appear before you to discuss how the Internet
is used to commit crimes against children and how the Internet Crimes
Against Children Task Force is responding to that threat. Congressman
Stupak, you are clearly an advocate for child protection and I commend
you and your colleagues for your leadership and initiative. �
The Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC) shares your
concern for the safety of our children and we thank you for bringing
attention to this issue.
Child Pornography
This isn�t about a movie or picture. This is about the ongoing sexual
abuse of a child. This isn�t about pornography. These are not images
of consenting adults. These are not "baby in the bathtub" movies.
Let�s be clear, these images are crime scene photos depicting the sexual
abuse of children starting as young as infants. These are not innocent
images. These are images depicting the complete destruction of innocence.
Who are these children?
The majority of the children depicted in these pictures are sexually
abused by someone they should be able to trust, such as a parent or
another adult who has legitimate access to the child. And, contrary
to popular belief, the majority of children identified
in child pornography have been identified by the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) as American children.
Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
I would like to provide you with some background information about the
Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. �ICAC includes forty-six (46)
regional Task Forces working in partnership with the U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. These
Task Forces are composed of state and local law enforcement agencies
throughout the United States focused on investigation, education and
prevention related to the exploitation of children by means of the
Internet. The National Task Force has a strong relationship with our
federal colleagues and we collectively strive to bring to bear the
strengths of each entity in our mutual goal to protect children.
�The Wyoming ICAC, which I represent, has been an active participant in
�the national Task Force program for five years. Our Task Force consists
�of three state agents operating under the authority of the Attorney
�General. In Wyoming, we have a close working relationship with the
�United States Attorney and our Federal partners.
We Are Facing New Challenges
In the last three years we have witnessed a monumental change in the
trafficking of material related to the sexual abuse of children.
Three years ago our national efforts identified over 2600 transactions
where people were trading images of child sexual abuse via peer-to-peer
networks. At that time, the operation was one of the largest proactive
Internet investigations ever. We thought we had made a significant
impact in the networks used to trade this material. We were mistaken.
Advances in Peer-to-peer file trading has generated a completely new
barter system, encouraging people to move from using sexual abuse images
to validate their own interests in harming children to spreading the
material to as many other people as possible.
The ICAC Task Force program has designed a methodology to investigate
the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing environment.
In under 24 months, our efforts have identified over 4.4 million
transactions involving the trafficking of movies and images depicting
the sexual abuse of very young children.
By Country
Germany 262,000
Canada 294,000
United Kingdom 305,000
United States 1,900,000
These file-sharing networks have created an efficiency level
unprecedented in previous distribution technologies. Utilizing high
speed Internet access, millions of computers are linked together
allowing fast and easy distribution of child pornography. It should not
be surprising to us that child predators in the United States have
found a way to leverage the technology to their benefit.
In Wyoming, our small team has over 250 search warrants we could request
if manpower were not an issue. Often our investigators average 70
hours a week working these investigations.
In addition to the ICAC investigative efforts in the peer-to-peer
environment, we are proactively working to put ourselves between child
predators and the children in our care. Highly-trained ICAC
investigators across the country are patrolling areas of the Internet
where predators are known to lurk and children are vulnerable. Each
week, ICAC investigators identify and apprehend criminals who solicit
sexual acts with undercover officers posing as children.
Through undercover chat operations and file trading investigations
ICAC investigators are executing arrest and search warrants throughout
the Nation.
These investigations often lead ICAC investigators to homes where
children are being physically and sexually abused. These efforts
allow ICAC investigators to disrupt the pattern of abuse at an early
stage, sometimes before the child is even old enough to reach out for
help.
Sadly, this is not always the case. During undercover operations an
ICAC investigator in Florida was sent a movie depicting the rape of
a two-year-old child. In accordance with ICAC policy the movie was
sent to the National Center for Missing and Exploited children. The
abuse was so horrific it even shocked the seasoned analysts at the
center. The ICAC investigator received the movie in August 2005.
Drawing on the previous coordinated efforts of the ICAC investigators
we were able to trace the movie to a computer in Colorado where it
had been made available for distribution as early as April 2005. This
was several months prior to any other known existence on the Internet.
Just as ICAC investigators thought they were getting close to the
potential origin of the movie all hope was destroyed. The Internet
service provider used to trade this movie did not maintain any
records related to the use of the account. Efforts to find this child
fell short and there was nothing law enforcement could do about it.
The safety of our children cries out for each of us to take all steps
necessary to eliminate this problem. Technology has allowed us to more
accurately gauge the scope of the societal problem of child sexual
abuse. The Internet is serving as the "great connector" for people
who seek to harm children and take pleasure in watching children be
sexually abused. Better cooperation from ISP�s would result in us
being able to save more children from the hands of those who want to
harm them.
The ICAC experience shows us that technology can allow us to
proactively protect our children and identify predators. The ICAC
Task Force Program is critical to the overall efforts to protect
children and we�ll continue to place ourselves between our nation�s
children and Internet predators. We thank you for your continued
support of the ICAC Task Force Program and appreciate your interest
in this important issue.
I will be happy to answer any questions related to this issue now
or in the future.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much. Mr. Clark.
Mr. Clark is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for U.S.
Immigration and Customs, and you are recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Clark. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Stupak,
and distinguished members of the subcommittee.
I had spent quite some time over the last few days writing
up an oral statement off my written statement to sort of
summarize some of the work and accomplishments ICE has done
in the field of child predators Internet investigations.
I wanted to talk about why U.S. Customs originally, and ICE
now are involved in these investigations, starting with our
traditional and long history working hand in hand with the
U.S. Postal Service, when much of the foreign material came
into the United States through the mail, how in the �90s we
began working these cases through the Internet. I know I
was an ASAC out in San Francisco when we did one of the
first significant international child predator investigations,
and back then, it involved a chat room in which individuals
were sharing pictures, videos, and there was, at that time,
on demand molestation among the members of the groups.
Just in March of this year in Chicago, Attorney General
Gonzalez and Assistant Secretary Myers from ICE conducted a
press conference heralding the case we had taken down in
Chicago. The technology had improved, but the situation is
the same. It was on demand molestations of children by an
international group, actually started with the Edmonton Police
Service. Toronto Police Service had done some undercover work
on it, turned it over to ICE to continue in an undercover
capacity, and when all was said and done, we arrested
individuals in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Great
Britain. Same types of work, just more significant or
sophisticated technology.
I wanted to talk about how ICE is using its unique border
authorities to actually attack this problem from a
transnational, trans-border perspective. There are many good
law enforcement agencies here in the United States working it
domestically, the ICACs, who we work with very often, my
colleagues on the board here, State, Federal, local, across the
board, working it domestically, so in an effort to more
efficiently use our limited expertise, resources, we focus on
the transnational, trans-border violations, in which there are
persons or materials in a foreign country coming across to
those in the United States.
I also wanted to recognize the excellent work by the
non-governmental organizations. From the international
perspective, World Vision, whom we work with often. Here, in
the United States, the excellent work done by the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, on which I
am a board member, and who we have investigators assigned to
their office to help coordinate a lot of the domestic
investigations between the ICACs, state and local agencies, and
the Federal agencies.
I wanted to highlight that this is a global problem. It is
not a U.S. problem. One of the things we are finding in ICE,
in working with our foreign colleagues, is how widespread this
is, and on a good note, how the attention and the interest of
our foreign law enforcement colleagues is on the rise. We are
developing better and better relationships with our 56 overseas
offices in developing these investigations, and one in
particular, Operation Falcon, that we took down a few years ago,
but continues to follow up on a number of leads. While in the
United States, we arrested 236 individuals, outside of the
United States, over a thousand individuals were arrested based
on leads from Operation Falcon, and I believe the government
of Australia had its attention raised such that it is beginning
to look at changes in its child protection laws as a result of
that case.
There were a number of other things about ICE I wanted to talk
about, but I changed my oral testimony, because I think it
needs to address very briefly the incident that just happened
a couple of days ago, in which the Public Affairs Officer of
the Department of Homeland Security was arrested, Brian Doyle.
That case just happened. I can�t comment on the specifics of
the incident, but I think it has bearing on this hearing today,
and why we are here. The title of today�s hearing is "What
Parents, Kids, and Congress Need to Know About Child Predators,"
and I think the allegations in that case are significant.
I think what we need to know is that there is no profile, no
profession, no size and shape, age, color, of an individual, no
scarlet letter that they wear in public surroundings that
indicate who child predators are. It is very unfortunate,
teachers, clergymen, law enforcement. It doesn�t seem to
matter. There is no profession that we could say if they are
doing X, you can be assured that they are child predators, or
if they are doing Y, you can be assured they won�t be child
predators. It is an unfortunate situation. We have thousands
of law enforcement officers here in the United States dedicated
to these types of investigations, and thousands more
internationally doing the same.
I think it is important for the public to realize, though, that
there will never be enough law enforcement officers to attack
this successfully unless families, parents, communities, and the
public at large weigh in, and start paying attention to our kids.
We can only do so much in law enforcement to attack it from a
criminal perspective, but the public and the families and the
parents need to listen to their kids. They don�t have to tether
their kids to their belts. They don�t have to follow them in
mini-cams. They don�t have to lock them away in houses. They
shouldn�t get paranoid, but they should listen to their
children. They should pay attention to what they are doing.
They should pay attention to where they are going, whether it
is around the block, in the mall, or on the Internet. That is
very, very significant, and that is a message that has to be out
to the public. We can do a lot. We are doing more, but we can�t
be everywhere, in terms of law enforcement, and the public, the
families, the communities have to pay attention to this very,
very significant problem.
I will pass along on my time. I appreciate the opportunity to
be here, and would be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of John P. Clark follows:]
Prepared Statement of John P. Clark, Deputy Assistant Secretary, United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, United States Department of
Homeland Security
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Stupak and distinguished Members of
the Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, my
name is John Clark and I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). I appreciate the opportunity
to share with you today how ICE is applying its expertise and authorities
to protect our children from Internet sexual exploitation.
I am joined here today by my colleague James Plitt, the head of the ICE
Cyber Crimes Center. Jim�s unit leads our agency�s efforts to combat
the sexual exploitation of children on the Internet.
THE ICE MISSION
Among the Department of Homeland Security law enforcement agencies, ICE
has the most expansive investigative authorities and the largest number
of investigators. ICE is the nation�s principal investigative agency
for violations related to our borders. Our mission is to protect the
American people by combating terrorists and other criminals who seek
to cross our borders and threaten us here at home. The men and women
of ICE accomplish this by investigating and enforcing the nation�s
immigration and customs laws. Working overseas, along the nation�s
borders and throughout the nation�s interior, ICE agents and officers
are demonstrating that our unified immigration and customs
authorities are a powerful tool for identifying, disrupting and
dismantling criminal organizations that violate our Nation�s borders.
Our agents and officers make it harder for potential terrorists and
transnational criminal groups to move themselves, their supporters or
their weapons across the Nation�s borders through traditional human,
drug, contraband or financial smuggling networks, routes and methods.
Since its creation in March 2003, ICE has employed our authorities
and capabilities against threats to our border, homeland and national
security within our broad jurisdiction, including the cross border
Internet sexual exploitation of our children.
PROTECTING CHILDREN
By virtue of our robust authorities and capabilities for investigating
crimes with a border nexus, ICE makes major contributions in the fight
against the sexual exploitation of children worldwide, including over
the Internet and the importation of physical or electronic
representations of child pornography. We focus these ICE efforts
under Operation PREDATOR.
Launched by ICE on July 9, 2003, Operation PREDATOR is currently
managed and administered by the Cyber Crimes Center, a headquarters
unit of ICE�s Office of Investigations, which coordinates enforcement
efforts against child sex offenders both nationally and
internationally. To date, ICE has successfully arrested more than
7,500 child predators. Of these, more than 6,600 (88%) of the
arrestees have been non-U.S. citizens, and of those, more than 3,900
(59%) have been deported from the United States.
ICE�s Operation PREDATOR endeavors to apprehend and ultimately
prosecute a variety of violators including individuals who:
Engage in the receipt, transfer, distribution, trafficking, sale,
facilitation, and production of child pornography in foreign commerce,
including use of the Internet;
Travel internationally for child sex tourism or who facilitate such
travel;
Engage in the human smuggling and trafficking of minors into the United
States for illicit sexual purposes (sexual exploitation and/or
prostitution) or worksite exploitation, and/or commit any crimes
resulting in the harm, injury or death of a minor not including the
smuggling of children by parents for family unity reasons;
Are foreign nationals/aliens who have been convicted of local, state,
or federal offenses against minors and are now eligible for removal
from the United States; and
Are criminal aliens who have been previously deported from the United
States for such offenses but have re-entered the country illegally.
These five enforcement objectives/goals are integral components of
ICE�s border security responsibilities and mission, since these criminal
activities involving child exploitation often transcend this country�s
physical borders. The global Internet constitutes a powerful tool for
those who prey upon children or profit from that predation. Far more
child pornography is now being transmitted globally in an instant in
electronic format than ever was distributed in physical form by
couriers or packages arriving at international ports of entry or mail
facilities.
Operation PREDATOR is a critical element of ICE�s strategy for
identifying and defeating threats to public safety that arise from our
borders. These threats often include foreign nationals who enter or
remain in this country illegally and become administrative fugitives
or absconders and who may also be child sex offenders. Other threats
include criminal business enterprises with business models based upon
the smuggling of alien children into this country for sex exploitation
or prostitution. Additional threats include U.S. citizens and/or
lawful permanent resident aliens who travel to other countries with
the intent to engage in "sex tourism" with children. In multiple
cases we have seen these individuals actually return to the United
States with trophy pictures and videos of their illicit exploits.
To illustrate for the subcommittee our work, I would like to share
with you some powerful examples from ICE case files.
OPERATION FALCON
ICE initiated Operation FALCON in response to the threat to public
safety posed by REGPAY, a criminal businesses activity based in Minsk,
Belarus which provided third-party billing and credit card aggregating
services to Internet child pornography websites. A task force
comprised of agents from ICE, IRS, FBI, Postal Inspection Service, and
the U.S. Attorney�s Office in Newark, New Jersey, launched
investigations into individuals and corporations involved in the
production and distribution of child pornography via the Internet.
Conducted under the auspices of Operation PREDATOR, this revolutionary
investigation employed the latest technology to not only target the
purchases, but also identify, track, and apprehend the producers and
webmasters leading to the seizure of proceeds from this multi-million
dollar criminal enterprise. Operation FALCON has yielded approximately
300 arrests in the United States and more than 1,000 arrests overseas.
Operation FALCON is a continuing investigation.
Another ICE investigation that illustrates the enormity of the threat
to public safety that can be posed by a single individual involved in
Internet child pornography is that of a Louisville resident. This
individual was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Western District
of Kentucky on February 22, 2006, for receiving and possessing child
pornography on his computer. Previously, this individual was indicted
by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia in
December 2001, for similar charges involving possession and
transportation of child pornography. This prior indictment was based
on an investigation conducted by the Naval Criminal Investigative
Service (NCIS), and led to the issuance of an arrest warrant for the
individual. He had remained a fugitive until January 31, 2006, when
agents from our Resident Agent in Charge Office in Louisville,
assisted by NCIS agents and U.S. Marshals, arrested him at his
residence. At the time of his arrest, our agents executed a federal
search warrant resulting in the seizure of 14 desktop computers,
4 laptop computers, numerous removable hard drives, and computer storage
media. Subsequent forensic analysis of the seized items revealed
numerous images of child pornography. This violator admitted that his
collection of Internet child pornography, which he stored on his
computers, approached more than 200,000 still images and hundreds of
video files. He also stated that he was "addicted" to child pornography
and had a sexual interest in children.
COOPERATIVE EFFORTS
Because the Internet allows for the instantaneous transmission of massive
amounts of child pornography, including live video of real-time
molestations, cooperation with our international partners is vital.
ICE has received excellent cooperation from the Danish and Norwegian
National Police agencies. Together, we identify and target suspects who
receive and transmit child pornography via the Internet using
"peer-to-peer" software applications that operate on worldwide
file-sharing networks. Examples include the use of the "LimeWire" program
on the GNEUTELLA network and the "KaZaA" program on the FASTTRACK
network. ICE has a similar ongoing enforcement initiative with the
German National Police, which also attempts to identify and target
suspects who distribute child pornography on the Internet.
Additionally, ICE works closely with INTERPOL and EUROPOL to identify,
arrest, and prosecute international violators with a nexus to the
United States, in an effort to combat the international distribution
of child pornography and the use of the Internet to facilitate child
sex tourism.
ICE has partnered with the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children (NCMEC) to investigate tips received from the NCMEC
Cybertipline. The Cybertipline receives leads from persons reporting
the sexual exploitation of children. I am a member of the board of
this unique organization, which has terrific outreach program for
parents and their children on its "Netsmartz" Internet website.
There, families can review numerous safety tips to help protect
children from online child predators.
In addition, ICE works closely with the DOJ-funded Internet Crimes
Against Children (ICAC) Task Forces around the country on major
child exploitation initiatives involving illicit computer-related
child pornography.
One of the major "high tech" tools we are using to assist us with
the investigation of child pornography crimes via the Internet is
known as the National Child Victim Identification System (NCVIS),
which is a cooperative effort among federal, state, local, and
foreign law enforcement agencies and civilian entities. The program
is managed and administered by our Cyber Crimes Center in Fairfax,
Virginia. The primary focus of NCVIS is to help all law enforcement
agencies identify victims of child sexual exploitation and to
track the transmission and circulation of digital images via
Internet websites, Email, Instant Messenger, Newsgroups, and Chat
Rooms. NCVIS is a secure computer-based initiative that was
conceived as an investigative tool to assist in child exploitation
investigations and allows us to analyze specific child pornography
images, which have been seized as evidence or otherwise, to
determine whether they match already identified child victims or
actual child victims depicted in known child pornography
magazines. To date, the ICE Cyber Crimes Center has analyzed more
than 150,000 images utilizing NCVIS, resulting in the
authentication of more than 2,065 images used to facilitate the
criminal prosecutions and/or sentencing of child predators. In
addition, since its creation, we have enrolled more than 110,000
images of child pornography into NCVIS of which more than 32,000
are of known child victims.
It is also important to note that our Cyber Crimes Center provides
extensive technical training in the areas of online investigations
and computer forensic analysis to local, state, and other federal
law enforcement agencies, as well as foreign police agencies. Due
to the potentially harmful effects of viewing child pornography
and, often times, dealing with its young victims, ICE has launched
a proactive assessment program in an effort to prevent adverse
emotional and psychological effects that may impact an ICE agent�s
emotional health.
INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY TRENDS
No matter how successful our efforts are against these terrible
crimes and those who commit them, the continuing advance of technology
gives potential offenders new opportunities to prey upon children. In
fact, these offenders often are at the forefront of technological
efforts to trade, share and transmit illicit images in the hope of
evading law enforcement detection and capture.
Chief among these avenues are the lesser known peer-to-peer software
applications and programs that operate on worldwide file-sharing
networks that can be employed to support the transmission of child
pornography images and videos. In fact, investigative efforts by
ICE and Canadian authorities recently identified a peer-to-peer
network that was developed and operated by an organized group of
child predators to transmit alleged live video feed of children
alleged to be as young as 18 months being sexually molested by members
of the group. Other examples of technologies that have been misused
by child predators include instant messaging and Internet Relay Chat
programs, which facilitate real-time conversations and the exchange
of child pornography. Predators can also use these programs to make
real-time contact with unwitting child victims. In response to these
threats to public safety, ICE has launched several undercover
operations designed to identify and apprehend predators before they
are able to make contact with our children.
CONCLUSION
As the Department of Homeland Security�s largest investigative agency
with unique authorities to protect the American people from threats
that arise from our borders, ICE is uniquely equipped to enforce our
nation�s laws against the threats posed by child predators who employ
the Internet as a tool to advance their crimes.
While ICE is a new agency, with newly unified immigration and customs
authorities, we continue to aggressively apply our investigative
authorities and capabilities to identify and close vulnerabilities in
our border and homeland security. At the same time, we are bringing
to bear the best of our former agencies� expertise, cultures, and
techniques, while building a new federal law enforcement agency that
is more effective and efficient than the sum of its parts. In case
after case, ICE Special Agents are putting into practice the powerful
advantages that flow from our unified authorities, and are putting
them to great use on behalf of the American people. The net result
is a greater contribution to the Nation�s border security, which is
a critical element of national security and public safety.
My colleagues at ICE are grateful for the chance to serve the
American people and, on their behalf, I thank this subcommittee,
its� distinguished members and Congress for the continued support of
ICE investigative endeavors.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Mr. William Kezer is
the Deputy Chief Inspector, U.S. Postal Inspection Service,
and we recognize you for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kezer. Good morning. Excuse me. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
distinguished members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the United
States Postal Inspection Service, I want to thank you for holding
this hearing, and giving me the opportunity to discuss the subject of
child sexual exploitation, and the important role postal inspectors
play in combating it.
As one of America�s oldest Federal law enforcement agencies,
the Postal Inspection Service, founded by Benjamin Franklin,
has a long, proud, and successful history of arresting
criminals who attacked the Nation�s postal system.
Approximately 1,900 postal inspectors are stationed throughout
the United States, and enforce more than 200 Federal laws
regarding crimes that involve the U.S. mail and the postal
system.
The Postal Inspection Service has a longstanding reputation as
a true leader in the battle against child exploitation. Postal
inspectors began investigating child pornography offenses in
1977, long before any other Federal agency addressed this
problem. Thousands of offenders have been arrested and convicted
under the new Federal laws. In fact, more than 4,800 child
molesters and pornographers have been arrested by postal
inspectors since the enactment of the Federal Child Protection
Act of 1984. In 1997, the Postal Inspection Service began
tracking the number of child molesters identified and children
rescued in our investigations.
Since 1997, of the more than 2,400 arrests made by postal
inspectors, over 800 were child molesters. That is one out
of three. Additionally, more than 1,000 children were rescued
from further sexual abuse and exploitation. And I might add
that 75 percent of our cases are prosecuted at the Federal
level.
In carrying out its objective to combat child exploitation,
the Postal Inspection Service is fortunate to work closely
with the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Interpol, the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, where we have a postal inspector assigned,
and the Federally-funded Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Forces. postal inspectors play a significant role, not
just through the investigations they perform, but in their
efforts to raise public awareness about child sexual
exploitation.
In May of 2001, the Postal Inspection Service launched a
national crime prevention initiative with the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children. The goal of this
initiative was to raise public awareness of the online
victimization of children. As part of this initiative, a Postal
Inspection Service employee designed an eye-catching poster with
a powerful message urging all citizens to report suspected
child exploitation to the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children�s Cyber TipLine. This poster was displayed
in 40,000 post offices nationwide, and was viewed by as many as
eight million postal customers on any given day. This poster
is displayed here today.
Postal inspectors make presentations and conduct training on
child pornography and child exploitation at local, national,
and international conferences. Inspectors also make
presentations to civic organizations and school associations on
topics related to Internet safety. For a small Federal law
enforcement agency, the Postal Inspection Service delivers a
powerful punch when it comes to investigating those who produce,
traffic, and possess child pornography, or otherwise sexually
exploit children.
For the past 7 years, postal inspectors were recipients of the
National Missing and Exploited Children�s Award. The awards
ceremony and Congressional breakfast was held right here on
Capitol Hill. In 4 of the past 7 years, postal inspectors
were awarded top honors by being named Officers of the Year.
Mr. Chairman, as you can see, the Postal Inspection Service
has been a law enforcement leader in the investigation of
child sexual exploitation. The American public can count on
our continued commitment to protect our most precious asset,
our children. Again, thank you for bringing this important
issue forward.
[The prepared statement of William E. Kezer follows:]
Prepared Statement of William E. Kezer, Deputy Chief Inspector,
United States Postal Inspection Service
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. On behalf
of the United States Postal Inspection Service, thank you for holding
this hearing and giving me the opportunity to discuss the subject of
child pornography on the Internet and the significant role Postal
Inspectors play in combating it.
� I�m William Kezer, Deputy Chief Inspector, for the U.S. Postal
� Inspection Service. The sexual exploitation of children spans
� all social and economic classes, and the perpetrators have no
� regard for the enduring grief and trauma they bring to their
� victims. The dangers of child pornography and other forms of
� child sexual exploitation should never be minimized. Through
� public awareness, vigorous investigations, certain prosecution,
� and just sentencing, the incidence of this horrible crime can
� be reduced. Lawmakers and law enforcers, as well as all members
� of society, have an obligation to help protect children and
� their families.
�
�The United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS)
As one of America�s oldest federal law enforcement agencies, the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service founded by Benjamin Franklin, has a long,
proud, and successful history of fighting criminals who attack the
nation�s postal system and misuse it to defraud, endanger, or
otherwise threaten the American public. As the primary law enforcement
arm of the U.S. Postal Service, the USPIS is a specialized, professional
organization performing investigative and security functions essential
to a stable and sound postal system. As fact-finding and investigative
agents, Postal Inspectors are federal law enforcement officers who
carry firearms, make arrests, execute federal search warrants, and
serve subpoenas. Postal Inspectors work closely with U.S. attorneys,
other federal law enforcement agencies, state law enforcement agencies,
and local prosecutors to investigate cases and prepare them for court.
Approximately 1900 Postal Inspectors are stationed throughout the
United States and enforce more than 200 federal laws regarding crimes
that involve the U.S. Mail and postal system.
Early Enforcement Efforts: Obscenity Investigations
For more than a century, the USPIS has had specific responsibility for
investigating the mailing of obscene matter. In the 1860s and 1870s,
Special Agents (as Postal Inspectors were called then) had to contend
with obscene material exported to the United Sates by European
producers. Special Agent Anthony Comstock, or "Mad Anthony," as he
was known, waged a relentless battle against anyone who used the U.S.
Mail in an attempt to corrupt the morals of young people. In 1873
Congress passed the Comstock Act, a forerunner to the existing postal
obscenity statute (18 USC Section 1461). In a letter dated June 11,
1875, now in the USPIS archives, Comstock wrote to his superior
reporting on an investigation:
I have the honor to report that yesterday in the city of New York I
caused the arrest of one Zephir M. Caille, of 261 West 27th St., and
doing business opposite 602 Broadway. He is charged with selling
obscene pictures, and today waived examination at Tombs Police Court
and was committed in default of $1,000-for trial in Special Sessions
court. I seized about 175 pictures in his possession. I have found
I had a good case in State court and therefore I took him there
instead of waiting to work up a case in United States Court. He is
a Frenchman, and I am informed owned a set of 37 different negatives
for printing obscene photographs and supplied the trade throughout
the country, although ostensibly keeping a stand on Broadway.
I have the honor to be
Very Respectfully Sir:
Your Obedient Servant
Anthony Comstock
P.S. this fellow had a clasp knife sharpened as a dirk, but he did
not get a chance to use it as I ironed him.
Protecting Children From Sexual Exploitation: A National Priority
Through the years, child pornography has been investigated along with
obscenity matters; however, it was not until the late 1970s that
Congress took action to create federal legislation protecting
children from sexual exploitation.
Prior to the late 1970s, most Americans were unaware of the
proliferation and commercial distribution of magazines, films, and
photographs depicting children in explicit sexual acts. Fortunately,
we have begun to come to grips with the horrors of child pornography
and to view it as it truly is, a manifestation of aberrant behavior
resulting in the sexual abuse and victimization of children.
In 1977 the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act
became law (18 USC Section 2251-2253). This was the first federal
law specifically designed to protect children from commercialized
sexual exploitation. It was the culmination of years of effort by
Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), concerned members
of the public, and the law enforcement community to take action
against the pernicious effects of pornography and the sexual
exploitation of children. Under this law, a child, or minor, was
defined as a person younger than age 16. In the landmark 1982
U.S. Supreme Court case, New York v. Ferber (1982), the Court
found that child pornography is "intrinsically related to the
sexual abuse of children. First, the materials produced are a
permanent record of circulation. Second, the distribution network
for child pornography must be closed if the production of material
which requires the sexual exploitation of children is to be
effectively controlled. The Court ruled that the standards used to
determine obscenity in adult pornography case are not applicable
to child pornography, and child pornography is not protected under
the First Amendment.
On May 21, 1984, seven years after the first federal child
pornography statutes were enacted, President Ronald Reagan signed
into law the Child Protection Act of 1984. This act amended the
original act and created some new statutes, making the federal
laws against child pornography even more substantial.
Postal Inspectors began investigating child pornography offenses
in 1977, long before any other federal agency addressed the
problem. Recognizing that child molesters and pornographers often
seek to communicate with one another through what they perceive
as the security and anonymity provided by the U.S. Mail, Postal
Inspectors quickly established themselves as leaders in the battle
against child pornography using "undercover operations" to flush out
child pornography dealers who used the mail. Since that time,
thousands of offenders have been arrested and convicted under the
new federal laws. More than 4,800 child molesters and child
pornographers have been arrested by Postal Inspectors since the
enactment of the Federal Child Protection Act of 1984.
Advent of the Internet
Since the advent of publicly available Internet services, the
opportunity for exchange and barter involving sexually explicit
materials has dramatically increased the amount of child pornography
available on line. Child molesters and pornographers frequently
communicate in select online newsgroups and facilitate through
technology video-graphic and still images of child sexual abuse,
both from existing collections as well as in response to requests
for new materials. The increase in the number of victims, as
manifested by newer child pornographic images and bolder production
techniques, has necessitated an equally innovative investigative
response. The Postal Inspection Service has risen to this challenge
and continues to ferret out, identify, and arrest offenders who
traffick in child pornography videotapes and computer disks, or who
otherwise sexually exploit children, through the U.S. Mail. Today,
almost all of the child exploitation investigations conducted by
Postal Inspectors have a common nexus with the Internet and the
U.S. Mail.
Postal Inspectors have established a nationwide network of
intelligence incorporating a wide variety of undercover programs
designed to identify suspects and develop prosecutable cases.
These undercover operations recognize the clandestine nature of
their targets and capitalize on the inherent need of offenders to
validate their behavior through contact with individuals like
themselves. The investigative techniques used in these operations
include the placement of contact advertisements in sexually
oriented publications; the infiltration of Internet newsgroups and
chat rooms; and the use of confidential sources. The computer has
proven itself to be an invaluable investigative tool in identifying
individuals who are using the mail to traffick in child pornography
or otherwise sexually exploit children.
A technique employed by Postal Inspectors as part of conducting
their undercover operations is to control the delivery of child
pornography to the requestor�s address. Following its delivery,
an anticipatory federal search warrant is immediately executed on
the suspect�s property. The item just delivered, along with any
other relevant evidence, is then seized. On March 21, 2006, in
U.S. v. Grubbs, the Supreme Court reported its unanimous
decision, ruling that anticipatory search warrants are lawful as
long as sufficient probable cause exists when the warrant and
supporting affidavit are presented to a magistrate.
The Connection between Child Pornography and Child Molestation
During fiscal year 1997, the USPIS began compiling statistical
information on the number of child pornography suspects that
were also child molesters. Additionally, the USPIS began to collect
data on the number of child victims identified and rescued from
further sexual abuse as a result of investigations conducted by
Postal Inspectors. Since 1997, 802 child molesters were identified
and stopped, and 1,048 victimized children were rescued. Of the
2,433 individuals arrested by Postal Inspectors since 1997 for
using the U.S. Mail and the Internet to sexually exploit children,
actual child molesters were identified in one out of three cases.
Interagency Cooperation
In carrying out its mission to combat child pornography, the USPIS
works closely with the DOJ, particularly, DOJ�s Child Exploitation
and Obscenity Section, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, INTERPOL, the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and other
domestic and international law enforcement agencies. Postal
Inspectors across the country have formed working partnerships
with the federally funded Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC)
task forces.
The USPIS is an active member of the Attorney General�s Federal
Agency Task Force on Missing and Exploited Children. A Postal
Inspector is assigned full time to the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, also known as the NCMEC, in
Alexandria, Virginia. The National Center�s Cyber Tipline reports
are regularly reviewed and forwarded to USPIS child pornography
specialists in the field for follow-up investigation or referral
to another law enforcement agency, as appropriate.
Raising Public Awareness and Other Outreach Initiatives
Postal Inspectors play a special role not just through the
investigations they perform, but in their efforts to raise public
awareness about child sexual exploitation. In May 2001 the USPIS
launched a national crime prevention initiative with the NCMEC
to raise public awareness of the online victimization of children.
As part of the initiative, a USPIS employee designed an
eye-catching poster with a powerful message urging all citizens
to report suspected child exploitation to the NCMEC�s Cyber Tip
line. It was printed and displayed in 40,000 post offices
nationwide where it was viewed by as many as 8 million postal
customers on any given day.
The USPIS has co-sponsored, exhibited, and presented at the
National Symposium on Child Sexual Abuse, held in Huntsville,
Alabama, home of the nation�s first Child Advocacy Center founded
by U.S. Representative Bud Cramer. In addition, Postal Inspectors
have made presentations and conducted training on child
exploitation at local, national, and international conferences
and through DOJ and NCMEC sponsored training programs. Postal
Inspectors regularly make presentations to civic groups and school
associations on topics related to Internet safety.
Internationally, the USPIS has played an important role in
INTERPOL�s Specialist Group on Crimes Against Children since the
group�s founding in 1991. Postal Inspectors have made
presentations and provided training on child exploitation to
delegates from countries around the world. In August 1996 the
USPIS delegate to the Specialist Group on Crimes Against Children
conducted work shops for delegates from more than 120 countries at
the first World Congress on the Commercial Exploitation of Children,
held in Stockholm, Sweden.
Postal Inspectors are so recognized for their expertise on the
subject of child pornography and child exploitation that their views
and experience have been published. Much of this testimony, in
fact, derives from a treatment written by Postal Inspector Raymond
Smith, in the soon to be published book Medical, Legal, & Social
Science Aspects of Child Sexual Exploitation --- A Comprehensive
Review of Pornography, Prostitution and Internet Crimes.
Commercial Child Pornography Distributors
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service was the first federal law
enforcement agency to begin aggressively identifying, targeting,
and arresting commercial child pornography distributors. Under the
1977 Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act, only
the commercial distribution of child pornography was against the
law.
Operation Special Delivery
In May 1996 the U.S. Postal Inspection Service announced the results
of Operation Special Delivery, a highly successful, pro-active
undercover operation. The operation shut down the largest known
commercial child pornography business ever encountered by
authorities in the United States up to that time.
The ring-leader of the criminal enterprise, Troy Anthony Frank,
doing business as Overseas Male, produced child pornography
using young Mexican males, some as young as 7-years of age, in
Mexico City and Acapulco, Mexico. The original videotapes were
then smuggled into the United States and distributed by mail
from San Diego, California, to customers throughout the country.
Business records seized during the investigation revealed the
company made as much as $500,000 per year. Before the investigation
into the ring-leader Troy Frank concluded, he committed suicide.
As a result of Operation Special Delivery, Postal Inspectors
identified a large number of mail-order customers who knowingly
purchased child pornography from Troy Frank. Over 130 searches
in 36 states in the United States were conducted, leading to the
identification of numerous child molesters, pornographers, and
the rescue of child victims. Vast quantities of child
pornography material were found and destroyed. One hundred
offenders were ultimately arrested and prosecuted, among which
were members of the clergy, youth leaders, school teachers,
police officers, an attorney, a history professor, a medical
doctor, and a school counselor.
The Landslide Investigation and Operation Avalanche
There has been no investigation in the history of child
pornography comparable to the Landslide investigation and
Operation Avalanche. This landmark case was conducted under
the direction of the USPIS and illustrates the success that
can be achieved when domestic and international law enforcement
work together.
In 1999 an alert Postal Inspector in St. Paul, Minnesota,
discovered an advertisement on the Internet that had been
placed by Landslide Productions, Inc. Further investigation
revealed that Landslide Productions based in Ft. Worth,
Texas, sold subscriptions to child pornography Web sites.
The investigation was assigned to Postal Inspector Robert
Adams, now retired, in the Ft Worth USPIS office. Inspector
Adams teamed up with Detective Steven Nelson, also now
retired, of the Dallas Police Department�s Internet Crimes
Against Children (ICAC) Task Force, and they launched an
undercover investigation into the activities of Landslide
Productions. Their work was the beginning of an investigation
of such unprecedented magnitude that, even early on in the
case, Postal Inspector Adams reported to his higher-ups he
"had a lion by the tail."
Owned and operated by Thomas and Janice Reedy, Landslide
Productions was a multi-million-dollar child pornography
enterprise. Using the screen names of "Houdini" and "Money,"
the Reedys used their business to advertise and sell prepaid
subscriptions to adult and child pornography Web sites to
customers from around the world. Landslide Productions was,
in fact, a gatekeeper for a number of international Web
masters, advertising and marketing child pornography from
countries such as Indonesia and Russia.
Initially, the Reedys were bold in their online marketing,
using banners such as "Child Porn-Click Here" and "CHILD R@PE."
They eventually changed their advertisements to more covert
suggestions of the content of the Web site. For $29.95, an
individual could purchase a 1-month subscription to any number
of graphic child pornography Web sites. Most customers used
credit cards for their purchase; some customers mailed checks,
cash, or money orders to Landslide�s post office box address
in Ft. Worth. The cash flow for Landslide Productions was
significant at times, amounting to as much as $1.4 million per
month. Not surprisingly, the Reedys enjoyed the fruits of their
labors, living in an upscale community in Fort Worth and
driving top-end Mercedes Benzes. The Reedys were living a grand
lifestyle at the expense of sexually abused and exploited
children.
In September 1999 the investigation conducted in concert with
the U.S. Attorney�s office for the Northern District of Texas,
the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) of the DOJ,
and USPIS National Headquarters, gathered sufficient probable
cause to obtain federal search warrants. On September 8 six
federal and state agencies executed a series of federal search
warrants on the primary business location of Landslide Production,
a secondary Landslide office in Dallas, Texas, and the Reedys�
personal residence. The simultaneous raids, led by the USPIS,
took more than 18 hours to complete. Under the direction of the
USPIS�s Forensic and Technical Services Division, Digital Evidence
Section, careful efforts were taken to seize, secure, and protect
the numerous computer systems located within the properties searched.
The data extracted from the computer servers would later be known
as the "Holy Grail." Among the evidence seized under the scope of
the warrants were financial records. One of the operation�s Web
masters received more than $98,000 in one month alone for providing
child pornography Web sites to its customers.
Through Landslide Productions� network of computer systems and the
World Wide Web, the Reedys provided child pornography to thousands
of paying customers throughout the world. The success of their
endeavor was based on supply and demand. Customer demand escalated,
promoting further production as well as demands for newer and more
novel material. Real children were sexually abused and their abuse
photographed or videotaped to satisfy the needs of a specific
clientele.
In April 2000 the Reedys were charged in a Forth Worth U.S. District
Court. A federal grand jury returned an 89-count indictment against
them, charging conspiracy to advertise and distribute child
pornography and possession of child pornography. Plea offers by
the prosecutors were declined and the case went to trial. Defense
attorneys argued that the Reedys were not aware of the actual content
of the various Web sites they advertised; however, evidence obtained
from the Reedys� computers revealed otherwise.
During the trial, a detective from the United Kingdom�s National
Crime Squad summarized the inescapable bottom line issue with
regard to child pornography. The detective, by way of illustration,
told the story of two children who are well known in the world of
child pornography. Helen and Gavin are British children who were
sexually abused and exploited by their stepfather. As the
detective explained, the children are victimized again and again
whenever their pictures are reproduced, sold and further
disseminated.
At the conclusion of the case, the jury found the defendants
guilty as charged on all counts of the indictment. On
August 6, 2001, Thomas Reedy was sentenced to 15 years in
federal prison on each of the 89 counts charged. The judge
ordered that each 15-year term run consecutive to the
previous term for a total of 1335 years. Janice Reedy was
sentenced to a 14-year term. On August 8 Attorney General
John Ashcroft and the Chief Postal Inspector held a press
event and publicly announced the investigation and results.
The sentences were appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit. On appeal, Thomas Reedy�s sentence was
reduced to 180 years--in essence, a life sentence--and
Janice�s remained the same.
Using intelligence gained from the Landslide investigation, Postal
Inspectors launched Operation Avalanche in collaboration with the
federally funded ICAC Task Forces, resulting in the arrest of
hundreds of offenders here in the United States. Internationally,
Postal Inspectors worked with INTERPOL and other law enforcement
agencies around the world tracking down more Landslide customers
and suppliers. More than 8,000 search warrants to date have been
carried out, making this the largest global operation ever
undertaken.
No single offender profile could be created for those individuals
who purchased child pornography from Landslide�s criminal business.
Occupations of the offenders included, but were not limited to,
attorneys, physicians, firefighters, professional counselors for
children, teachers, clergy, and law enforcement officers.
Through Operation Avalanche, vast quantities of child pornography
were seized, scores of individuals arrested, and many children
rescued from further sexual abuse and exploitation.
On October 23, 2002, President George W. Bush was personally briefed
by representatives of the USPIS on the Landslide investigation and
Operation Avalanche. Following the briefing, the President addressed
a group of law enforcement personnel and child protection advocates
gathered at the White House. In his statement, the President made a
commitment to the American people: "Anyone who targets a child for
harm will be a primary target of law enforcement. That�s our
commitment. Anyone who takes the life or innocence of a child will
be punished to the full extent of the law" (Bush, 2002). The
President used Operation Avalanche and the work of the Postal
Inspectors as an example of the government�s aggressive efforts
to combat the sexual exploitation of children.
Operation Lost Innocence
In September 2002 Angel Mariscal, an Ecuadorian national was
arrested by the Postal Inspection Service in Miami, Florida. He was
charged with distributing child pornography by mail and indicted on
conspiracy charges to produce and ship child pornography. The
investigation that ensued revealed a horrifying case of sexual abuse,
rape, and commercial exploitation of more than 150 child victims,
unraveling an international child pornography ring of shocking
proportions.
� In 1989 Angel Mariscal began conducting a mail order child
� pornography business. He produced the child pornography
� outside of the United States, imported it into the United
� States, and then mailed it to customers who had previously
� placed orders in response to advertisements or catalogs.
� The majority of the victims were Cuban and Ecuadorian
� children between the ages of 9 and 16. The child
� pornography was personally produced by Mariscal and his
� accomplices, featuring Mariscal himself as the one who
� raped and molested the children. When his business dissolved
� in September 2002, the videotapes he produced sold for as
� much as $975. It was later learned that Mariscal was HIV
� positive.
� In December 2002 Mariscal was indicted in the Southern District
� of Florida on charges of Conspiracy to Produce Child Pornography,
� Advertising Child Pornography, and Importation of Child
� Pornography. Based on information provided by Postal Inspectors,
� law enforcement authorities in Cuba and Ecuador arrested five
� co-conspirators and identified a number of child victims. Postal
� Inspectors participated in Mariscal�s arrest in Ecuador. He was
� tried and convicted in April 2004 and sentenced to 100 years in
� federal prison -- in essence, a life sentence.
Although cases like these involving the commercial distribution of child
pornography frequently get the most public attention, they are not as
common as investigations into non-commercial traffickers. Non-commercial
cases involve perpetrators who exchange child pornography with others --
unlawfully receiving, distributing, and possessing child pornography for
their own personal use and sexual gratification. However, the
investigation of non-commercial traffickers often leads Postal
Inspectors to the very people who produce child pornography, and
ultimately to the identification and recovery of children who have
been victimized. Following are significant investigations conducted by
Postal Inspectors into non-commercial traffickers of child pornography.
Non-Commercial Traffickers
Covington, Kentucky - In March 2006 Postal Inspectors were notified
about a package in the mail that was believed to contain child
pornography. The package was addressed to a Covington, Kentucky man.
Working with the Covington Police, Postal Inspectors searched the
intended recipient�s residence and uncovered hundreds of sexually
explicit magazines, videos and DVDs of minor males. The man used the
U.S. Mail to receive and distribute child pornography, including
pictures taken by the subject himself. He was immediately arrested on
state charges of disseminating child pornography. Efforts are underway
to identify the children depicted in the photographs. Federal
prosecution is pending.
Slinger, Wisconsin - In February 2006 first-degree homicide charges
were filed against a subject who, in a murder-for-hire scheme,
conspired to have murdered his 16-year old stepdaughter, whom he
allegedly sexually abused for ten years, as well as two others who had
witnessed the abuse. The subject came to the attention of Postal
Inspectors in June 2005 when he attempted to purchase child pornography
from an undercover operation run by Postal Inspectors. His abuse of his
stepdaughter came to light in the course of the investigation. The
case was worked jointly with the Washington, Wisconsin County Sheriff�s
Department and Wisconsin Department of Justice (ICAC). The subject
faces 60 years imprisonment on each conspiracy charge if convicted.
A cash bond of $500,000 was set.
Meridian, Mississippi - In January 2006 a resident of Meridian,
Mississippi, was arrested after he traveled to Birmingham, Alabama,
intending to have sexual intercourse with what he believed to be an
11-year old girl. The "girl" was actually an undercover Birmingham,
Alabama Police Officer working with Postal Inspectors and FBI
Special Agents in an online sting operation. The subject
corresponded with the undercover officers via the U.S. Mail, sending
order forms and payment to the "escort service." The subject was
interviewed and subsequently admitted to secretly videotaping children
from his church where he was actively involved in youth programs. The
children were filmed changing clothes. The investigation is continuing
with federal prosecution pending in Alabama and Mississippi.
� Memphis, Tennessee -- In May 2005 a suspect and his "on-line
� girlfriend" were sentenced in federal court for using the mail
� and Internet to distribute and receive child pornography. The
� suspect was sentenced to 15 years in prison and five years�
� supervised release; his girlfriend received five years in prison
� and two years� supervised release. Postal Inspectors initiated
� the investigation when the suspect�s wife discovered CDs
� containing child pornography in their bedroom and a mailing
� envelope bearing the suspect�s name and address. A search warrant
� was executed on the residence and tens of thousands of child
� pornography images were discovered on his computer. Several
� pornographic images of his neighbor�s granddaughter were also
� recovered. The suspect later pled guilty to producing the images
� and to using the mail and the Internet to distribute and receive
� child pornography.
� Brimfield, Ohio -- In December 2005 a suspect pled guilty in
� state court and was sentenced to life in prison for the rape of
� a child. The suspect was arrested six months earlier on charges
� of gross sexual imposition and felony rape following an
� investigation conducted by Postal Inspectors. Evidence seized
� during a search of the suspect�s residence revealed he had
� received child pornography via the U.S. Mail. The suspect later
� admitted to three separate instances of sexual conduct with
� minors. Follow-up investigation led to the identification and
� interview of one of the victims, a 14-year-old girl who was
� only 8 years old at the time the molestation began, and the
� daughter of one of the suspect�s co-workers.
Kirkwood, Illinois - In January 2006 a Kirkwood, Illinois, man
pleaded guilty to a 4-count federal indictment for production of
child pornography and receipt of child pornography. The man came to
the attention of Postal Inspectors during the course of an undercover
investigation. Inspectors determined that the suspect, a 31-year-old,
married, father of a pre-school aged son, regularly contacted young
girls on the Internet and convinced them to meet him in local parks
where they would engage in sexual activity. He also convinced the
girls to take sexually explicit photographs of themselves and mail
the pictures to him. Three child victims were identified through
this investigation. The man is scheduled for sentencing in April
2006
� Redwood City, California - Postal Inspectors arrested a
� 41-year-old man in July 2005 for violating federal child
� pornography laws. The previous January, Customs and Border
� Protection personnel assigned to the international mail
� facility in Los Angeles intercepted a number of DVDs
� containing child pornography that were addressed to the
� suspect. The DVDs were coming from Thailand. Postal
� Inspectors obtained and served a federal search warrant on
� the suspect�s home, seizing additional evidence consisting
� of CD-ROMs, ZIP disks, and his computer. Following a
� comprehensive review of the evidence, it was determined
� the suspect possessed in excess of 127,000 child
� pornography pictures and videos. The National Center for
� Missing and Exploited Children has positively identified
� over 400 of the children depicted in the images. The
� suspect is free on $100,000 bond pending trial.
The Mighty Efforts of a Small Agency
For a small federal law enforcement agency, the USPIS deals a
mighty blow to those who would use the mail to produce, transmit,
or possess child pornography, and who would otherwise sexually
exploit children. The expertise of Postal Inspectors is demonstrated
by the number of times prosecutors and other law enforcement
agencies turn to the Postal Inspection Service for assistance with
particularly difficult cases.
In August 2000 a Postal Inspector in Tampa, Florida, was called
upon by local law enforcement to assist in a missing child case when
it was suspected the child may have been lured away from her home
by an individual she met on the Internet. The parents found
evidence of correspondence with the suspect in their daughter�s
bedroom. A forensic examination of the child�s computer and other
evidence obtained by Postal Inspectors resulted in the
identification of the suspect who was believed to be living in
Greece. Through coordination with the NCMEC, INTERPOL, the U.S.
and Greek embassies, and with the assistance of the FBI in Greece,
the suspect was arrested in Athens on February 1, 2001. The
14-year old girl, having been traumatically sexually abused by
the suspect, was recovered and reunited with her family. Postal
Inspector April Hindin, the lead agent, was recognized for her
tremendous work in this case when she was presented the following
year on Capitol Hill with the National Missing and Exploited
Children�s Award.
In addition to Postal Inspector April Hindin�s recognition, other
Postal Inspectors have received the prestigious National Missing
and Exploited Children�s Awards for the past seven consecutive
years. The awards are given at a Congressional Breakfast and Awards
Ceremony in cooperation with the NCMEC, here in Washington D.C.
to investigators who have conducted outstanding investigations in
the cases of missing and exploited children. Singled out in 1999,
2001, 2003, and 2004 Postal Inspectors were given top honors by
being named Officers of the Year. No other agency has achieved
such acclaim.
More than any award or other recognition, however, there is no
greater satisfaction for a Postal Inspector than the knowledge they
have helped the very people in this world least able to defend
themselves. For one Postal Inspector that moment came in 2003 when
a former victim wrote:
When I was a little girl, when I was being photographed and raped,
I used to try and send messages with my eyes down the lens, in the
hope that one day a "good person" might see and come and help us. It
took years for me to realise (sic) that no one was looking at my
face. You saw our face. We want you to know, that we know, how hard
this must have been for you all and we thank you from the bottom of
our hearts for your courage and fortitude. Your actions have changed
our lives and changed the future lives of thousands of innocent
children who were yet to come. Thank you Thank you Thank you.
We have come a long way since the first federal child exploitation
laws were enacted in 1977, but we still have much further to go. Only
through our continuing efforts, both individually and collectively,
at all levels of government and private enterprise, can we ensure that
children are protected from this type of victimization, and if
victimized, that they receive the services and assistance they need,
and that their offenders are caught and prosecuted to the full
extent of the law. Thank you for the opportunity to share with you
the very special contribution that U.S. Postal Inspectors make in
the fight against the sexual exploitation of children through the
Internet.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Kezer, and our next witness
is Raymond Smith, who is the Assistant Inspector in Charge
for Child Pornography and Adult Obscenity, at the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service, and you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. And members of
the subcommittee. I am very pleased to be here today on this
particular topic, because I have devoted a great deal of my career
to investigating these types of crimes. I investigated my first
child pornography case in 1982, and now I am able to manage our
programs at the national level.
People unfamiliar with the work of the Postal Inspection
Service often ask why are postal inspectors involved in
these things that, today, seem to involve so much of the
Internet? The answer is, because along with the Internet,
the bad guys are still using the mail. In fact, 98 percent
of the cases investigated by postal inspectors today
involve the mail as well as the Internet. We have developed
a great deal of expertise using the computer and the Internet
as an investigative tool to ferret out and identify the
offenders who are trafficking in child pornography videotapes,
computer disks, or otherwise sexually exploiting children
through the mail.
We know how these offenders think, how they operate, and what
their psychological needs are. The worst of these offenders
exhibit highly compulsive and predictable patterns of behavior.
They have a need to validate their behavior with like-minded
individuals through communication, not only on the Internet,
but also in the mail. Postal inspectors use a wide variety of
proactive undercover operations to identify suspects, and
develop strong cases for prosecution. In many cases, we employ
the use of controlled deliveries by mail, something only postal
inspectors can do. Following the controlled delivery, an
anticipatory Federal search warrant is executed on the suspect�s
property, and the child pornography that was just delivered under
controlled circumstances is recovered, along with any other
relevant evidence associated with the underlying criminal activity.
Coincidentally, on March 21 of this year, in U.S. v. Grubbs, a
Supreme Court case, it was also a Postal Inspection Service case,
the Court came back unanimously upholding the lawfulness and use
of anticipatory search warrants. Commercial child pornography
dealers have long been targeted by postal inspectors. In 1996,
Operation Special Delivery shut down the largest commercial
distributor at that time, grossing upwards of $500,000 a year.
After dismantling the business, postal inspectors took it over
in an undercover capacity, and targeted their customers across
the country, resulting in over 100 successful prosecutions. Many
of these individuals had been sexually abusing children.
Perhaps the most celebrated commercial child pornography business
operating on the Internet was Landslide Productions, owned and
operated by Thomas and Janice Reedy out of Fort Worth, Texas. This
company took in upwards of $1.4 million a month. They were
advertising and selling child pornography websites to subscribers
around the world. Later to become known as Operation Avalanche,
this landmark case was conducted under the direction of the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service, in close cooperation with the U.S.
Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section,
along with the Dallas Texas Police Department Internet Crimes
Against Children Task Force. In the end, Thomas Reedy received
180 years in Federal prison, in essence, a life sentence. His
wife received 14 years. Postal inspectors then worked with the
various Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces across the
country, and arrested hundreds of paying subscribers in the
United States, then working through Interpol and with our
international partners, over 8,000 searches were conducted around
the world, making this the largest global operation ever
undertaken. Huge amounts of child pornography were seized,
scores of individuals were arrested, and many children were
rescued from further sexual abuse.
Although commercial cases like these get the most public
attention, it is oftentimes the most typical noncommercial case
that identifies child molesters, the producers of this material,
and their child victims. Just a couple weeks ago, in Covington,
Kentucky, postal inspectors working with Covington PD arrested
a man after a package containing DVDs of nude minor males was
delivered in error to the Cincinnati Reds ballpark. During
a search of the man�s home, hundreds of vintage child
pornography magazines, videotapes, and DVDs were discovered,
along with packaging material for receiving and distributing
child pornography through the mail, including pictures
apparently taken by himself of kids. Efforts are underway to
identify these children, and Federal prosecution has been
authorized.
In another case last week, a 15-year veteran of the Huntsville,
Alabama Police Department was arrested by postal inspectors on
a Federal charge of production of child pornography. This
offender, discovered after he traveled to Titus, Texas, to
sexually abuse a 14-year-old girl that he met on the Internet,
continued to keep her in his confidence, and convinced this
girl, after mailing her a package of a sexual aid and a
digital camera, to take pictures of herself. The digital memory
card from that camera was then mailed back to the police officer
in Texas. Over 300 such images were produced by this young
child. He is in custody.
Deputy Chief Kezer mentioned the national awards received by
postal inspectors, but I must tell you this, more than any other
award or recognition, there is nothing greater than knowing that
you have helped one of the many, very many people in this world
least able to defend themselves. For me, one of those occasions
came in 2003, when a former victim learned of our Operation
Avalanche, and wrote to me. I would like to read one paragraph
from her correspondence: "When I was a little girl, and when I
was being photographed and raped, I used to try to send messages
with my eyes down the lens, and hope that one day, a good person
might see and come to help us. It took years for me to realize
no one was looking at my face. You saw our face, and we want
you to know that we know how hard this must have been for all of
you, and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your
courage and your fortitude. Your actions have changed the future
lives of thousands of innocent children who are yet to come.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
In closing, we have come a long way over the years, but we have
still got much further to go. Only through our continuing
efforts, both individually and collectively, at all levels of
government service, and through private enterprise, can we help
ensure that victims and their families get the services and
assistance they need and deserve, and that their offenders will
face the swift and righteous justice that we, as a society,
demand.
We all have the need here, and the obligation, to make this world
a safer place for our kids. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, Mr. Smith, thank you, and thank all of you
for your testimony. You have provided some tremendous suggestions
for us to consider. You have provided some tremendous insights.
We have two votes on the House floor right this minute, and so
what we are going to do is we are going to recess this hearing
until 12:15. So, if you all wouldn�t mind coming back in at
12:15, we have questions for you.
Mr. Stupak. Mr. Chairman, if I may, let us see, the full chairman
is here, Chairman Barton, I see that the Attorney General,
Mr. Gonzalez, testified this morning 9:00.
Chairman Barton. I have already been down there.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. Good. Just wanted to make sure you are aware
of it, because on page 6 and 7 of his testimony, he talks about
child pornography on the Internet. It would be great if we could
get him up here.
Chairman Barton. I have already been down there, and I have a
scout down there, so when he gets ready to leave, he has agreed
to talk to me. We are going to have a little visit.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you.
Chairman Barton. We are ahead of you.
Mr. Whitfield. We will recess until 12:15.
[Recess.]
Mr. Whitfield. The hearing will reconvene, and I apologize we
are 5 minutes late, but thank you for your patience.
Dr. Kardasz, in your testimony, you talked quite a bit about
retaining data on subscriber and content information. You are
the one that mentioned that, aren�t you?
Mr. Kardasz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. As one of the possible solutions or helpful
solutions, would you elaborate on that just a little bit more,
and also, what would you anticipate would be the objections to
doing that?
Mr. Kardasz. Every computer connected to the Internet is
identifiable by what is called an Internet Protocol address,
and it is a series of numbers. It is similar to the numbers
you have connected to your cell phone. You have got a cell
phone number. So, through subpoena powers, we can start to
trace that back, and in the cell phone industry, they keep
those records for long periods of time, but that is not always
the case in the Internet service provider industry. Some
providers keep those records, so that we can chase back the
offender for longer periods of time than others. So, as in a
case that Special Agent Waters described, if we are trying to
track back on an offender, and the subscriber information that
is connected to that Internet Protocol address is not available,
then we are at a dead end, and I think the objections would be
the cost. Now, they are going to say, and I don�t disagree
with it, that that is a lot of data that they are going to have
to retain, and then, the subsequent searches they have to do
in response to our subpoenas is going to cost them some manpower,
so I think that is what an IP address, and that is the data
storage that we need, and I think that is the issue, the cost.
Mr. Whitfield. And what would be the suggestion on the length
of time to retain the data?
Mr. Kardasz. Well, when we get an investigation in, it is not
like we always get it in the next day.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Kardasz. So, sometimes, there is a long period of time
that passes before we get it in, it gets up to the
investigator�s queue, and he is able to work it, and then he
is able to get a subpoena out.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Kardasz. So, I have heard my colleagues bounce around
90 days would be nice, a year would be great, but the longer
period of time that it has to be kept, then, the more data
overall has to be stored by that Internet service provider, so
the more storage capacity they need, the more that might cost
them.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, I assume the entire panel would agree that
that would be an invaluable tool, and it would be a positive
development. Is that true? So, no one would object to some
statutory language, or action to that effect.
What about applying this data retention to cell phone companies
that are also providing the ability of a person to exchange
images?
Mr. Kardasz. I am not familiar enough with the data retention
schedules that cell phone companies have now. I get the sense
that they already retain some data, but it would be very
applicable to them. Some of those cell phones now, as you
know, can also capture pictures. We have had some child
pornography cases attached to those folks that are running
around with cell phones capturing child pornography on their
cell phone cameras.
Mr. Whitfield. Is there anyone on the panel that would want to
make any comment about the cell phone? Okay.
Mr. Waters, in your testimony, I know you showed the slide of
the two children with the Santa Claus, and make sure I
understand, those children were your children?
Mr. Waters. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. My two youngest.
Mr. Whitfield. And they went to a local mall, and he was the
Santa Claus, and then, you set yourself in a sort of a sting
operation, and this is the same fellow. Is that correct?
Mr. Waters. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. My wife took them
to the mall shortly after Thanksgiving, got the photos taken,
and then, towards the end of December, I was online in a Wyoming
chat room, just sitting around, and I was contacted by this same
person.
Mr. Whitfield. Was he convicted, or--
Mr. Waters. Yes, he was.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. Dr. Kardasz, you also mentioned something
about responding to subpoenas within a certain period of time.
Mr. Kardasz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Would you elaborate on that?
Mr. Kardasz. Well, Mr. Chairman, depending on which Internet
service provider we are working with when we send a subpoena,
they respond various lengths of time later. Ideally, we would
like to get a response as soon as we can, particularly, in the
case where we are working an active Internet sexual predator, for
example, we are online, pretending to be a child. All we have
is a screen name, so we do a little research on that screen
name, and find out which Internet service provider sponsors that
screen name. Now, we can subpoena that Internet service provider
to say who is this person, Joe Smith at Yahoo!, at AOL, we can
subpoena Yahoo! or AOL, and say who is this person? What is the
background information behind that subscriber? So, then,
depending on which Internet service provider is involved, it
takes them different periods of time. If we could get that
within--the quicker, the better, obviously, particularly if it
is a missing child case that we are working. But if we can turn
those subpoenas around within 2 weeks, that would be a beautiful
thing.
Mr. Whitfield. So, would all of you agree that one of the most
difficult parts of your job is just trying to determine who the
person is on the other line, right, or with the, as the website,
or whatever. And so, the data retrieval would be important, the
expedited response to subpoenas would be important. Do any of
you have any other suggestions of some mechanisms that could be
used to help you do your job better? Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, we have no statutory authority or
otherwise authority to get administrative subpoenas. When we
enter into an investigation now, and we have an individual�s
screen name, we must get a Federal grand jury subpoena to serve
on that Internet service provider in order to get the account
information. A number of years ago, under the last
Administration, beginning with Attorney General Janet Reno and
it was concluded by Attorney General Ashcroft, the FBI was
delegated administrative subpoena authority by the Attorney
General. The authority went to the Attorney General, it was
delegated to each individual U.S. Attorney�s Office, and they
in turn delegated it to the Bureau. Bureau agents can now write
the administrative subpoena out quickly, get it out without
going for a grand jury subpoena, and get that information back
a lot quicker.
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement, they use a tool which
I believe is called a customs summons, which is not necessarily
designed as an administrative subpoena, but it serves the same
purpose lawfully, and they are able to get that information.
Postal Inspection Service cannot.
Mr. Whitfield. So, Postal Inspection is the only agency in law
enforcement that would not have the administrative--
Mr. Smith. No, at the Federal level, and I am not sure about
Secret Service. I can�t comment on that.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, what is the difference in an administrative
subpoena and--
Mr. Smith. It expedites things. Typically, we would have to go
and make a phone call to an Assistant United States Attorney.
Oftentimes, we get multiple, multiple names or screen names in
an investigation. Give you an example. I am going to use the
Justin Berry case, and I don�t know all the intimate details with
that case, but if there were 1,500 names, you have 1,500 screen
names that came forward, we might want to know who those people
are. What does that screen name resolve back to on the actual
account information? Who holds the account, where do they live,
et cetera, et cetera. We could conceivably go to a U.S.
Attorney�s Office, say I need 1,500 grand jury subpoenas, or
maybe one, and list out 1,500 names. It just is cumbersome if
we have to keep going back and bugging the U.S. Attorney�s Office
every day of the week to get another grand jury subpoena. With
the administrative subpoena, it is a tool that the investigative
agency can use to serve. Of course, it is all tracked and
recorded, and they have to account for that information to the
Justice Department.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah. Well, Mr. Swecker would be available to
the FBI, correct?
Mr. Swecker. It is available at the supervisory level. It has
been delegated down, and he is correct, it gives you the ability
to move much faster, you are much more mobile and agile, because
probable cause evaporates very quickly in these cases, and you
really need to be able to move very quickly and able to get to
either the customers or the abusers themselves, so this gives
the ability to do that.
Mr. Whitfield. Do you know if that tool was used in the Justin
Berry case, or can you talk about it?
Mr. Swecker. Sir, I would love to talk to you about the case,
but I cannot.
Mr. Whitfield. All right. How many FBI field agents are
devoted full time to child pornography, or child molestation
cases?
Mr. Swecker. We are funded for 127. We actually have close to
250 agents working just Innocent Images, child abusers on the
Internet.
Mr. Whitfield. 250?
Mr. Swecker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, we are told that there are six FBI special
agents working at the Innocent Images National Initiative, that
in fact, two slots are not filled. Even with having eight
special agents devoted to this work full-time, given the
magnitude, do you think that--well, he said 250, but we are
told that there are six FBI special agents working on the
Innocent Images National Initiative.
Mr. Swecker. There are six at NCMEC, at the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children. It is two agents, four
analysts.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. But we are told that two slots are not
filled. Is that correct?
Mr. Swecker. They are in the process of being filled. There is
normal rotation in and out.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. Okay. Now, do you all feel that the
financial services industry could do more to assist law
enforcement in these cases, and if so, how do you think they
could be more effective in what they are doing? How could they
assist you more? Mr. Swecker.
Mr. Swecker. I watched Ernie Allen�s testimony yesterday, and I
think those types of initiatives, where you get cooperation
from these PayPals and credit card companies and financial
clearinghouses that enable the payments, some of them, right now,
it is voluntary cooperation, if there is some method of ensuring
that they will be cooperative. Some are more cooperative than
others.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah. Mr. Plitt, do you have any comment on
that?
Mr. Plitt. We agree. We assist with those cases, and of course,
our concern is that much of the money flows overseas. We are
looking at the trans-border side of it. So, any international
cooperation from the credit card companies, financial services
companies in other countries, is what we target, and we also
invite.
Mr. Whitfield. And what about digital currencies?
Mr. Plitt. Digital currencies. In the past, I would say
eighteen months, digital currencies have started to appear in
these cases, and they are absolutely important. They allow the
free, unmonitored movement of money between countries, and to
various Internet services. The currency area is something we
have been looking at for a while now, and they are occurring in
these child exploitation cases.
Mr. Whitfield. It seems to me the one impediment to effective
prosecution in these cases is we have so many agencies across so
many jurisdictions, and it must require a lot of coordination,
and working with each other, and teamwork. You must all be
frustrated by the complexity of prosecuting. Would that be
accurate?
Mr. Swecker. If I may. There is plenty of work for everybody.
And I worked drugs for a good part of my career, saw a lot of
overlap and duplication. We are not seeing that in this area.
I think everybody recognizes the importance of it, and I think
it is better to have a good number of agencies working it. The
National Center has been a very good clearinghouse for this type
of activity. NCMEC has been very effective in that area,
because we all have analysts out there. We all have
investigators out there.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, I know that many law enforcement agencies
have jurisdictional disputes, but hopefully, this is one area, as
you said, where there can be more cooperation and less concern
about jurisdictional protections. I am assuming that is the way
you all feel about it.
All right. My time has expired, so I will recognize Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Swecker, back in �99, Congress passed a law that required
Internet service providers to report any knowledge the ISPs may
have of child pornography to the Cyber TipLine, which is run by
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and then,
they must forward that report to law enforcement agencies, and
that is 42 USC � 13032, and we have fines in there for failing
to report and all this. But this law did not require the service
providers to monitor, to actively monitor their networks, but
still, if they came across it, they were supposed to report it.
Tuesday, we learned from Mr. Allen that this law has never been
implemented, because the Justice Department said they refused to
issue the guidelines, or take any steps to implement it. The
guidelines were drafted, we understand, in late 2000 under the
Clinton Administration. Attorney General Ashcroft, for some
reason, did not want to implement it. Any reason why?
Mr. Swecker. Sir, I am not sure. It would be a great tool. We
see that success in the bank secrecy area, with the banks making
referrals through the SAR process. This would certainly be a
help to us.
Mr. Stupak. Were you aware of the law?
Mr. Swecker. I am aware of it, but I--
Mr. Stupak. Have you attempted to use it?
Mr. Swecker. Well, we don�t have any guidelines or regs to
implement it yet, so we haven�t been able to use it.
Mr. Whitfield. If I may interrupt. Mr. Swecker, would you talk
to the appropriate people at Justice, and ask them to give a
formal response to Mr. Stupak�s question on that issue?
Mr. Stupak. Because it has been almost 7 years?
Mr. Swecker. Yes.
Mr. Stupak. And I think you mentioned, Doctor, about the ISPs,
how important they could be to Internet service providers to
helping us, here is a law that Congress did in �99, it is not
even implemented.
Mr. Kardasz. Well, Congressman, one important thing that
happened as a result of that law is that we got a flood of child
pornography investigations that overwhelmed us, that came from
some of the responsible ISPs that, when they were finding child
pornography on their servers, they were reporting those to us,
and we are still getting those investigations in today. So,
part of that law is being implemented by those ISPs who have
chosen to abide by it.
Mr. Stupak. Sure. Mr. Swecker, you mentioned--oh, Mr. Smith,
you had a comment? I am sorry.
Mr. Smith. Just to follow up on that, with that law that
requires ISPs to report violations to the National Center, that
is the Cyber TipLine II part of the National Center, the I being
the public. And as I understand it, the larger ISPs do, in
fact, report the information, but hundreds and hundreds of small
ones, if not thousands, do not, and then, there is no enforcement
provision. There is no penalty associated with non-reporting.
Mr. Stupak. Well, there is a civil penalty up to $100,000.
Mr. Smith. Okay. I don�t know is it has ever been pursued.
Mr. Stupak. Well, testimony is showing that there are like 215
of the ISPs voluntarily report this stuff, but there are
thousands upon thousands of thousands out there, and that is not
even counting the wireless that we are starting to see more and
more of now. So, I mean, it has got to be a phenomenal problem,
but we are trying to design laws that will help you out, but when
they sit for 7 years, and no, the first we learned about it was
Tuesday, that there was a problem with it, according to the
Attorney General, so that is why the full Chairman and everyone
else wanted someone here to answer his questions.
Mr. Swecker, you mentioned the Justin Berry case. Is Justice in
lead on that case? Who is the lead agency?
Mr. Swecker. We are the investigators, and we are the lead
investigative agency on that.
Mr. Stupak. Who would be the lead person in charge of that?
Mr. Swecker. Within our agency, there are case agents around the
country. Arnold Bell coordinates the investigation from our
headquarters. He is the Unit Chief of the Innocent Images Unit.
Mr. Stupak. Right, Mr. Bell, who we asked for today.
Mr. Swecker. I would say, sir, that we are trying very hard not
to jeopardize any future prosecution. I think there is logic in
not commenting.
Mr. Stupak. And I don�t think this committee has ever
jeopardized one of your investigations, but I know Justin Berry
and everyone else would just like to know what the heck you are
doing. You got a very big black eye here Tuesday, and it is
getting bigger by the minute, but you just keep saying well, we
can�t answer these questions. No one has asked any inappropriate
questions, and I am sure if it was an inappropriate question
which would jeopardize the investigation, the person, Mr. Bell
or others, would say I can�t answer that. We will answer in
closed session. So don�t give us that line.
You indicated there were 250 agents that work on child
pornography in Justice?
Mr. Swecker. Within the FBI.
Mr. Stupak. Within the FBI. So you have 250 agents assigned to
doing child pornography, or do you just have agents who, from
time to time, may work on child pornography.
Mr. Swecker. That is actual agents working the system.
Mr. Stupak. Which their main emphasis would be child
pornography.
Mr. Swecker. Sole emphasis.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. Mr. Swecker, how about forfeiture statutes.
I think ICE has used them. Has Justice ever used forfeiture
statutes to get the assets of these individuals? Have you ever
used that mechanism?
Mr. Swecker. We have. I don�t have any numbers for you.
Mr. Stupak. You are familiar with them with drug cases, then,
right?
Mr. Swecker. Absolutely, and white collar cases as well.
Mr. Stupak. Any reason why they could not be used here? Is
there anything we have to do to change the law to make sure you
could use them in child pornography?
Mr. Swecker. I think we have the forfeiture tools available
to us.
Mr. Stupak. Okay.
Mr. Swecker. That was one of the things that came into being
very early on.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. Let me go back to the Berry case for a
minute. If the FBI has an agreement, there is an understanding
out there, it is my understanding, to provide all images to the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, but Missing
and Exploited Children said they have never received anything.
So, CEOS, then, probably has nothing from the Berry case. And
the Berry case has been sitting for over, I think, 71 days now,
if I count. So, what is going with that, then? I mean, if
National Center has not received the information, then CEOS
wouldn�t have received the information. It seems like it is
bottled up in Justice. Is that right?
Mr. Swecker. Well, again, let me just talk generically, if I
may.
Mr. Stupak. Sure.
Mr. Swecker. When we get this volume of images in any case, we
have to review it, each one of them, and filter out regular
pornography, as opposed to child pornography. What we forward
over, it has to be viewed, and some agent has to get on the
screen, or print it out, and look at the images, and then, it
goes over.
Mr. Stupak. Right.
Mr. Swecker. That is as far as I can go with that response.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. Well, if you have got 250 agents exclusively
doing it, I think someone could get to it in 71 days, I would
think. Seven months, I am sorry, 7 months. I said--can�t read
my own writing--7 months. So, there is no reason for it. And I
can understand why Mr. Berry is frustrated.
In our testimony Tuesday, I think it was, the reporter from the
New York Times indicated that credit cards are really the center
of this, sort of money. Have you done anything to try to crack
down on credit cards, transactions that are used in child
pornography?
Mr. Swecker. Well, we can only address these credit card cases
in the context of a case. I mean, if we go beyond that, we are
not regulators, as we know, but we do find quite, I mean, this is
a chokepoint for these types of cases. It is a good place to get
your leads, and it is good place to center, but I will say that
we get thousands and thousands and thousands of these credit card
companies. The volume is overwhelming.
Mr. Stupak. Well, with credit cards, we see with the Internet
pharmacy illegal sales. We see it with drug masking chemicals
and devices for drug testing, and we see it with child
pornography. Do you have any recommendations on what Congress
should be doing to try to crack down on credit cards being used
in an illegal manner like this?
Mr. Swecker. Sir, I would have to defer to main Justice on any
of those legislative solutions.
Mr. Stupak. Mr. Plitt, if I may, you testified that ICE, your
main areas are border, and then, of course, international, to
help.
Mr. Plitt. Yes, trans-border.
Mr. Stupak. So, like on the Berry case, did you assist there,
since there is a tie in to Mexico?
Mr. Plitt. No, I believe that, if I recall correctly, the ICE
link to the Berry case came through the back door, if you will.
Another ICE arrest occurred, and the individual indicated that
he had purchased, I believe, access to Mr. Berry�s site, so once
that had occurred, we stepped back, because another agency was
handling this case, the Bureau. There was one arrest, led to a
second arrest. The second arrest was linked to Mr. Berry.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. So, all right. Dr. Kardasz, if I can, this
law we have been talking about a little bit, 13032, where
Internet providers, have you tried to access or use that law
much? The Federal law, the one I have been speaking
42 USC � 13032, which Internet providers are supposed to
contact you?
Mr. Kardasz. No.
Mr. Stupak. I am sorry, they contact National Center.
Mr. Kardasz. No, the way that that law has come to me is just
that the images--
Mr. Stupak. Comes--
Mr. Kardasz. --that law have come back to me, and I don�t work
to enforce that law in any way.
Mr. Stupak. So, you are asking that these ISPs retain their
information for 1 year?
Mr. Kardasz. That would be ideal, sir.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. And then, do you have anything like--in
Arizona, is that where you are working, right?
Mr. Kardasz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stupak. Do you have anything like an administrative subpoena
that Mr. Smith spoke of, that allows you to move rapidly?
Mr. Kardasz. We do. It is very helpful.
Mr. Stupak. What do they call it out there?
Mr. Kardasz. Administrative subpoena, I believe. But what it
allows my investigators to do is to write up a subpoena at their
desk. The county attorney has authorized them to phone him, or
contact him by email, tell the county attorney that they have an
ongoing felony investigation, give them a little bit of
background on what is going on, and then the investigator can fax
the subpoena off to the Internet service provider, receive the
information back from the Internet service provider, which saves
the investigator from having to go find a grand jury, or some
other legal authority, to get the subpoena authorized. So, that
is the manner in which it speeds up our work.
Mr. Stupak. Well, I guess in the bill we are marking up, what
we call a markup, I did an amendment to try to get the phone
companies and cables and others to develop new technologies to
try to prevent child pornography. Hopefully, that will help you
in your work. Technology as a free market system can come up
with, hopefully, that will assist you.
And one more, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Plitt, you indicated
that ICE was familiar with the Justin Berry case because of the
arrest that was made. Did CEOS ask ICE about Justin Berry at
all?
Mr. Plitt. I don�t believe they did.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. At this time, we
recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Bass.
Mr. Bass. When Members of Congress from Kentucky look to the
Northeast, they see New England as one State. I actually
represent New Hampshire, but it is the same to you, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you for reminding me.
Mr. Bass. Mr. Waters, I was struck by your testimony, in which
you said there were 4.4 million images worldwide, and 1.9
million images which appear to be domestic, and I am assuming
that is because the source is a domestic address.
Do you have a way of telling how many hits are occurring on
these websites? And this isn�t a question just for you, but
for anybody. Let us assume the data here is that you have two
million images, in the United States. That is your testimony.
I would appreciate comment from anybody here.
Anybody have any idea how many hits there are on these--first
of all, how many websites are there, and how many hits are there
on them? So, what is the size of the community?
Mr. Waters. Representative, the images that I spoke about,
those are 1.9 million transactions, where people were offering
to traffic in those images. Now, the 1.9 million, I can trace
to IP addresses in the United States.
Mr. Bass. So, the 1.9 million are the hits.
Mr. Waters. That is correct.
Mr. Bass. Okay. I am just trying to get--transaction means
that you ask for something on the Internet, or receive something
on the Internet, and so, there were 1.9 million individual
requests or receipts for information involving a picture of some
child on the Internet, or a message, or something, right?
Mr. Waters. That is correct. This deals with, and this
particular investigation, a very small set of movies depicting
very young victims, very horrendous activity, when the
investigator types in, using the software and searches for
those, that is the number of download candidates that have
been identified over that 24-month period. We have turned a
corner somewhat in this area. It is now easier to download,
and faster to download 20 minute, 30 minute movies depicting
these activities from these file sharing networks than from
the websites.
Mr. Bass. Peer-to-peer you are talking about now.
Mr. Waters. That is correct.
Mr. Bass. And you have developed software to do what?
Mr. Waters. The software allows the investigators to regionalize
their efforts, while contributing to the global network. So,
the way it is set up, an investigator types in a search term
consistent with these hardcore movies. He receives a list of
download candidates for those movies, seven or eight thousand
at a time. By submitting that list to servers in Wyoming, ICAC
servers, he is given back a list that says of those, these nine
are in your State, and then, he can focus his investigative
efforts on those nine. But in the background, all of those are
submitted to the central server, so from every other State, the
investigators, be it FBI, ICE, ICAC, can connect to that server
and receive the list of who saw what where.
Mr. Bass. Can you just review, how many sites are there,
domestically, that provide Internet for child pornography,
roughly? Do you know?
Mr. Waters. Well, these move beyond the typical definition
of
a website. These are actually computers in people�s homes,
and there are millions. We have identified in this case,
just using that series, over a million, 1.4 million unique
IP addresses.
Mr. Bass. What do you mean series? You are talking about a
specific movie or something like that?
Mr. Waters. A subset of movies related to these victims.
Mr. Bass. So, it doesn�t even start to address the whole
breadth of all the pictures that may exist. This isn�t the
whole scheme. This is just one program, so to speak.
Mr. Waters. Correct. This is just a subset, where I picked
very young and very typically violent images of young males
and young females. Like I said, these are typically under
8 years old, just in that set. We started out with about
two hundred images and movies.
Mr. Bass. And you got 1.9 million individuals that accessed
that. How many pornographic, child pornography websites are
there domestically? Did you answer that question, or does
anybody know? Nobody has any idea, do they?
Mr. Waters. I don�t think we know, sir. One characteristic
you will see is that oftentimes, these websites will come up
very quickly, go down very quickly. The site managers tend to
do that, simply because it hides the ownership of the site.
So, it is oftentimes difficult to estimate exactly how many there
are.
Mr. Bass. That leads me to another question. Is there
technology being developed on the other side of this to deter
you? Is that a sophisticated, active industry in itself, to
deter your investigation?
Mr. Waters. It is. Of course, they seek to hide their
identities.
Mr. Bass. Nothing new there.
Mr. Waters. Yeah. Right. And the technology that they are
going to employ is technology that is already out there. They
very probably don�t have any research and development activities
to develop their own technology. They are using what is
available. And peer-to-peer is a great example, because
peer-to-peer is now more frequently used. It is easier to use,
and of course, the users are becoming more sophisticated, as
generations go on.
Mr. Bass. How many rescues do you achieve in a given period?
Mr. Plitt. Rescues are--
Mr. Bass. Use your mic, please. Your mic is off.
Mr. Plitt. ICE tries to specialize in the trans-border cases.
The rescues occur at the local level, so I would refer to the
ICACs on those.
Mr. Bass. You two gentlemen from the Postal Inspection Service,
how many of your child pornography cases involve the Internet?
Mr. Smith. Today, about 98 percent.
Mr. Bass. Ninety eight percent? Give me an example--
Mr. Smith. One aspect of the Internet or the other. Let me
give you an example.
Mr. Bass. Okay.
Mr. Smith. This case that I just referenced, where the child
was victimized in Texas. That started on the Internet, because
the bad guy, the police officer in Alabama, contacted the child
in Texas over the Internet, traveled to Texas, sexually abused
her, and then returned to Alabama. They then communicated
through the mail after that. He mailed her a package, which
the mother discovered. That is how this case came to light.
In the package was a vibrator, a digital camera, and a seven
page, handwritten letter giving her specific instructions what
to do. That is a violation of Federal law. It is a 15-year
felony, just the mailing of the camera, if you--any communication
facility to induce, coerce, or entice a minor to engage in that
type of behavior. It is a 15-year hit. That is one example.
In chat rooms, targets hook up with the children, bad guys start
talking to the kids, and then, they want to go to the telephone.
They will mail the kids calling cards. Let us talk dirty on the
telephone. Oftentimes, we will have a commercial site, which
may distribute product through the mail. You have the newsgroups
out there, where the bad guys all hook up with each other, or
in the chat rooms, and then, they end up mailing disks, DVDs,
things of that nature, back and forth, although the initial
contact is on the Internet.
Mr. Bass. So, it is safe to say that the Internet has changed
the nature of your investigations dramatically.
Mr. Smith. Dramatically.
Mr. Bass. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kezer. What you have to understand is the reason that
percentage is so high is because those are the cases that we are
targeting. Although we are working on the Internet, we are
trying to identify cases that have the mail involved. That is
our mission.
Mr. Bass. One last question. Hypothetically, if there was one
thing that Congress could do that is not financial, because we
don�t have jurisdiction over financial services, it is not
judicial, because we can�t deal with subpoenas here, but it had
to do with interstate commerce and telecommunications, to assist
you A, in conducting your, doing your job, or B, suppressing the
problem, what would you suggest we do?
Anybody can comment. And we have got 1 minute and 20 seconds,
so there is no rush.
Mr. Kezer. Sir. I don�t know who would be responsible for it,
but someone had made the comment earlier that law enforcement
can�t do it all. It is absolutely essential that a comprehensive
public education prevention initiative be developed, long term,
nationally, and if at all possible, internationally. It is
absolutely essential to curb this tide.
Mr. Bass. Anybody else?
Mr. Plitt. Yeah, I would like to second that. We see so many
good initiatives, NGOs, that are trying to do the right thing, it
is just that it is difficult for the person at the center of the
problem, the child of the parent, to know where to go. So, a
coordinated effort, which is education, which is outreach, even
victim assistance, would be absolutely fantastic.
Mr. Bass. Well, education is also not within our jurisdiction.
The only suggestion I have heard all morning has been mandating
that ISPs store their addresses longer. Any other suggestions
besides that? Because if this hearing is going to lead to
anything, it is going to have to lead to some sort of, if there
is a legislative initiative necessary, what role would the
Internet and telecommunications play in that solution? Any of
you gentlemen follow that?
Mr. Waters. Well, I think one other area that might be valuable
to us is if we can work more with industry, if there is some way
that we can facilitate the corporations being able to come
forward with solutions for us. There is a lot of--
Mr. Bass. Corporations--what do you mean by that?
Mr. Waters. Like Microsoft, for example. As a good example,
we have been working with them on tools to establish d
e-confliction mechanisms, to allow us to share this information,
and get data faster to other law enforcement agencies. We need
a serious partnership with business, as well, if that helps.
Mr. Bass. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Bass. Mr. Smith, there is just
one question, and we will go on to Ms. DeGette. In this Texas
case, what was the age of the victim in that case?
Mr. Smith. Fourteen years old.
Mr. Whitfield. Fourteen, okay.
Mr. Bass. One more thing, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Waters,
the slide that you showed us, Santa Claus and all that, could
you provide that for the record?
Mr. Waters. I have, sir, yes.
Mr. Bass. Okay, good.
Mr. Whitfield. Ms. DeGette, you are recognized for 10 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to try to get a sense of the scope of this issue. As I
understand it, the U.S. Postal Service has 35 agents working
specifically on this issue. Is that correct?
Mr. Kezer. Thirty-five.
Ms. DeGette. And what about, Mr. Clark, what about ICE? How
many agents are working from your agency?
Mr. Clark. I would have to defer to Mr. Plitt, who runs our
Cyber Center, and basically, coordinates our national program.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Plitt.
Mr. Plitt. Yes, the total would be about 140. That is about 90
agents in the field. On top of that would be another, let us
say 30 or so doing the actual technical forensics, on computers,
who are not necessarily the case agents. And then, between 10
to 12 at Cyber Headquarters.
Ms. DeGette. Okay. And Mr. Swecker, the FBI, I think, has
about 250 agents working on this. Is that right?
Mr. Swecker. That number fluctuates. It is 250 on the street
working the cases. There is another group at headquarters in
the Cyber Division, you might add 20 or 30 agents to that, and
those that are at the Center.
Ms. DeGette. And Dr. Kardasz, ICAC, how many agents from your
agency are working on this issue?
Mr. Kardasz. We have four in the Phoenix Police Department,
but we are networked through memorandums of understanding with
about 44, 45 other local, State, and county agencies throughout
the State of Arizona.
Ms. DeGette. So, you are mainly working with local law
enforcement agencies.
Mr. Kardasz. No--yes, ma�am, but we also work nationwide with
the other 46 regional task forces throughout the United States.
Ms. DeGette. Okay.
Mr. Kardasz. Each of them has groups like mine.
Ms. DeGette. Representatives from all these agencies, do you
all think that you have enough people working on this issue?
Mr. Kardasz. No, ma�am.
Ms. DeGette. Do you, Mr. Swecker?
Mr. Swecker. We can always use more.
Ms. DeGette. Yeah. Mr. Plitt.
Mr. Plitt. If we tripled our staff, we would still have
significant leads.
Ms. DeGette. Yeah. And Mr. Smith, or Mr. Kezer, whoever.
Mr. Kezer. I don�t know if there is a law enforcement agency
that doesn�t believe that they could use more resources.
Ms. DeGette. Well, I mean, the reason I am asking the--I know
my Denver Police Department, they want more agents, too. They
always want me to get Federal money for them, but the thing is,
in this situation with this type of cybercrime that is going on,
it has exploded, it seems to me. No one would disagree, would
you? So, we have got, I heard today, 4.4 million images, 1.4
million users, according to someone�s testimony. These other
countries around the world have maybe 300,000 or something like
that. If someone can tell me, how many pending Federal cases do
we have right now, involving exploitation of kids on the
Internet, sexual exploitation? Does anyone know? Mr. Swecker.
Mr. Swecker. I know we have an inventory of about 2,500, and
then you have heard of thousands of other investigations on the
part of the Task Forces.
Ms. DeGette. How many cases are pending? How many criminal
investigations have been filed?
Mr. Swecker. You would have to aggregate them all up with all
the agencies--
Ms. DeGette. Thousands?
Mr. Swecker. Thousands.
Ms. DeGette. Okay. But we could potentially have many more
thousands, if we had enough investigators, right? It seems to
me that--I know this isn�t in the purview of our committee, and
that has stymied you guys a little bit, but it seems to me,
Mr. Chairman, we should really work with the appropriators and
the agencies, just to try to get them more resources to fight
this, because I started my life out as a criminal defense lawyer
, and for crimes like this, and we saw it happen in this country,
when child porn was going out through the mail. When you started
enforcing it, child porn went down, right? I don�t know who can
answer that. Mr. Swecker.
Mr. Swecker. It did go down.
Ms. DeGette. It did go down. These are the types of crimes, if
you said to these perpetrators, you are going to go to jail for
15 years, it wouldn�t deter all of them. There are still
criminals out there. But if they knew that they would be caught
and prosecuted, it would sure help, wouldn�t it?
Mr. Kezer. Certainly.
Ms. DeGette. Yeah. I have a couple questions for Dr. Kardasz,
and you testified, I thought, very helpfully about some actual
proposed solutions. You said that the ISPs should retain the
information on the subscribers for a year, and that they should
have to respond to subpoenas within a week or faster, if it is
an emergency, correct?
Mr. Kardasz. Yes, ma�am.
Ms. DeGette. Well, my question is what is happening right now?
Can you give me some examples where failure to maintain data
has hurt or killed investigations?
Mr. Kardasz. Yes, and I think Flint Waters talked about--
Ms. DeGette. He did give an example.
Mr. Kardasz. There are other cases like that out there, that
because the particular Internet service provider didn�t retain
the data, the investigation just dead ends.
Ms. DeGette. How often would you say that happens?
Mr. Kardasz. Well, it is hard to put a number on that, and I
don�t want to give you a bad number.
Ms. DeGette. No.
Mr. Kardasz. Periodically.
Ms. DeGette. Okay. And do you have an opinion why these ISPs
fail to maintain this information?
Mr. Kardasz. My sense is that it costs them money to do that.
It is not that they are evil. It is not that they are trying
to protect these folks. But data storage takes a box with
storage capacity in it, and it starts to fill up, and that costs
money. Retrieving that data takes somebody to go in, takes their
time to go in and type in the information that they need, and
return that information to law enforcement. So, it is a tie-up
of their personnel and their resources. It is a cost issue for
them, I think.
Ms. DeGette. How often do we have these ISPs refusing to respond
to subpoenas in a timely fashion?
Mr. Kardasz. I can�t respond to well from Arizona, because it
really hasn�t been an issue there with--
Ms. DeGette. Has it been--
Mr. Kardasz. --the ISPs that we have worked with.
Ms. DeGette. Anyone else have an opinion on that? Yes,
Mr. Waters.
Mr. Waters. Yes, ma�am. In some jurisdictions, it is as high
as 40 percent.
Ms. DeGette. Wow.
Mr. Waters. Where they either don�t respond, or they say they
do not have the records.
Ms. DeGette. And have there been efforts made to make these
folks voluntarily comply?
Mr. Waters. Yes, there have. We have met with ISPs. We have
also had some meetings facilitated by the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children to help, and some ISPs are
becoming very cooperative and helping us.
Ms. DeGette. Can you tell me which ISPs are particularly
uncooperative? Look, these people are enabling the raping of
our children in this country. I don�t have any sympathy for
them.
Mr. Waters. The ISP that would not respond in the case in
Colorado, where we were trying to track down that 2-year-old
child was Comcast.
Ms. DeGette. Comcast. Okay. And what about some other ones
that are uncooperative?
Mr. Waters. In Wyoming, we are actually having excellent
support. I mean, Bresnan, AOL, they are all working very hard
for us. So, that is the only one that comes to mind.
Ms. DeGette. Anyone else have some particular offenders you
want to identify? And if people would like to do this
privately, we need to know, because we talk to these folks.
Yeah, so if you could supplement the record on that, that would
be swell.
Let me ask all of you, just one last question. We have over
2 minutes, so we have more than ample time for even what
Mr. Bass was asking. What can be done to improve cooperation on
these issues between law enforcement agencies? Let us start with
you, Mr. Swecker.
Mr. Swecker. If you are talking about between law enforcement
agencies.
Ms. DeGette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Swecker. I think there is good cooperation as it is. We
have the State task forces, the ICACs. They are very well
networked. We have the National Center, which is sort of a
clearinghouse, and makes many referrals to the State and Federal
task forces. I would go out on a limb, and say this is really a
bright spot in law enforcement, in that I don�t think they are
out there stepping on each other, and then, when they do, I think
there is a recognition we need to come together and work them
jointly.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Plitt.
Mr. Plitt. Yeah, I think all the agencies certainly represented
here work together, and I think that you also see that over the
past several years, they have blossomed in their application of
the resources that focus on this problem. It is almost time,
perhaps, to think about some areas of specialization.
ICE, for instance, tries to specialize in the trans-border area.
The reason we do that is to effectively apply the limited
resources that we have. Just a thought.
Mr. Swecker. May I back up for one second?
Ms. DeGette. Yes, sir.
Mr. Swecker. One of the chokepoints is forensic examinations,
and I would venture to say that each State ought to have at
least a statewide forensic lab, if not regional labs, and
because that is an area where you get a pretty good backlog.
Ms. DeGette. What about prosecutions?
Mr. Swecker. Well, you can�t get a prosecution until you get
that evidence--
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Mr. Swecker. --out of the computer, the ISP. Right.
Ms. DeGette. So, that is part of--yeah. Okay. Dr. Kardasz.
Mr. Kardasz. I am very happy with the interagency cooperation I
have had with all my law enforcement brothers and sisters. I
can�t throw anybody under the bus on that.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Waters.
Mr. Waters. We have had excellent support. It is coordinated
through our United States Attorney�s Office, and we don�t have
any issue with folks not coming to the table.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Clark is nodding in agreement, it looks like.
Mr. Clark. That is right. I am in agreement with Mr. Plitt,
basically, on his answer.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Kezer.
Mr. Kezer. I would have to concur. The investigation of
these cases is a specialized field, and quite honestly, most
of the investigators know each other, or are familiar. They
go to training together. We couldn�t get the work done unless
we were cooperating. So I would concur. It is very good.
Ms. DeGette. And Mr. Smith, do you agree?
Mr. Smith. I do agree, because we all bring, as a unique
agency, each of us are different. We all have different
jurisdiction and different authorities. We all bring something
different to the table, and we all take different investigative
approaches to identify the bad guys.
Ms. DeGette. So, what it really sounds like to me, then, is
the bottlenecks are the forensic labs, the numbers of
investigators we have, and bottlenecks with the ISPs getting
information to you in a timely fashion, so you can investigate
and find these perpetrators.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Ms. DeGette, and at this time, we
recognize Ms. Blackburn for 10 minutes.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for
your patience, for being here with us today, and for caring so
deeply about the issue. It is evident that you all care about
your work deeply.
Mr. Waters and Dr. Kardasz, each of you mentioned the activity,
talked a little bit about it by country, and I think Mr. Waters,
your testimony, you give by country what you have identified,
and of course, we see the transactions for the U.S. as a much
higher number than Germany, Canada, or the UK.
Mr. Waters. That is correct, ma�am.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay. Now, I would like to get inside that
number just a little bit, and then, I think it maybe was
Mr. Clark, with your testimony, you talked about ICE has
successfully arrested more than 7,500 child predators. Of these,
6,600 or 88 percent of the arrestees have been non-U.S. citizens,
and more than 59 percent of those have been deported from the
U.S.
So, my question to you is this. Why the U.S.? Are we a magnet
for this? Is there something that we are doing, or not doing,
that would be pulling people that are not citizens here, and
finding them involved in this activity, the number of websites
is there--you want to get inside those numbers a little bit for
me, either of you?
Mr. Clark. First of all, the numbers are in terms of the
removals. That brings in our immigration capabilities to the
fore. It is not our Internet investigations, per se, but it
is resident aliens who have been here, would otherwise be legal,
but have committed child exploitation crimes, which makes them
an illegal, and it allows us to remove them from the United
States. So, that is part of those statistics there.
In terms of the U.S. versus elsewhere, I would say one is
probably greater Internet capability, more common in the United
States than elsewhere. I would say probably greater recognition
in the United States, law enforcement and the public, and
greater use of the Internet. But again, in my earlier
statement, I do think that the international community is
rapidly growing aware of the issue, and I would refer to the
Australian government, in terms of following the Falcon arrests
in that country, looking to see what they can do, in terms of
their laws and regulations, in terms of child exploitation. So,
I think it is probably just something we have paid more attention
to, have more capability of looking at, unfortunately, bad
people have more access to and can use. But I don�t think this
is a cultural or a U.S. problem at all. I think it is a global
problem.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay. Mr. Waters, anything to add to that?
Mr. Waters. I would add the numbers that I represented are from
an operation where we identified primarily movies, large movies,
and they tend to traffic more over high speed Internet c
onnectivity, and so, a high saturation of broadband Internet
leads to more individuals being able to participate in that
trafficking. But we have clearly identified a large number
globally, and we have trained Interpol in how to use it, and
they are now actively searching as well.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay. Mr. Clark, I wanted to come back to
you. Tell me why 3,900 of the 6,600 non-U.S. citizens who were
arrested were deported instead of prosecuted.
Mr. Clark. I am not certain I would say they weren�t
prosecuted. I would have to--I am not certain the numbers,
3,900. What would often happen is, in some cases, they have been
prosecuted and released. We have gone back out, and taken them
administratively, and removed them, based upon the fact that
their resident status or legal status, under the immigration
authority, is no longer there, so there might have been prior
criminal arrests and sentences served.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay. If you would, then, look back at that
number one more time in your testimony, and then, kind of
clarify that for us, I think that would be great. I would
appreciate that.
Let us see, Mr. Waters, in your testimony, you talked about a
situation where an agent witnessed the rape of a child taking
place. I think that is your testimony, and what I want to ask
you is, when you get information that there is something taking
place, how often do you get that quickly enough to go in and
act, and how often have you been able to remove children from
those situations when you get the information timely?
Mr. Waters. I think a two-part answer there. We typically
react just as fast as possible. We have had several cases
where, because--
Mrs. Blackburn. Well, is that hours, days?
Mr. Waters. Sometimes, it is hours.
Mrs. Blackburn. Hours.
Mr. Waters. I have had cases where I have gotten on a plane
and flown to Houston that day, and--
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay.
Mr. Waters. And worked the case. We have had several where
we respond immediately. Depending on the type of material
that we are receiving, sometimes, the circumstances dictate
that we wait until we get a response from a service provider,
to tell us where this person is at. Sometimes, we have to
wait to get records from there, tying to, to give us a physical
address. So, occasionally, we are restrained by the logistics
of the companies to tell us where these offenders are. But we
typically get on them as fast as possible.
Mrs. Blackburn. Any idea of the actual number of children that
you all have pulled out and removed?
Mr. Waters. I can speak just to the last couple of months.
Maybe the last 6 months, we have had two out of Wyoming, we
are a fairly small State. In our operation, we have had quite
a few around the country. We just had one, one of these
peer-to-peer cases led to an offender in San Diego who was
working in a hospital, and was actively molesting four to five
kids a week, coming into these wards, a respiratory therapist.
And in that case, they were able to take him out of a situation
where, of the 50 kids on the ward, quite a few of these he was
being able to molest.
Mrs. Blackburn. So, if the ISP providers, if they are going
to give you the information, that is going to help you to
respond quickly.
Mr. Waters. Absolutely.
Mrs. Blackburn. What I am hearing is, as Ms. DeGette was
saying, many times that is your bottleneck.
Mr. Waters. That is correct.
Mrs. Blackburn. That is what slows you up.
Mr. Waters. Yes, ma�am.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay. Now, out of the ones that you have been
able to respond quickly to over the past couple of months, what
number were you hampered from responding in a timely--could you
have gotten in there and done your work?
Mr. Waters. Well, it is difficult to say.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay.
Mr. Waters. I would have to draw a conclusion based on
information I didn�t get, so I don�t know how many of the
records that failed to come back would have led us to a child in
danger. But one is far too many.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay. In talking about your work with other
agencies, are all of you satisfied with the interaction that you
are getting from the Department of Justice?
Mr. Waters. If I can speak to that, we are very satisfied with
the support that we are getting. In Wyoming, the United States
Attorneys call our office to see if we have any cases we need
help with. If they don�t hear from us in a week or two, we
get a call, and they want to know how we are doing.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay.
Mr. Kardasz. May I respond to that?
Mrs. Blackburn. Yes, you may.
Mr. Kardasz. The OJJDP grants that we work under are very
helpful, and the coordination that is done at the administrative
level of the OJJDP really helps us locals to put our programs
together, and then work with all the other Federal agencies.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay. All right. And I think, Mr. Chairman, I
will yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mrs. Blackburn, and at this time, I
will recognize Mr. Inslee for 10 minutes.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. Mr. Waters, you mentioned something like
1.9 million images through the peer-to-peer system, and did that,
at least in your first review, did each one of those cases, at
least on a prima facie basis, could constitute a crime in and of
itself, the retention of, receipt of those images?
Mr. Waters. Yes, sir.
Mr. Inslee. So, we had 1.9 million potential crimes. How many
of those have been prosecuted?
Mr. Waters. I don�t know nationally how many. I can speak to
those that have reported back to me. I know they did a sweep of
about 40 in New Jersey, they did 70 in North Carolina. We have
done 40 or 45 in Wyoming. I only know the ones that get back to
me, and let me know how it has gone.
Mr. Inslee. So, that is about 165 out of 1.9 million. The
1.9 million may not be separate individuals. There might be
multiple same people.
Mr. Waters. Yes. That is correct.
Mr. Inslee. So, let us cut it in half, and say 800,000. So,
out of the, say, 800,000, we have had 165 prosecutions, and my
constituents are going to ask the obvious question, so I will
ask it. Why so little with that enormous floodtide? Is it a
resource issue, and if so, could you describe how we could help
you in that regard?
Mr. Waters. Well, it is absolutely a resource issue. We are
hitting them as fast and as hard as we can. One of the biggest
things that we run into, again, are delays or lack of records.
So we have an IP address. We can identify that there is an
offense, but we may not be able to identify an offender. But by
sheer numbers, it is just, we have more than I have the
man-hours to send guys out on.
Mr. Inslee. What could you usefully use, as far as increased
resources, what could you efficiently use to pursue these 1.9
million incidents, do you think? A doubling, a tripling of your
resources? What do you think?
Mr. Waters. Well, I think a tripling, we would still be falling
behind. As it stands right now, I am bringing in about six,
seven new leads in Wyoming a week. We are currently able to hit
one search warrant every week or every 2 weeks, so even if we
triple, we are still falling behind, as we are finding these
leads.
Mr. Inslee. So, I have this sense that if there were oh, bank
robberies where you had 1.9 million bank robberies, but only 165
prosecutions, there would be a very large hue and cry to solve
this problem, and that we would have resources to you to get
that done. Do you kind of share that view? I get this sense
that somehow, this has not received the priority that at least
I think most of us here would believe that it should. Do you
have any sense of that?
Mr. Waters. I share that view, and I thank you for drawing
attention to that, because we have been yelling at every rooftop
we can get on.
Mr. Inslee. So, let me ask some of the Federal personnel here,
start with Mr. Swecker, for instance. I have a sense, I think
you testified there was a 2,050 percent increase in images in
one of these databases in the last 10 years. What increase in
resources would you estimate there has been, if any, in the
last 10 years, to this problem Federally from Federal agencies,
all told, or at least from yours?
Mr. Swecker. Well, we went from zero to 250. We actually
have--that is a little lesser number than we had over the last
couple of years, because we, truthfully, have had to divert
some over to terrorism. But we had to borrow those 250, or
reprogram those 250 from our Criminal Division. So, where all
that goes, to say that there is always room for more resources,
I agree. We could put a thousand FBI agents, and thousands more
officers on it, and we wouldn�t put a dent in that number that
you just gave.
Mr. Inslee. And what does this year�s budget do to help in that
regard? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Swecker. We have no enhancements for this--well, we got 22,
I think we got 12 agents and ten analysts. We got 22 positions.
Mr. Inslee. So, in the current budget, passed by this Congress,
we have 1.9 million potential crimes, and we have got no increase
in resources to deal with that, even though we could, at least
in one agency, triple it, and use it efficiently. That is a fair
statement.
Mr. Swecker. We have zero enhancements for �07.
Mr. Inslee. Okay. I may note, that is not your gentlemen�s
responsibility. It is ours at this table, just so the
responsibility is in the right location here.
Mr. Swecker. I would also go back to the forensic laboratories,
too, because I think those are critical.
Mr. Inslee. Mr. Waters, in the peer-to-peer situation, does
the problem with ISP records exist in that context, or is that
a different situation?
Mr. Waters. It exists very much in that context. In fact, it
is most exaggerated, I think, in the context where we are
reliant on the IP address to find the offender.
Mr. Inslee. Okay. I want to ask you about foreign
prosecutions, where there is a person outside the United States,
when they are sitting at a computer that is involved in this,
what is our situation? The father of a victim who testified
here last week was apparently, asserted was involved while in
Mexico. What options exist for us, what handicaps do we have
in that kind of context? And I will ask that to anyone in the
panel who wants to take that on.
Mr. Plitt. ICE was in that situation very frequently. We do
have some remedies. We have quite a few countries that are,
for lack of a better term, waking up, strengthening their laws,
if they have older ones, they are adding laws, if they don�t
have it. I think that in the next few days, a report will be
released, out of NCMEC, I think, that will indicate that--and
it will surprise the panel here--few countries actually have
child exploitation laws on the books already, very few.
Nevertheless, the governments that we work with, they want to
help us in these cases as much as they can. They are concerned
about children, of course. They are also concerned about their
national reputations, and quite frequently, we will have the
law enforcement agencies from those countries work to get us
the evidence that we need, and in some cases, extradite.
Mr. Inslee. But is your understanding that we--I mean, do we
have jurisdiction in a case where a person is sitting in
Mexico, and is abusing through the Internet inciting, exploiting
a child, do we not have criminal jurisdiction to assert to
extradite that person, assuming that we have the resources to
do it, and the case to do it?
Mr. Plitt. Assuming we have the resources, yes, we would. A
very good example is the child sex tourism cases, where an
individual is traveling out of the country to have sex with a
child. If that individual is a U.S. citizen, that individual,
upon return, or still in the country where the act occurred,
is subject to U.S. prosecution.
Mr. Inslee. Given the assertions by Mr. Berry, it is hard for
us to understand, given that, why there hasn�t been a
prosecution, in Mr. Berry�s case, of this individual who was in
Mexico, allegedly exploiting him, I am having--understand who
is his father, so it is not an identification issue. What
possible reason for there not for, that to be at least started
on the prosecutorial trail?
Mr. Plitt. I don�t know. Again, that case wasn�t brought
before ICE. ICE had a linkage to it, simply because it had
arrested another individual that had dealt with Berry, and then
that was moved to another agency, I believe the FBI.
Mr. Inslee. Mr. Swecker, do you have any insights on that, on
what possible reason there would be for not pursuing that?
Mr. Swecker. Well, let me just resort to talking generically
about the international investigations. It is really hit or
miss on an international level. Eastern Europe is a problem,
mainly from a training aspect, and the aspect of not necessarily
having the laws to address it, and there is a need for some
international training in this area. There is a need for some
strengthening of the laws in these areas, and then, they will
not render their own citizens. As a general rule, they won�t
render their own citizens back to the U.S.
Mr. Inslee. Well, let me just sort of interrupt you a second.
I have only got a little bit of time, but if you have got an
American citizen in Mexico, who is clearly identified as the
father of the victim, who has these assertions, under American
law, using American resources, using American tools, if you
will, why could we not pursue that without necessarily depending
on the investigatory resources of Mexico?
Mr. Swecker. We could, if there were charges filed, there
is--you have to have charges filed. You can put a Red Notice
out through Interpol.
Mr. Inslee. And I yield to Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Well, from what we understand, the
Department of Justice refused to take jurisdiction on the case.
Is that correct, Mr. Swecker?
Mr. Swecker. I have pretty strict instructions not to discuss
that case.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Plitt.
Mr. Plitt. Don�t know. We are not--
Ms. DeGette. Well, but jurisdiction has been declined. Why
can�t you discuss it? It is not a case under investigation or
prosecution.
Mr. Swecker. Well, there is always the potential for
prosecution in that case.
Ms. DeGette. Who would know? When we bring the Attorney
General in, will he know?
Mr. Swecker. I would defer to main Justice.
Mr. Stupak. Well, Mr. Berry is here in this room. Can any of
you give him any reassurance that someone is honestly looking at
his case? It has been 7 months, 1,500 names, websites, credit
cards, everything he provided you guys.
Ms. DeGette. Testimony.
Mr. Stupak. Testimony.
Mr. Swecker. This case is being aggressively investigated.
Mr. Stupak. That doesn�t do anything for Mr. Berry or for any
of us up here.
Mr. Swecker. I would defer to them, as to whether they are
satisfied.
Mr. Inslee. I just want to speak. I am a former prosecutor,
and feel very strongly about the integrity and success of
prosecutorial efforts, and this has been a huge black eye for
the country, and a lot of doubt created, so I think all of us
have an obligation to get with the task at hand. Part of that
includes cooperating with this panel, which I hope you will
spread that message, to the extent you can convince people, to
figure out how to solve these problems. I think that is very
important.
My time is up. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Inslee. At this time, we
recognize the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Barton.
Chairman Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don�t think I am going to take 10 minutes. And if this
ground has been plowed while I was gone, I apologize, but
Mr. Swecker, where are you in the chain of command at the
FBI?
Mr. Swecker. I am the Acting Executive Assistant Director for
Law Enforcement Services, which puts me directly over both
Cyber and Criminal Divisions, directly in the chain of command
on these violations.
Chairman Barton. And who do you report to?
Mr. Swecker. I report to the Deputy Director.
Chairman Barton. Who reports to?
Mr. Swecker. To the Director.
Chairman Barton. Director. So, you are third down from the
Director, and you are in the operational chain of command.
You are not a staff assistant.
Mr. Swecker. I am directly accountable for anything, all
things cyber.
Chairman Barton. Okay. Does the name, and if I am
mispronounce it, I apologize, Raul Roldan mean anything to you?
Mr. Swecker. Raul Roldan is one of our section chiefs.
Chairman Barton. And he reports to you?
Mr. Swecker. He reports to a Deputy Assistant Director, who
reports to an Assistant Director, who reports to me.
Chairman Barton. So, he is three down from you?
Mr. Swecker. Yes.
Chairman Barton. Now, why could he appear on CNN today, but he
couldn�t appear before this subcommittee?
Mr. Swecker. Well, I wasn�t involved in that decision, but my
understanding is that he did not comment on this investigation
whatsoever. He was talking generically about crimes against
children on the Internet.
Chairman Barton. I didn�t ask that question. My question is,
we specifically asked for him. We are not upset that we have
you. You are at least a line officer, which is an upgrade from
the main Justice Department, but the specific person that we
asked for, they flatly refused to have him testify.
I want to know why.
Mr. Swecker. I think there was concern that he would end up
commenting on this case, and there were strict instructions not
to comment on this case.
Chairman Barton. Well, I want you to tell the Director, because
I am going to tell him or ask him, if this gentleman doesn�t
testify voluntarily, he will testify under subpoena.
Mr. Swecker. Yes, sir. I will pass that on.
Chairman Barton. And I mean, that is not a threat, that is a
fact. So--
Mr. Swecker. I understand.
Chairman Barton. I am fed up with being told by my friends, we
have a taped message on the cell phone, or one of our committees,
that the Justice Department wasn�t going to testify, period. We
are going to change that. And I thank you for coming. I do have
some general questions.
For my first question, and I don�t know if I direct it to you,
or our postal people, are the laws for transmission of Internet
child pornography the same as transmission of pornography, child
pornography through the mail? Is it the same law?
Mr. Smith. There is a number of statutes, but it is primarily
the same one, 18 USC � 2252, that is our bread and butter statute
that we charge probably in 90 percent of the cases. That
involves the unlawful receipt or distribution of any child abuse
images, child pornography, that travels interstate, foreign
commerce, over computers or via mail.
Chairman Barton. But it is basically the same.
Mr. Smith. Same statute covers them all.
Chairman Barton. Do we need a special statute specifically for
child pornography on the Internet, as opposed to through the
physical mail? Would that be helpful, or is that unnecessary?
Mr. Smith. No. I think we have adequate legislation there.
Chairman Barton. Okay. Is it illegal for an adult in the United
States to possess child pornography, the possession is illegal
in itself? Okay. Mr. Waters, who is one of our undercover
agents here, in order to prosecute a case, and I am talking
generically, do you have to watch a perpetrator commit an act
over the Internet as an eyewitness, or do you have to just
have knowledge of it, from the child who was abused in the
act?
Mr. Waters. We do not typically have to watch it.
Chairman Barton. You don�t.
Mr. Waters. No, sir.
Chairman Barton. So, what is the burden of proof? What is the
standard of proof to prosecute?
Mr. Waters. Well, depending on the type of act, we still have
the same burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what occurred,
but frequently, we get this information from the victims that
were involved, from the forensic analysis of the computer. Some
of these individuals even turn on their own webcam and film
themselves while they are committing the crime. So, usually, it
is a combination of testimonial and physical evidence that allows
us to overcome that burden.
Chairman Barton. And do you agree or disagree that we don�t
need any strengthening of the laws in this area?
Mr. Waters. I don�t know of any strengthening of the laws,
federally, that--
Chairman Barton. You don�t think it is necessary.
Mr. Waters. I believe we have adequate legislation.
Chairman Barton. Okay. Okay. Well, Mr. Clark testified that
law enforcement can�t do it alone, and I agree with that. We
expect you folks to help us enforce it, but every one of us up
here, I believe, is a parent, and in my case, a parent and a
grandparent, and we have to be involved, too, and the community
has to be involved. And I want to thank you, Mr. Waters, for
your testimony, and some of the displays that you put up.
How did you get picked to be here, since you are from Wyoming,
just out of curiosity?
Mr. Waters. I believe I got picked because I work on the
technical side. I spent a few years as a systems programmer,
and so, when the ICAC Task Force runs into a technical
challenge, I co-chair the Technology Committee, so at the--
Chairman Barton. Are you in Wyoming or here?
Mr. Waters. Cheyenne.
Chairman Barton. So, you had to fly in from Wyoming to be here.
Mr. Waters. Yes, sir.
Chairman Barton. Did anybody in the agency pressure you not to
testify? Did you volunteer to testify? I mean, I am glad you
were here, because you are very credible and very committed, but
it is just odd we can�t get them to come from four blocks away,
and yet, they can fly you in from Wyoming.
Mr. Waters. Well, no one pressured me not to testify. I am
here because of the program and working with OJP, Office of
Justice Programs. They helped fund a lot of the work that we
are doing, and they asked, and I said I would be honored.
Chairman Barton. Okay. And Mr. Swecker, I need to give you a
chance to stand on your soapbox a little bit, since I have. Is
there anything that the Congress is not doing, that we should
be doing, to help the FBI prosecute these criminals?
Mr. Swecker. Well, we think we have the laws that we need. I
think I would resort back to Mr. Stupak�s point, or Congressman
Stupak�s point, about mandatory referrals. We probably need to
get that going. In the banking industry, we know that it has
been tremendously successful in getting suspicious banking
transactions referred to us.
I would also, again, just beat the drum for the forensic
laboratories, because again, that is a chokepoint when it comes
to the forensic analysis. We have the laws, but we need the
training. We need to export the training to the State and local
level as a much faster pace, and get the resources out there to
the State and local officers where they need it.
Chairman Barton. I am not disputing what you just said, but
I am confused a little bit. Child pornography is obvious. What
is forensic about that? What kind of a laboratory do you need
to dissect if you have a picture of a minor child engaged in a
sexual act with an adult, that that is a crime?
Mr. Swecker. It is getting to the picture. It is pulling it out
of the hard drive, or identifying the ISP, identifying the
specific addresses, of which there would be thousands, and
pulling all that information out of the computer. That is what
we are calling a forensic analysis.
Chairman Barton. I see. Okay. Thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. I do want to reiterate, you all did
indicate, though, that it would be helpful if we had the
mandatory data storage for a period of time, and that, as you
said, to clarify, the Internet service provider providing the
tip to the Cyber TipLine, though those are two areas that we
definitely could do something about within our jurisdiction.
Ms. DeGette. Mr. Chairman, also responding to the subpoenas
within--
Mr. Whitfield. And responding to the subpoenas. At this time,
we recognize Mr. Walden for 10 minutes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to follow up
a bit on the Chairman�s comments.
As I understand it, under 42 USC � 13032, ISPs are required to
report all child pornography images to NCMEC, correct? Isn�t
that--whoever is the certified expert here? I want to clarify
that the position of law enforcement here, that you would like
all ISPs to have to both register and report in known child
pornography, to the Cyber Hotline, and it is my understanding
there are only like 215 ISPs that are registered, and there
must be thousands out there. Can any of you, or whoever feels
comfortable, comment about that, and what progress needs to be
made there, and what we could do to help along those lines?
Okay. Somebody must have an answer here. There are only 215
registered, there are thousands out there. What enforcement
capability do you have?
Mr. Smith. The largest ISPs, I believe, are in compliance, from
what I have learned in my conversations with Ernie Allen and
John Rabin over at the National Center, but there are many, many
smaller ISPs that either aren�t aware of the law, or they are
ignoring the law, whatever the case may be.
Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you. Mr. Swecker, you are in
charge of all things cyber, you said. This must fall under your
jurisdiction.
Mr. Swecker. It does. I think there is some confusion on the
part of the industry as to the content of what they are supposed
to refer.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Mr. Swecker. They are looking for a safe harbor, I think, that
immunizes them against lawsuits for making the referral, plus I
don�t think they know whether they are able to send the images
across.
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Mr. Swecker. So, I think there needs to be some more specific--
Mr. Walden. Who comes up--you said, I think, that you don�t
really need any new laws to work in this area, so whose
responsibility is it to clarify this? Do you need clarifying
language from the Congress? Do you issue directives and
rulemakings?
Mr. Swecker. That goes to the Legislative Affairs Offices of
both Justice and the FBI, and I think they could, we could give
you some more details on that.
Mr. Walden. That would be helpful, because it just strikes me,
if we have got the law in place, and you say it is, it is really
functionally useless if it is not being enforced because there
is confusion. And I know you all have your hands full, clearly,
and probably literally, in some of these areas, and so, I guess
the question is what do we do to help, and how do we get it
clarified? If ISPs don�t know they are supposed to register,
there should be a mechanism set up to help on that, and then, to
clarify this issue. Because I know we had testimony from the
gentleman from the New York Times that he had to work with an
attorney, be very careful as he did his investigation, not to run
afoul of the law by going to a site clicking the wrong time runs
you afoul of the law.
And Mr. Swecker, I want to go to you, because you work in this
area. Tell me just generically, if you have a child victim of
pornography, and some predator has abused some child, and it is
going on, what sort of knowledge do you need as a prosecutor?
Mr. Swecker. To elicit the evidence from the victim, or--
Mr. Walden. To elicit the evidence from the victim, to pursue
the case, how urgently do you get involved?
Mr. Swecker. It is very urgent. These have to be handled with
a lot of care. Victim/witness specialists need to get involved
very early on. Child interview specialists need to get involved.
We need to find the website. We need to find the person that is
actually abusing the child, and so that is what we are trying to
elicit from the child.
Mr. Walden. And so, you would bring the child in immediately, I
would assume. You would interview them. You would set up--if
they came in and said not only has this just happened to me, I
know it is going on to somebody else at this moment. Tell me
how the FBI responds.
Mr. Swecker. We need to get as much information as we can out
of the child, as to the identity and the location of the person
that is doing the abuse.
Mr. Walden. And so, once you do that, let us say you get IP
addresses, then do you turn that over to some sector within the
FBI?
Mr. Swecker. Well, the first step is to get the website, you
work on the Internet addresses that are accessing the website.
Our focus really is on the abusers before we go to the customers.
It is on the website administrators. It is on the financiers.
To draw an analogy, would be we don�t necessarily go after the
drug users. We immediately go after the abusers. Those would
be analogous to a distributor.
Mr. Walden. Okay. All right.
Mr. Swecker. The person who is actually producing the
pornographic material. That means a child is being abused. That
is where you want to go first. Find the person who is actually
abusing.
Mr. Walden. And if you know of an abuse, if you are told there
is an abuse going on. We have heard some testimony here and
elsewhere, that literally, some of these perpetrators use the
camera on themselves, in real time, you could watch on the
Internet, abuse going on. Tell me what the FBI does, or the
Department of Justice does, if I walked in today, and said I
just was flipping through the Internet, and came across this.
Here is the address. It is happening as we speak.
Mr. Swecker. Well, in that instance, I mean, I don�t know if
we could move quickly enough to get them while they were in the
act. I mean, that has happened on occasion. You have been
lucky enough, or you have been able to set up a situation where
somebody was actually on the website, and actually either
accessing or producing that type of material.
Mr. Walden. But if a child presented himself or herself to one
of your officers, if I came to you and said I just came from the
credit union, and there is a guy with a gun in there in the face
of the teller, tell me what happens.
Mr. Swecker. Well, we could, as quickly as we could, we would
intervene.
Mr. Walden. If I come to you today, and say on the Internet
right now, at this address, this is going on. Tell me what
happens.
Mr. Swecker. Probably the quickest way to get to it is to pose
undercover, and try to attempt to get access while that person
is on, and that may be one of the quickest ways, when you have
a proactive situation like that, to get very quickly to the
person.
Mr. Walden. You are going to move proactively.
Mr. Swecker. Right.
Mr. Walden. Right away, even if it means sacrificing evidence,
I would assume.
Mr. Swecker. You still have to find the location where they
are doing this from.
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Mr. Swecker. It could be a library. It could be an Internet
cafe.
Mr. Walden. Let us say the child presents herself, and says
here is the IP address. This is the same person that molested
me. Here is the name. Here is the address. It is going on
now.
Mr. Swecker. We would attempt to get a search warrant, and go
out at that real time. And I will defer to these other
investigators, who are actually on the street, to respond as
well.
Mr. Walden. If you knew Bad Santa was operating in the
mall.
Mr. Waters. I am going into his living room. If he is at
home, and it is active.
Mr. Walden. You are going right now, aren�t you?
Mr. Waters. I am going right now. I am calling the ISP,
finding out where it is at, and we are going to be in the
door.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Waters. If we are not close enough, we will get ahold of
the local PD, and they will be in the door.
Mr. Walden. So, does that happen in a matter of weeks, days,
hours, minutes?
Mr. Waters. It varies based on the case.
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Mr. Waters. But if I have credible information right then, I
have had cases where I call the ISP, and they give me an answer
now.
Mr. Walden. Is that right?
Mr. Waters. We get an answer, there is an emergency clause
that allows us to get that, and we go.
Mr. Walden. And you go. Okay. Let me go to the issue of
affidavits. Unlike some of my colleagues, I am neither an
attorney nor have I ever been a prosecutor. And usually, in my
town meetings, when I say I am not an attorney, there is a
little ripple of applause. No offense to attorneys.
Explain to me on affidavits in criminal cases, circumstances
where victims� names are released. Explain for me affidavits,
they get unsealed, victim�s names are put out in the public.
Is that sort of normal operation? The court says keep this
sealed, and then, it becomes unsealed.
Mr. Swecker. Well, affidavits in this type of case are often
sealed, but they can�t stay sealed forever. Eventually,
particularly when you start the judicial process.
Mr. Walden. You have a right to--
Mr. Swecker. They have a right to confront the witness against
them.
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Mr. Swecker. And at some point, the affidavit is unsealed. I
mean, you can get a search warrant on confidential information,
to protect the identity. You don�t necessarily have to name
the person. It depends on how much corroboration you have.
Mr. Walden. If an affidavit is accidentally unsealed, which I
assume occurs from time to time, clerical error, and the victim
tries to get it, and asks for it to be sealed again, what
obligation does the Government have to ensure that that victim�s
identity or whatever, if it is allowed to be resealed, that the
affidavit gets resealed?
Mr. Swecker. I know what you are referring to, and I am trying--
I will try to answer your question without getting into--
Mr. Walden. You are trying to dodge it. I understand that. I
haven�t named names.
Mr. Swecker. --specific facts. But the first step would be to
notify the person, and offer protection. That would be the first
investigative step. The rest of it would be up to a prosecutor
to reseal the affidavit.
Mr. Walden. What should--if it is supposed to be resealed, what
sort of timeline should a victim anticipate for that resealing
to occur?
Mr. Swecker. I would have to defer to the prosecutors on that,
as to what a reasonable time--
Mr. Walden. Who is a prosecutor here who has ever been through
one of these? Have you ever, sir, from the great State of
Wyoming? You are an investigator.
Mr. Waters. Strictly an investigator.
Mr. Walden. Have you ever heard of this sort of circumstance?
Mr. Waters. We work in a different model. We don�t typically
put victims� names in our affidavits.
Mr. Walden. Really?
Mr. Whitfield. This is when we should have Mr. Mercer back. We
released him this morning, but he is the U.S. Attorney for Montana.
Mr. Walden. Yeah, but--well, Wyoming is near Montana. Which is
are we getting closer to Washington? I don�t know. One final
question, if I might, Mr. Chairman.
There has some concern been expressed about extraterritorial
application of the law, because in some cases, some of this child
pornography is actually being put on the Internet in a foreign
country, but it is received in this country because of the global
nature of the Internet. Is that an area where the law needs to be
changed, or can be changed? Is that an area that precludes your
ability to engage in enforcement? Let us say if somebody were in,
oh, Canada, or maybe Mexico, and transmitting this sort of
pornography. Can you go after it?
Mr. Clark. I would say our laws are satisfactory. Oftentimes,
the foreign laws aren�t as satisfactory, but we do have relatively
good cooperation on a number of fronts with foreign governments,
as far as working those types of cases.
Mr. Walden. One final question. Digital currency, this is sort
of new to me. Can you explain? I understand that is sort of the
new underground way to engage in payments without fingerprints,
if you will. Digital currency. Is this an area we need to
explore more?
Mr. Plitt. Yes, it probably is. Digital currency is simply the
situation where an individual put money on the Internet. You
can do that through any brick and mortar location. I will give
you an example in a second, but when the money is put on the
Internet account, then the money can be used on the Internet to
buy access to legitimate sites, to child exploitation sites, to
buy items off of the Internet, regular merchandise. It can also
be taken off the Internet through another brick and mortar
location somewhere else in the world. Currently, it is not
regulated. A simple example I would give is that we had one
investigation where memberships were being purchased with
e-currency, and a lot of the e-currency documents, if you will,
were charged with money in Australia.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Mr. Plitt. To the tune of approximately $30 million a year.
Mr. Walden. So this could get completely around the Bank
Secrecy, or whatever those--what is the law they have to follow
in a bank?
Mr. Plitt. Bank Secrecy Act.
Mr. Walden. Yeah, if $10,000 in cash or more. So you just do
it in a foreign country, put it in, pull it out somewhere else.
Mr. Plitt. Yes, and to date, though, the services, the
companies that provide the service, have been very, very
cooperative with us to track that, yeah.
Mr. Walden. All right. Well, if you have specific suggestions
in this area, I would certainly like to work with you on it.
Mr. Plitt. Very good. If I could, one other response.
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Mr. Plitt. Since I have the mic. You were asking about
victim/witness issues. One to keep in mind is one that is very,
very complex, and that is the child sex tourism cases, where
the individual was traveling to another country to have sex
with a child. The logistics of bringing the child back, if
necessary to testify, parents, guardians, et cetera, is one that
is coming up in these cases. Just another comment.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Walden.
I think Mr. Walden�s line of questioning encapsulates the
concerns of many members of this committee about the
investigation we heard the testimony of on Tuesday, and that is
why we do want to pursue further meetings with Justice, maybe
in executive session, because I heard you speaking, Mr. Swecker,
of victim/witness specialists, and I am assuming that that is a
person who assists the victim, and in the testimony of our
hearing on Tuesday, in our meetings with the victim, I never
heard that any victim/witness specialist was assigned in that
case. And then, we know that evidence was given of child
victims, and they were being abused in a real time manner, and
action was not taken, and so, we have walked away from these
hearings quite puzzled, because it appears that in that
instance, the victim of the crime was being treated more as a
perpetrator of the crime, and so, I think that is really kind
of underlying the sentiment of the committee, and that is
something that we need to get into.
But I want to thank all of you for your testimony. We
appreciate your efforts to continue to bring these perpetrators
to justice, and with that, this panel is dismissed.
Now, at this time, we will call the third panel, which consists
of one person, and that is Mr. Grier Weeks, who is the
Executive Director of PROTECT, from Ashville, North Carolina.
Mr. Weeks, thank you very much for being with us, for your
patience. As you know, this is an Oversight and Investigations
hearing. We take testimony under oath. Do you have any
difficulty with testifying under oath? And I assume you do not
need a lawyer with you. So, if you would stand, and raise your
right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Whitfield. You are sworn in now, and you are recognized
for 5 minutes for your opening statement. Turn your microphone
on.
Mr. Weeks. Is that better?
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah.
STATEMENT OF GRIER WEEKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION TO
PROTECT CHILDREN
Mr. Weeks. Thank you. I am Grier Weeks, Executive Director of
the National Association to Protect Children, also known as
PROTECT. We are a national membership association dedicated to
just one simple issue, which is child abuse, child protection.
We have members now in 50 States and 10 countries.
One of the things we do the most is go around the country to
various State houses, and work on State legislation. And one of
the greatest problems we see is a spectacular national failure
to take these issues seriously at the State level.
I will condense my remarks here, because I know you know at this
point the nature of child pornography, and don�t need that
characterized again. I would say that as you go back out among
your colleagues, and hear this material referred to as kiddy
porn, or trivialized in that way, you will be reminded of what
we are up against.
Two years ago, law enforcement agents in my home State of
North Carolina, arrested a criminal, Brian Schellenberger, who
was convicted of producing child pornography, and distributing
the images over the Internet. Photos showed a 6-year-old girl
was kept in a cage, beaten, sexually tortured, and urinated and
defecated on. The criminal penalty for being an accomplice to
that crime, for possessing those images in North Carolina, is
a felony, is the exact same felony penalty you would get for
operating a bingo game without a license or cockfighting. In
California, the penalty is a misdemeanor, distributing it to
others is a misdemeanor, using a child to distribute it to
others is a misdemeanor. And under California law, even
manufacturing such a despicable product is a minor felony with
no minimum prison sentence. In Colorado, Oregon, North Dakota,
possession of these brutal images of children being raped and
humiliated is a misdemeanor. In Iowa, it is an aggravated
misdemeanor, the equivalent of livestock abuse. If you
compare the risk/gain ratio for trafficking in a product like
this, to the risk/gain ratio for those who traffic in cocaine,
you will instantly understand why our national weakness on
this issue has attracted so many new predators.
Nationwide, an estimated 96 percent of those arrested for
child pornography possession are convicted, but fewer than
60 percent are ever incarcerated. Of those convicted solely
of child pornography possession, fewer than one in three serves
more than a year in jail. This is despite the fact that child
pornography, like narcotics, is illegal contraband in and of
itself, and easily prosecutable. Let me just add that in the
State of Wisconsin, a WITI investigative reporter did a
painstaking investigation of how child pornography possession
cases were handled in his State, searched every single one of
them down, and found that 75 percent of the perpetrators did no
time in prison whatsoever.
PROTECT�s first point is this. Unless and until the States are
made to treat "simple possession" of child pornography as the
egregious felony it is, and unless the funding is made available
to aggressively investigate and prosecute possession of child
pornography, Federal efforts will be hopelessly diluted. Let
me give you some examples.
Instead of Federal resources being a multiplier of State efforts,
as you would hope they would be, the lack of appropriate
legislation and resources is actually discouraging the States
from prosecuting these cases. Until States get serious, U.S.
prosecutors will continue to pick up the slack for local
prosecutors, who have grown dependent upon the Federal government
to prosecute their criminals for them. I think all of the
prosecutors you talk to will attest to that.
Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces, the ICACs you have
heard so much about, will continue to provide training and
technical assistance to frontline law enforcement agents who are
so unsupported by their own States that they often have backlogs
of hard drives waiting to be analyzed, many of them containing
evidence that could save a child immediately.
And the mass, and this is the most important issue here, the
mass of domestic criminal conspirators who create and feed the
insatiable demand that you have heard about will remain at large
as limited Federal resources are triaged and focused on chasing
after the major cases of commercial manufacturers and
distributors.
PROTECT�s second point is that the Federal government also must
get serious. We are losing this war, and I don�t think we have
heard that enough today. We are drowning. I think it is
obvious to everybody that was here that we are not supporting
our troops on the frontlines. Recent estimates of the size of
the exploding global criminal market in child pornography are
in the multibillion-dollar range. You have heard $20 billion
numerous times. Yet, there really is no objective measure
whereby we can say we are serious about this.
The FBI�s Innocent Images National Initiative is funded at a
level of about $10 million a year. That is chump change. By
comparison, HUD recently announced it was awarding more than
that to build 86 new elderly apartment units in Connecticut.
It is a wonderful thing, but this is to put it in perspective.
They spent almost seven times the Innocent Images budget just
on homelessness in Ohio. The Administration has proposed
20 times the entire Innocent Images budget for abstinence-only
education programs. Another example, the Department of
Justice�s Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force program
received about $14.5 million in FY 2006. That is less than
one-fifth the amount proposed for the new initiative to help
prisoners reintegrate into society. Last year�s budget included
$211 million for the Department of Interior to do high priority
brush removal. That is compared to $14.5 million.
The law enforcement officers that came here today, and that come
here every year, to testify on this issue, can�t get up here and
tell you that. You heard one say he wouldn�t, if he had his
budget tripled, he would still be behind. But I honestly don�t
know how we can look him in the eyes, asking them to do probably
the most unthinkable job on the planet, and this is what we put
into it.
The radical increase in child pornography we see today is the
direct result of failing to match our rhetoric about children
with the resources needed to fight this war, and we will hear a
lot of rhetoric this month. It is Child Abuse Prevention Month.
Our third and final point is simply that you heard a lot of
experts with a lot of expertise, and I think that after these
hearings, they would be very eager to give you very specific
policy proposals, hopefully more than you have heard today. But
the expertise, really, that is needed here, is your expertise,
and I mean that in a meaningful way. It is your expertise that
is needed. How do we make this an urgent, serious issue, because
nobody else you have heard from knows how to do that.
Finally, I would like to just address a few loose ends that I
heard mentioned, and I knew you were looking for policy
proposals, and I would like to address a few of them. On the
issue of Federal penalties, the Federal penalty for possession
of child pornography is a minimum of a fine. So, I do think
there is a problem there. The issue is not what is the maximum.
The issue is what is the minimum.
On forfeiture, I would strongly encourage you to look into that
much more seriously. There is much more that could be done, and
it is an extremely--has a lot of potential, because any time you
can give law enforcement that much more motivation to get out
there and do their jobs, and also, to benefit the efforts of law
enforcement, it is very important.
On telecommunications type of issues, we hear from the industry
that although there is the issue of reporting child pornography,
there is a separate issue, and that is the filtering,
essentially, that they would do to detect it in the first place.
And we got a comment the other day from one of the major
industry leaders, saying that they essentially could turn up
that filter, tighten it up, enhance it, and completely blow law
enforcement out of the water. And I think there was a
realization, all the way around, that you want referrals, we will
give you referrals kind of thing.
This is a huge problem. We need them to find more, but we also
need to be ready to get it. There is also an issue, I would
strongly urge you to talk to industry. What they can do that
legislation may not be able to do, and certainly not law
enforcement, is tell us what is next. This is truly
staggering. The latest that I have heard is wireless Bluetooth
technology being used to transfer child pornography where
perpetrators gather in a park, and just while they are standing
there, watching the pigeons, they are transferring child
pornography to each other. My guess is at my age and my limited
technological expertise, that is not even the beginning of it, and
unless we are hearing from them about what is coming next, 10
years down the line, we are really losing.
I would also mention to you another thing you may want to follow
up on, that we are hearing from industry, and that is that many
of these perpetrators are actually cataloging children. These
images have a monetary value, but that value goes up
tremendously when there is a name and address attached to it, and
the latest thing that we are hearing is that people are actually
putting those names, addresses, elementary schools, and
identifying information with these photos, and selling them, and
cataloging them.
Finally, just to respond to one other thing. Well, let me talk
about two other things. One is that one of the witnesses on this
last panel mentioned that, if you find the abuser, that is where
you want to go first. I would say to you that is where you want
to go first, if you have extremely limited resources. And this
is the problem. We cannot just focus on manufacturing. It
would be like legalizing heroin, and saying we are going to go
get them in Afghanistan where they are growing the poppies. If
we do not get serious about the--
Ms. DeGette. Can I interrupt you for a minute?
Mr. Weeks. Yes, ma�am.
Ms. DeGette. Because I see Justin leaving, and I have been meaning
to thank him, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to interrupt the witness,
but I just want to thank you and your family, and everybody for
coming to these hearings, and for bringing this to us. You do not
know how much you have helped stop this practice, by coming to us.
So, I just want to say thank you, and I hope you can come back to
some of the other hearings that we will have. And I hope you can
be there when we pass the legislation that will help put a stop
to this.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Ms. DeGette, and we met with Justin
earlier, and we all expressed our appreciation to him, and wish
him the very best, and we will stay in touch with him. Sorry,
Mr. Weeks.
Mr. Weeks. No, I am glad you stopped.
My final point is simply on international treaties. There was a
press conference held this morning that talked about the fact
that there were only five nations in the world that had serious
laws. I have a little bit a problem with characterizing our
laws as all that serious, but the point is a serious one, and
that is that we need to recognize this as a human rights issue,
and whenever human rights are discussed, the exploitation of
children should be discussed, and I think you can advance the
effort there.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Grier Weeks follows:]
Prepared Statement of Grier Weeks, Executive Director, National
Association to Protect Children
Chairman Whitfield, Congressman Stupak and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, I am Grier Weeks, the Executive Director of the National
Association to Protect Children, generally known as PROTECT. PROTECT is
a grassroots membership organization focused exclusively on child
protection issues. We have members in all 50 states, and we pride
ourselves on being one of the most nonpartisan organizations in America.
As PROTECT works in state legislatures, one of the greatest problems we
see is our national failure to aggressively respond to child pornography
and the use of the internet for both dissemination of such material and
direct exploitation of individual children.
People have argued for decades about what child pornography is,
yet there has been virtually no attention paid to what it is not.
It is our position that understanding what child pornography is
not is the key to understanding--and actually doing something
about--what it is.
A 2005 study funded by Congress studied child pornography possession
cases nationwide. In looking at the nature of the images being trafficked
on the internet, the study revealed the following:
83 percent of possessors had images of children between ages 6 and 12
80 percent had images of sexual penetration of children--that is to say,
child rape
21 percent had images showing "children who were gagged, bound,
blindfolded or otherwise enduring sadistic sex.
Only 1 percent were in possession solely of images that depicted simple
nudity or what researchers termed "softcore" "pornography"
So we begin with the understanding that child pornography is not a
"free speech" issue, nor does it have anything to do with definitional
arguments over whether a given image is "obscene." It is a human rights
issue of catastrophic proportions.
Two years ago, law enforcement agents in Canada and the U.S. arrested a
criminal in my home state of North Carolina. Brian Schellenberger was
convicted of producing child pornography and distributing the images
over the internet. Photos showed that a six-year old girl was kept in
a cage, beaten, sexually tortured and urinated and defecated on.
The criminal penalty for being an accomplice to that crime, for
possessing those images in North Carolina, is a felonythe exact same
felony penalty you would get for operating a Bingo game without a
license or Cockfighting.
In California, the penalty is a misdemeanor. Distributing it to others
is a misdemeanor. Using a child to distribute it is a misdemeanor. Under
California law, even manufacturing such a despicable "product" is a
minor felony, with no minimum prison sentence.
In Colorado', Oregon and North Dakota, possession of brutal images of
children being raped, sodomized and humiliated is a misdemeanor. In
Iowa, it�s an "aggravated misdemeanor," the equivalent of Livestock
Abuse.
If you compare the risk-gain ratio for those who traffic in such a
"product" to the risk-gain ratio for those who traffic in cocaine, you
will instantly understand why our national weakness on this issue has
attracted so many new predators.
Nationwide, an estimated 96 percent of those arrested for child
pornography possession are convicted. But fewer than 60 percent are ever
incarcerated. Of those convicted solely of child pornography possession,
fewer than one in three serves more than a year in jail. This is despite
the fact that child pornography--like narcotics--is illegal contraband
in and of itself, and is easily prosecutable.
PROTECT�s first point is this: Unless and until the States are made to
treat "simple possession" of child pornography as the egregious felony
it truly is--and unless the funding is made available to aggressively
investigate and prosecute possession of child pornography--federal
efforts will be hopelessly diluted.
Instead of federal resources acting as a multiplier of state law
enforcement efforts, the lack of appropriate legislation and funding
is actually discouraging the individual states from protecting our
children.
Until the states get serious, U.S. prosecutors will continue to pick
up the slack for local prosecutors, who have grown dependent upon the
federal government to prosecute their criminals for them. Internet
Crimes Against Children task forces will continue to provide training
and technical assistance to front-line law enforcement agents who are
so unsupported by their own states that they often have long backlogs
of hard drives waiting to be analyzed, many of them containing evidence
that could save a child immediately. And the mass of domestic criminal
conspirators who create and feed the insatiable demand for more and
more children to be raped on camera will remain at large, as limited
federal resources are triaged and focused on chasing after the "major
cases" of commercial manufacturers and distributors.
PROTECT�s second point is that the federal government also must get
serious. We are losing this war, and we are not supporting our troops
on the front lines.
Recent estimates of the size of the exploding global criminal market
in child pornography are in the multi-billion dollar range. Yet, by no
objective measure can we claim to be serious or prepared as a nation
about stopping what is being done to these children.
The FBI�s Innocent Images National Initiative is funded at a level of
about $10 million annually. By comparison, the Department of Housing
and Urban Development just announced it was awarding more money than
the entire Innocent Images budget to build 86 elderly apartment units
in Connecticut and almost 7 times their budget just on the homeless in
Ohio. The administration has proposed 20 times the entire Innocent
Images budget for abstinence-only education programs through the
Department of Health and Human Services.
The Department of Justice�s Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC)
Task Force program received about $14.5 in FY 2006. That is less than
one-fifth the amount proposed for a new initiative to help former
prisoners reintegrate into society. Last year�s budget included $211
million for the Department of the Interior for "high-priority brush
removal" and related projects. $14.5 million doesn�t clear much brush.
The law enforcement officers on the front lines of this war won�t
come here and tell you what they honestly think of these priorities.
They will be grateful if you simply keep their budgets growing. And
while we realize that your committee is not the one responsible for
these spending priorities, I don�t know how any of us, as taxpayers,
can look these men and women in the eyes.
The radical increase in child pornography we see today is the direct
result of failing to match our rhetoric about children with the
resources needed to fight this war.
Our third and final point is that while you have an incredible array
of experts at your disposal--all of whom, including PROTECT, are eager
to provide specific legislative and policy solutions--the expertise we
need most now is the expertise you possess: political leadership.
On behalf of our members and the millions of Americans who believe that
nothing should be a higher priority than protecting children from
predators, I ask you for that leadership and I thank you for the
opportunity to testify in this important hearing.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Weeks, thank you very much, and tell me,
did you form PROTECT yourself, or--
Mr. Weeks. No, actually, several people did. There were a
number of very prominent experts around the country, including
Jay Howell, who started the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, who said for the longest time, the only
group in this country that didn�t seem to have a lobby is
abused kids, and that is why we exist.
Mr. Whitfield. And how old is it?
Mr. Weeks. We are about 3 years old. We have changed the
laws in about seven or eight States now, and worked with both
Democrats and Republicans.
Mr. Whitfield. And you are funded by just private donations?
Mr. Weeks. Through our members.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah.
Mr. Weeks. Right.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you for the great work that you are
doing. Talking about the penalties for these crimes, and you
mentioned in your testimony how there is this great disparity
going from State to State, and you mentioned in Iowa, it is a
misdemeanor similar to an animal abuse case. Of course, any of
these crimes can be prosecuted under Federal law, I am assuming,
and I guess it just gets down to a matter of whether or not
interstate commerce is involved, and whatever. But I find it
laudable that you are trying to increase the penalties at the
State level, because we know that the largest percentages of the
cases are prosecuted at the State level.
And I was curious, when you lobby for tougher sentences in the
State legislatures, what are some of the reasons that you are
given for opposing what you are trying to do?
Mr. Weeks. It is pretty awful. I mean, there is a widespread
tolerance for this, especially for possession, so-called simple
possession. You don�t hear that same excuse used for possession
of heroin. I think we have heard it all, but we are now days
away from getting a major bill introduced in California, which
in California, as I failed to mention, there is also a statute
for luring a child over the Internet, and for the longest time,
there was a vigorous debate going on in committees about whether
that should be an infraction or a misdemeanor.
Mr. Whitfield. Really. And South Carolina, I understand, just
recently passed some legislation that would make a person that
was twice convicted of child molestation eligible for the death
penalty. Is that correct?
Mr. Weeks. Yes. Let me just say this about that. And we don�t
have a position on whether someone should be put to death, or go
for life, but we have a lot of these laws, often named after
dead children, that doesn�t do much.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah.
Mr. Weeks. South Carolina is my family�s home, and I feel
entitled to say this, it is a little hard to take, given the
fact that South Carolina has a law on the books called assault
and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and the vast
majority of child sexual abuse seems to be plea bargained down
to that.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah.
Mr. Weeks. So, you know, it is great to have tough laws on the
books, but if you are only using them for that tiny fraction of
stranger abusers that gets all the media attention, it doesn�t do
a whole lot for kids.
Mr. Whitfield. But I guess the bottom line of this is while you
are trying to increase the penalties for possession of
pornographic material involving children, most of these child
molestation cases regarding children today appear to be more
and more aggravated. There appears to be rape involved. There
appears to be even torture involved. There appears to be, in
some cases, I guess they are holding children against their
will. Unfortunately, in some cases, you have parents involved
in this.
Mr. Weeks. In the majority of cases.
Mr. Whitfield. Which is almost unbelievable, but those crimes,
if they are being prosecuted on those crimes, I mean, those are
quite severe. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Weeks. No. Essentially our studies show that about
4 percent of cases nationwide, of all criminal cases, ever go to
a jury. So, start off with the vast, vast majority of them being
plea bargained.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay.
Mr. Weeks. Even a smaller percentage of child sexual abuse cases
ever go before a trial. So, we are talking about how are cases
plea bargained? They are plea bargained, and there is also
charge bargaining that goes in. What is happening now, with a
lot of these laws, like Jessica�s Law, is that you have these
draconian sentences that sound great, but very few people will
ever be charged with them, and in fact, these cases are
trivialized to a great extent.
Let me mention one thing related to that, though, and Chairman
Barton brought this up. For decades, what we have heard is that
we would love to prosecute these crimes against children, but
they are tough. We have problems with young witnesses. We have
problems with evidence. And it is very tough, and we have to
plea bargain. This is the exception. We now have a type of
crime where you have hard, cold evidence. And if we don�t put
people away for that, shame on us.
Mr. Whitfield. Absolutely. In your testimony, you talked about
the case in North Carolina, I believe, and where, the gentleman
was keeping a young girl in a cage. Was that his daughter, or--
Mr. Weeks. That was a complicated story. I hesitate to say,
because I may be mixing it up with the second one. I am not
sure.
Mr. Whitfield. Do you know what penalty he received for--
Mr. Weeks. He did get, I think, 100 years under the Federal
law.
Mr. Whitfield. So, he was prosecuted by Federal officials.
Mr. Weeks. Right. And again, I want to emphasize, there may be
some resistance among ideological conservatives to telling the
States what to do, and being heavy-handed about it.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Weeks. But the flipside of this is, they are using the
Commerce Clause to essentially slough this off on the Feds. I
mean, we have heard top criminal justice policy people in State
legislatures essentially talk about these crimes as if they are
a Federal problem, even to the extent where one of the most
influential policymakers in a Sate capital told me, look, if you
want us to be prosecuting these, then give us more money for
Federal prisoners that we are taking care of. So, there is a
real disconnect there, and this is, I would think that the
staunchest conservative would be a heavy-handed Federalist on
this.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, I mean, I certainly don�t have any problem
for ramping up and prosecuting more people at the Federal level
on this, and I am sure the rest of us do not. So, thank you
for mentioning that.
One other comment I would just like to make. You had mentioned
that industry told you that they could increase their filters
and blow the law enforcement out of the water. Now, would you
elaborate on that a little bit?
Mr. Weeks. Well, yeah, I would love to, and let me say, I think
it is fair to say that law enforcement is already blown out of
the water.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, okay.
Mr. Weeks. By any definition.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Weeks. But essentially, what they were saying is look, we
are reporting everything that we are detecting.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah.
Mr. Weeks. But they could detect a lot more.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah.
Mr. Weeks. And they are the ones that are going to be the most
sophisticated at detecting it.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Weeks. But there is a realization that if they greatly
increase their detection abilities overnight, that we won�t be
able to keep up with them, and that is the problem.
Mr. Whitfield. So, there are so many violations going on that
it would just swamp everybody.
Mr. Weeks. Right. Well, there were several questions today
about the gentleman from Wyoming, who said there were over a
million IP addresses, and I am not sure everybody got the real
story there. The real issue, in my mind, is the number of IP
addresses, not the number of images.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Weeks. We are talking about a million computers.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah, unbelievable. Yeah. Well, and you devote
full time to this project?
Mr. Weeks. Not just to child pornography, but to the work on
child abuse legislation, yes.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah. Well, this is such an overwhelming
problem, and it is so complex, that is difficult not to become
discouraged about it, right?
Mr. Weeks. Yeah, I think everybody, the ones that are looking
at this every day are the ones that I worry about, but I think
there is a common thread, which is if it doesn�t kill you, it
just makes you feel like, you know, you are doing the Lord�s
work, getting up every morning.
Mr. Whitfield. Yeah. Well, thank you very much for being with
us, and at this time, I will recognize Ms. DeGette for
questions.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Weeks.
As I understand it, right now, the folks who testified earlier,
the Federal prosecutions really take place involving cases
where there is some use, there is either international
trafficking, or there is some use of the U.S. mail. Is that
correct?
Mr. Weeks. I think that is fair to say, yeah.
Ms. DeGette. Because of the way the Federal statutes are, to
prosecute--
Mr. Weeks. They are looking at getting the best bang for their
buck, and they are looking at interrupting commercial networks
and things like that.
Ms. DeGette. Right. Well, there is no Federal statute that
makes it a crime to possess these materials unless there is some
involvement of the Commerce Clause, correct?
Mr. Weeks. Right.
Ms. DeGette. So, it would have to be interstate.
Mr. Weeks. And if the Internet is involved, of course, that is
a given.
Ms. DeGette. Well, I mean, yes and no. It would be, as someone
who has been in, who has done criminal work before, I mean, if
you have got a situation where you have got a case where someone
was doing these horrible crimes within a State, and transferring
it within a State, while technically, you have got the Commerce
Clause involved, because it is the Internet, from a law
enforcement standpoint, it is really going to be hard to
prosecute that by Federal authorities, right?
Mr. Weeks. Right. Right.
Ms. DeGette. That is why we need tough State laws and Federal
laws, right?
Mr. Weeks. That is one reason.
Ms. DeGette. Yeah.
Mr. Weeks. Another, though, is simply that unless the Federal
government wants to increase its force by, you know, by fifty,
it is going to have to work with the States, and create
incentives for the States to do their share. And a related
issue, too, is that a study done, it was commissioned by
Congress, came out last year on people that possess child
pornography found that 40 percent of them were conclusively known
to have also sexually abused children directly, and another
15 percent were known to have tried to lure. So, you have
55 percent, representing a much larger percent, no doubt, that
had actually molested children. If we don�t have on the ground,
local expertise and resources to fight this, what is going to
happen is, every time that little 5-year-old-girl goes to
school, and discloses that she is being molested at home, that
guy may have child pornography. It is a very high likelihood
that he has child pornography on his computer. Now, are we
going to put together a case that involves dragging that girl
through the wringer in court, and many prosecutors will just
dismiss it out of hand, because she is too young, or are we going
to actually go and get that hard drive, and that is the issue.
We are losing the ability to protect children in our local
communities every day.
Ms. DeGette. Right. Well, and I am not trying to disagree with
you in any way. I think we agree. What we need is tougher
enforcement of Federal laws and State laws and resources at all
levels, and coordination. And frankly, from listening to the
second panel, I was a little encouraged in this hearing, that at
least the levels of authorities seem to be coordinating. I
mean, the problem is not, and the Chairman will tell you, we see
a lot of situations where the agencies can�t even coordinate
with each other. So, the good news is, at least they have the
mechanisms to coordinate. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Weeks. I have to take their word for that.
Ms. DeGette. Yeah. And so, really, what we need is strong laws
and resources, to help them carry out their charge, correct?
You need to answer in words.
Mr. Weeks. Yes, yes. Excuse me.
Ms. DeGette. Thanks. Now, so, with that in mind, are there
Federal statutes that you think we can strengthen, as well as
the State laws?
Mr. Weeks. I think that the penalties for possession need to
be increased. Since Federal, since the guidelines were deemed
advisory only, that is a loophole now. I think that most of the
cases you hear about are not getting probation, because they are
just essentially cherry picking at this point, but that is a
loophole that is a serious issue. I think that forfeiture is
another major issue that should be looked at. International
treaties. I wish I was more of a telecommunications expert for
you.
Ms. DeGette. Yeah. Okay. Well, but you think we have the
adequate laws on the books to prosecute, to federally prosecute
cases, even when mail is not involved or international
situations. Do you think we can prosecute these cases, simply
because they are done on the Internet?
Mr. Weeks. I think we can prosecute them all day long and all
night, yeah.
Ms. DeGette. All right. I was appalled to hear that Colorado
is one of the States that just classifies this as a
misdemeanor, and I would imagine that States like Colorado and
other States that classify it like this have not really looked
at their laws vis-a-vis the increase, as the Chairman said the
increasing violence and depravity of these Internet
communications and the horrible abuse for the children. Would
that be your sense as well, working in these things?
Mr. Weeks. I am conflicted about that, and I will tell you why.
I have a real hard time believing there are as many people left
in this country, especially in positions of leadership, who are
that clueless about the nature of child pornography. I just
don�t believe it. I think, it would be interesting to find out
in your State, and other States like that, what has transpired
in recent sessions, whether or not they have tried to increase
the penalty. Often, what it is, is unfortunately, is
prosecutors who just want so much discretion that they resist
mandatory minimums and increased penalties. But there is also--
Ms. DeGette. Well, part of what happened, and I will tell you,
I was in the State legislature in Colorado in the early to mid
�90s. During those years, we basically tripled, sometimes
quadrupled the sentences for the existing felonies in the State.
And so, for example, where you had a crime where it might be an
8 year maximum penalty, it suddenly went up to 36 years, and
then, you had the mandatory minimum sentences put in, and in
many cases, those increases were warranted. Some of the maximum
penalties for different felonies were too low. In other cases,
there was no judgment. It was just a rush to increase the
penalties.
Well, then, what happened, of course, in the late 1990s, in the
past few years, the prisons and the criminal justice systems
have become completely overloaded in States like my State and
other States. So, I think the legislatures have now been loath
to increase the penalties of other crimes because they don�t
have any place to put the perpetrators, which is a tragedy,
because what is happening is the perpetrators for these horrible
crimes that are affecting younger and younger children are going
away with a slap on the wrist, while other people, who have
committed crimes that are not crimes against people, economic
crimes and other kinds of crimes, are sitting in prison for
38 years, and that just seems insane to me.
Mr. Weeks. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. And you agree.
Mr. Weeks. I agree.
Ms. DeGette. And so, I imagine that is part of the explanation
of what has happened here. But I will tell you this. I intend
to call up my Senate President and House Majority Leader, who
are personal friends of mine, and see if they can�t get a late
bill introduced next week to fix this in Colorado.
Mr. Weeks. Please, and when you do, please make sure it is
tougher than felony cockfighting, as it is in my State, because
making it a felony in and of itself is not enough. But thank
you.
Ms. DeGette. Well, making it a felony, I mean, in a State like
Colorado, and you have to look at the different States, in a
State like Colorado, making it a felony helps, because of the
penalty structure.
Mr. Weeks. Absolutely.
Ms. DeGette. And just one last question. I don�t know if you
heard me ask the last panel, but for a crime like child
pornography, maybe not for the hardcore perpetrators who, as you
say, are rapists and child abusers, but for people who possess
it, it would seem to me that tougher penalties at the State level
and at the Federal level would begin to deter these crimes,
because simple possession of it, if someone knew they were going
to prison for a long time, that might make them think twice.
For the people who are perpetrating these horrible crimes, they
are a different story, and they need to be locked up for even
longer, but wouldn�t you agree, just if someone knew that there
was a certainty that they could be arrested and prosecuted and
go to jail, that would really reduce the amount of possession.
Mr. Weeks. I absolutely agree. I think to a large extent, it
is the certainty of being caught and prosecuted that is the most
important thing, and that is not there.
Ms. DeGette. Right. Well, thank you very much, and thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Weeks. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Ms. DeGette, and that concludes
today�s hearing, but before we adjourn, without objection, I
want to ask that the slides shown during the hearing by Mr. Flint
Waters be entered into the record. The slides from the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Regpay article from
the Wall Street Journal, and then Chapter 26 from Dr. Cooper�s
book, and then, the record will be open for 30 days for any
additional information that may come in.
[The information follows:]
EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8
EMBED PowerPoint.Slide.8
Mr. Whitfield. But Mr. Weeks, thank you for the great job you
are doing.
Mr. Weeks. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. We really appreciate your willingness to come
and help us out, and I look forward to working with you in the
future.
Mr. Weeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. And that adjourns today�s hearing.
[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Response for the Record of William E. Kezer, Deputy Chief Inspector,
United States Postal Inspection Service
May 19, 2006
The Honorable Edward Whitfield
Chairman
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce
Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0001
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On April 6, 2006, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service was honored to
testify before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee concerning
its efforts to combat the increasingly, menacing crime of sexual
exploitation against children. Despite the overwhelming use of the
Internet to perpetuate crimes involving child exploitation, many
offenders also utilize the U.S. Mail, in concert with the Internet, to
traffic in child pornography or otherwise sexually exploit children.
Numerous examples of recent cases investigated by Postal Inspectors
with a common nexus to the Internet and the U.S. Mail were provided in
our oral and written testimony.
When the U.S. Mail is used in connection with crimes involving the
sexual exploitation of children, Postal Inspectors work diligently to
identify and track down those responsible for the commission of these
heinous crimes. We work closely with the various United States
Attorneys and other agencies, such as the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children in order to bring the alleged offenders before
the federal judicial system. The Postal Service has and continues to
be committed to fighting the war on crime against those individuals
who prey on our nation�s children. Presently, we have a number of
Postal Inspectors assigned full-time to these types of investigations.
Testimony elicited by the Subcommittee revealed several areas in which
Congress may aid law enforcement in these types of investigations.
These include possible assistance within the jurisdiction of both the
House Energy and Commerce and House Judiciary Committees. Assistance
suggested by several of the law enforcement witnesses at the April
6th hearing included requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to
maintain subscriber data for a set time period (i.e., a minimum of
90 days) and to respond promptly to subpoenas seeking subscriber
information; providing for additional investigator resources assigned
to child exploitation investigations; providing for the means to
reduce backlogs in the forensic examination of digital evidence; and,
specific to the Postal Inspection Service, providing administrative
subpoena authority in the area of child exploitation offenses.
As a result of the hearing, the Postal Inspection Service, along with
other agencies, were asked to provide further comment on the benefits
of administrative subpoenas as a necessary law enforcement tool. The
Postal Inspection Service was invited to formally request this type
of investigative authority.
It is our belief the ability to issue administrative subpoenas will
greatly assist our efforts against child exploitation. The testimony
of several witnesses at the April 6th hearing supported the fact
administrative subpoenas help accelerate the process of identifying
offenders who oftentimes hide behind screen names as well as websites
operated by child abusers and pornographers. As you are aware, in
1998 Congress passed The Child Protection and Sexual Predator
Punishment Act of 1998. Title III, Section 301 of the Act authorized
the Attorney General to issue administrative subpoenas in child
exploitation cases. This authority is presently codified at
18 U.S.C. �. 3486. (Exhibit A) This authority has been delegated to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation at the supervisory field level.
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service would benefit from having this
investigative tool to aid in its law enforcement efforts against
child exploitation. As the Internet has changed the manner in which
child pornographers operate, so too, must the law enforcement tools
used to investigative and arrest the perpetrators of these crimes adapt
to the changing environment.
It appears an amendment would be needed to 18 U.S.C. � 3486 in order
to include authority for the Postmaster General to issue administrative
subpoenas in criminal investigations involving child exploitation.
(Exhibit B) If such an amendment is enacted, the Postal Service would
then publish regulations authorizing Postal Inspectors in Charge at the
field level similar to the process used by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. This amendment would greatly assist federal agencies in
the pursuit of those individuals who are sexually abusing and exploiting
our children.
The interest and assistance of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations are welcomed and appreciated. If you require any
additional information, please contact Deputy Chief Inspector William
Kezer at 202-268-8709.
Sincerely,
L. R. Heath
Chief Postal Inspector
Enclosures
Response for the Record of Flint Waters, Lead Special Agent , Wyoming
Division of Criminal Investigation, Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Force Technology Center, United States Department of Justice
May 30, 2006
The Honorable Edward Whitfield
Chairman
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce
Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-0001
Dear Mr. Chairman:
1. You state in your testimony that a special agent from the Department
of Homeland Security worked with your task force. Is this an employee
of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or some other division?
Special Agent Balliett is an employee with Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement. She is assigned to our task force full time and routinely
handles cases throughout the region related to the trafficking of child
sexual abuse images and Internet child victimization. I can�t emphasize
enough how the Federal support of our mission makes it possible to
protect Wyoming children. This cross-jurisdictional problem has
overwhelmed state and local law enforcement. Without the Federal
resources we have received, like a special agent from ICE and the ongoing
guidance and funding provided from the Office of Justice Programs, we
would have failed.
2. Under Wyoming law, if law enforcement has a current IP, e-mail and
home address for an Internet user suspected of possessing child
pornography, is that sufficient to obtain a search warrant and seize
that computer?
If the suspicion of criminal conduct rises to a level of probable cause
we can obtain a search warrant to seize the computer.
I will make myself available for any further questions that may arise
from this matter.
Respectfully,
Flint Waters,
Lead Agent, Wyoming ICAC
Response for the Record of Chris Swecker, Acting Assistant Executive
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department
of Justice
Response for the Record of Dr. Frank Kardasz, Sergeant, Phoenix Police
Department, Project Director, Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children
Task Force, United States Department of Justice
Please describe the difficulty of tracking illegal Internet activity
that occurs through wireless access points. Are there tools to
determine where the activity originates?
The difficulty in tracking illegal Internet activity originating from
wireless access points might best be described by way of a true-life
example.
In August, 2005, I received a call from an officer of the Milwaukee,
Wisconsin Police Department. He was investigating the case of a missing
boy who had disappeared with someone the boy had met via the Internet.
Milwaukee computer forensics examiners had looked into the contents of
the boys computer. They found the screen name of the suspect with whom
the boy had been chatting before he had disappeared. They subpoened the
Internet service provider (ISP) associated with the suspect�s screen
name. Subpoena results indicated that the Internet protocol address
affiliated with the screen name originated from an apartment in
Phoenix, Arizona. Milwaukee PD provided me with the apartment address.
My detectives and I immediately went to the Phoenix apartment. We
quickly eliminated the apartment resident as a suspect but we learned
that she possessed an unencrypted wireless router and the device
provided free Internet access to everyone in nearby apartments. We
began interviewing neighbors, asking them if they had observed a new
boy in the area. Our diligence and luck prevailed. One local resident
said that a man living nearby had recently been accompanied by a boy
whom the man said was his son.
We then conducted surveillance for several hours until the man and boy
appeared. Detectives apprehended the suspect, a wanted sex offender
with felony warrants from prior offenses, and the boy, who had been
molested by the suspect.
The Phoenix suspect had used a laptop computer from his nearby apartment
to intercept the unencrypted wireless signal from his unsuspecting
neighbor�s computer router. This permitted the offender to communicate
with the boy in Wisconsin and entice him into meeting. The boy is now
back with his mother in Wisconsin. The suspect awaits trial.
There were no special tools available to us that could have pinpointed
the exact location of the offender who had used his neighbors
unencrypted wireless access. We employed two old-fashioned police
techniques; interviews and surveillance.
My colleagues nationwide have shared other similar stories with me
involving wireless access points used for criminal offenses. In some
cases their investigations dead-end at a wireless access point that
is providing unencrypted Internet service to everyone in antenna range.
In other cases interviews and surveillance fail because the elusive
suspect(s) quickly move on to other wireless access points.
Countless libraries, coffee shops, airports, hotels and businesses now
provide free wireless Internet access either accidentally, because
they fail to enable the encryption features to protect the signal, or
as a free-bonus customer service. While free wireless access is a
welcome service for law-abiding citizens, it is also a tool for
criminals.
Are there tools to determine where the activity originates?
The answer is yes and no. A subpoena or search warrant to the ISP
associated with an Internet protocol (IP) address is the tool that
we use to identify the specific location of the computer assigned
to an IP address.
In some cases, the computer we identify is attached to a router that
is broadcasting a wireless signal to another computer, the exact
location of which is unknown. If the wireless signal is being used by
a remote computer, the investigation continues and becomes more
difficult. There are technical surveillance tools, to wit, radio
spectrum analyzers and direction finders, that can be used to further
hone in on the remote computer, but these tools are somewhat expensive
for the average local law enforcement agency ($5,000 - $25,000), they
require advanced training and are often inexact in a city environment
where several wireless signals may be present at the same time.
In your testimony, you stated that the cell phone providers maintained
their records for cell phone usage for long periods of time, but that
Internet service providers (ISP) did not. Internet service providers
have alleged that they do not have storage space to maintain records
for any length of time. Do you know why cell phone providers can store
this information for long periods of time, but Internet service
providers cannot?
My comments about records preservation were based on my limited
knowledge of the cell phone industry and from my experiences, mostly as
a cellular service consumer. I know that cell phone providers often
closely track customer usage by the minute and cell phone providers
often maintain copious records for billing purposes. I have reviewed cell
phone billing statements that gave long lists of individual calls
including the numbers called from and to, the number of minutes used
during each call and the cost of each call. Maintaining so much data
likely entails computer servers with large data storage capacity.
Internet service providers do not normally bill customers on a
per-minute basis so there is usually not a need to record the frequent
changes in Internet data-packet destinations that are needed for
billing purposes by cell phone companies. I have seen computer
traceroute software that enables reporting of the location of each
server through which data packets travel across the Internet but the
data storage capacities needed to track all of that information would
be incredibly large, and in most cases, unnecessary.
The datum that we believe would be most useful in order to have a
starting point for our investigations are, minimally, the subscriber
information. There is no privacy violation when ISP�s retain subscriber
information and we in law enforcement could only subsequently obtain
the information through a subpoena or search warrant. I believe that
Internet service provider can preserve this data. Many of them already
retain the data because without it, they are unable to bill customers
who use their services.
If ISP�s are stating they cannot store the information, it is probably
because they choose not to store it. Computer data storage capacity has
increased exponentially in recent years and the cost of data storage
has decreased.
I am aware that data retrieval and subsequently reporting the information
back to law enforcement requires human intervention and entails labor
costs.
It is my opinion that ISP�s can store the information if they choose
to. It is also my opinion that some ISP�s will not satisfactorily store
data and recover data for law enforcement until the law mandates them
to do so.
Are you proposing that all records of individual Internet use be
maintained by the service provider, including e-mails, instant messages
and chat room discussions, or only the IP addresses and other identifying
information about the addressee? If all you want is the background
information to identify subscribers, do you believe that a lack of
storage space is a problem for the ISP?
I am not proposing that all records of individual Internet use be
maintained by service providers.
Maintaining ALL records, including the content of all emails, instant
messages and chat room discussions for extended periods of time would
present the ISP�s with a significant storage responsibility. Although it
is possible to preserve all of the data, it would require very large
data storage capacities.
Preserving all data, including the intimate details of private text
messages and/or the images transmitted during private communications
would undoubtedly send privacy protection advocates into a lather!
Even though the information would be retained by the ISP�s and not
released to law enforcement except by court order, privacy advocates
would likely balk.
Basic subscriber information, that data which is presently available
from cooperating ISPs through subpoena is the minimum we hope to mandate
that ISP�s preserve for law enforcement investigations. This information
would not be available to law enforcement except through subpoena or
search warrant.
Although I do not claim intimate knowledge of the specific equipment
or storage capacities presently available to all ISP�s, I do not
believe that storing this information would present most ISP�s with
storage space problems.
Are administrative subpoenas only used for business records?
In my work involving Internet crimes, our administrative subpoenas
have been used only for retrieving business records from Internet
service providers. As a wider practical matter, I am aware that
administrative subpoenas can also be used to demand personal
documents and other tangible things from not only businesses but
also from private citizens.
Under Arizona law, if law enforcement has a current IP, e-mail and
home address for an Internet user suspected of possessing child
pornography, is that sufficient to obtain a search warrant to seize
that computer?
No. In Arizona, a search warrant must be based on probable cause for
a felony offense and the warrant must be authorized by a magistrate.
The required probable cause is described in the affidavit
accompanying the search warrant. The affidavit is written by the
investigator(s) who work the case.
Although a current IP address and the physical "home" address where
the felony offense originated would be two very important items
towards obtaining a search warrant, detectives would also conduct
other investigative activities to build the necessary probable cause.
The activities could include surveillance of the location, records
checks and criminal history checks of the property owners, motor
vehicle checks on vehicles frequenting the location, pretext visits
and/or calls to the location. The combination of several of these
items, along with the physical "home" address associated with the
IP address would provide the probable cause needed for the search
warrant.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the preceding questions.
Please contact me if you require additional information.
Regards,
Dr. Frank Kardasz, Sgt. / Project Director
Phoenix P.D. /AZ Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
620 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85003
desk: 602 256 3404
email: [email protected]
web site: http://azicac.net
Response for the Record of James Plitt, Director, Cyber Crimes
Center, Office of Investigations, United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, United States Department of Homeland Security
No response was received to the following question submitted
to Mr. Plitt.
The Honorable John D. Dingell
Question for Mr. James Plitt, Director
Cyber Crimes Center, Office of Investigations
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
April 6, 2006
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Hearing entitled: "Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet:
What Parents, Kids and Congress Need to Know About Child Predators"
1. Please describe in detail the relationship between the Cyber
Crimes Center of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Innocent
Images National Initiative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
When a child exploitation investigation involves trans-border movement
of images, which agency takes the lead in dealing with foreign
agencies such as Interpol? Do both agencies count that investigation
as one of their own?
Response for the Record of Grier Weeks, Executive Director, National
Association to Protect Children
No response was received to the following questions submitted
to Mr. Weeks.
The Honorable John D. Dingell
Questions for Mr. Grier Weeks, Executive Director
PROTECT
April 6, 2006
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Hearing entitled: "Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet:
What Parents, Kids and Congress Need to Know About Child Predators"
-- SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1-1. Please describe state statutes of
limitation for possessing and distributing child pornography and any
problems that may result. How successful has PROTECT been in
increasing these time limitations?
2. Mr. Swecker of the Federal Bureau of Investigations testified,
despite the public concern about child pornography, his office had not
received any additional investigative resources in the FY2007 budget.
Does the same situation exist in the States? Are state legislatures
generally more willing to increase penalties for these crimes than to
increase resources to investigate and prosecute them?
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET: WHAT PARENTS, KIDS
AND CONGRESS NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CHILD PREDATORS
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m., in Room 2123 of
the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (chairman)
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Walden, Burgess, Blackburn,
Barton (ex officio), Stupak, DeGette, Inslee, Baldwin, and
Whitfield.
Also present: Representative Gingrey.
Staff Present: Mark Paoletta, Chief Counsel for Oversight and
Investigations; Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel for Oversight and
Investigations; Kelli Andrews, Counsel; Karen Christian, Counsel; Michael
Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Edith Holleman, Minority Counsel; and David
Nelson, Minority Investigator/Economist.
Mr. Whitfield. I am going to call this hearing to order, and I
apologize for our delay today. There was a hearing in the
hearing room prior to our arrival and I certainly want to
welcome those on the first panel. We will have a second panel
of witnesses as well. Those buzzers that you hear going off
are calling us to votes on the floor. We are going to have
three votes on the floor, so I apologize in advance for further
delay, but we will go do the three votes, then we will come
back. We will do our opening statements, then we will swear in
the first panel, and then we will get into the questions and
answers.
So please forgive us, and we will adjourn the hearing--not
adjourn, but recess the hearing until we can do these three
votes. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Whitfield. I will call the hearing to order, and once again
apologize for the delay because of the votes on the floor. We
are extremely enthusiastic that we have such a great panel of
witnesses today on a subject matter that is quite serious, and
one that is quite disturbing.
This will be our third hearing on "Sexual Exploitation of
Children Over the Internet: What Parents, Kids, and Congress
Need to Know About Child Predators." Our first two hearings
brought to light many staggering and sobering facts about how
children are victimized over the Internet. We know the number
of sexually exploitative images of child victims continues to
rise, and that a large-scale commercial industry has developed
around taking, trading, and selling sexually exploitative
images of children over the Internet. We also heard testimony
at our last hearing from several law enforcement agencies that
are trying to combat this problem and catch child predators.
It is not an easy task. Although the Immigration and Customs
Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Postal
Service, the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, and
many State and local agencies are working on putting child
predators behind bars. The Internet has caused a proliferation
of both the abusers as well as the images of the abused.
At our last hearing, I was struck by how many different law
enforcement agencies are working on this problem, and yet, there
does not seem to be any national strategy in place to deal with
this growing problem. I hope that through our hearing on this
topic, a national strategy will be put in place to ensure that
our children are safer and child predators are caught and put
behind bars.
Today, we will continue to learn about this horrific problem.
We have a brave young lady with us today whom I had the
opportunity to visit with before the hearing, Masha Allen, and
I want to extend my most sincere thanks to you, Masha, publicly,
for coming forward to tell us about your experience at the hands
of a pedophile who happened to be your adoptive father. I also
want to thank her mother, Faith Allen, for accompanying her
today. Masha is now 13 years old, will testify about how she
was adopted when she was 5 years old from a Russian orphanage
by a divorced man living alone in Pennsylvania named Matthew
Mancuso. Her adoptive father, Mr. Mancuso, sexually molested
Masha from the first day she arrived at his home as a 5-year-old
until law enforcement finally caught up with him 6 years later.
Masha is a survivor, and she will be able to tell us as the
voice of a child victim and for victims everywhere how she
feels particularly violated by the sexually exploitative images
taken and posted by Mancuso over the entire Internet.
We will also hear testimony from Nancy Grace, a former State
court prosecutor in Atlanta, Georgia, who I understand handled
a number of cases involving sexually abused children. We also
look forward to hearing from Ms. Grace about her media work
involving issues surrounding the sexual exploitation of children
and specifically, over the Internet.
Finally, we will revisit some questions that we previously had
for the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of
Investigation witnesses at our last hearing which were not
answered because we did not feel like the right witnesses were
present.
I am very glad to see that the Department of Justice has sent
us up one witness that the subcommittee did request,
Ms. Alice Fisher, who I had the opportunity to meet with
earlier; however, we are still disheartened that we will once
again not hear testimony from Mr. Andrew Osterbein, who is the
head of the section at the Department of Justice that actually
handles cases involving the sexual exploitation of children
over the Internet. I know that Ms. Fisher oversees this
section, and I am hopeful that she will be able to add some
significant detail to how that section handles these types of
cases, particularly when a cooperating child victim witness
is involved, and also, we want to hear, obviously, from law
enforcement on what we can do to help them do their jobs
better.
A daunting challenge in combating the sexual exploitation of
children over the Internet continues to be faced by all of
us involved in this issue, and we hope to learn more today
about the efforts of law enforcement in this area, and also to
understand what the Department of Justice�s recently proposed
legislative package will add to their efforts in this regard.
I thank all of you for being here today. There isn�t a more
important issue than this one on our plate, and we want to make
some efforts to curtail this, obviously, and prohibit it and be
very stern in our enforcement of these statutes.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Ed. Whitfield, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations
GOOD AFTERNOON. I�D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE�S THIRD
HEARING THAT EXPLORES ISSUES RELATED TO THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF
CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET. OUR FIRST TWO HEARINGS ON THIS TOPIC HAVE
BROUGHT TO LIGHT MANY STAGGERING AND SOBERING FACTS ABOUT HOW CHILDREN
ARE VICTIMIZED OVER THE INTERNET. WE LEARNED AT OUR LAST HEARING THAT
THE NUMBER OF SEXUALLY EXPLOITATIVE IMAGES OF CHILD-VICTIMS CONTINUES
TO RISE AND THAT A LARGE-SCALE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY HAS DEVELOPED AROUND
TAKING, TRADING AND SELLING SEXUALLY EXPLOITATIVE IMAGES OF CHILDREN
OVER THE INTERNET.
WE ALSO HEARD TESTIMONY AT OUR LAST HEARING FROM SEVERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THAT ARE TRYING TO COMBAT THIS PROBLEM AND CATCH
THESE CHILD PREDATORS. IT IS NOT AN EASY TASK. ALTHOUGH THE
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS SERVICE, THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTGATION,
THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, THE INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK
FORCE AND MANY STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES ARE WORKING ON PUTTING THESE
CHILD PREDATORS BEHIND BARS, THE INTERNET HAS CAUSED A PROLIFERATION
OF BOTH THE ABUSERS, AS WELL AS, IMAGES OF THE ABUSED.
AT OUR LAST HEARING, I WAS STRUCK BY HOW MANY DIFFERENT LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES ARE WORKING ON THIS PROBLEM--AND YET, THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO
BE ANY NATIONAL STRATEGY IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH THIS GROWING PROBLEM. I
HOPE THAT THROUGH OUR HEARINGS ON THIS TOPIC, A NATIONAL STRATEGY WILL
BE PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT OUR CHILDREN ARE SAFER AND THAT THESE
CHILD PREDATORS ARE CAUGHT.
AT OUR HEARING TODAY, WE WILL CONTINUE TO LEARN ABOUT THIS HORRIFIC
PROBLEM. WE HAVE A VERY BRAVE YOUNG LADY HERE WITH US TODAY--
MASHA ALLEN. I WANT TO EXTEND MY DEEPEST THANKS TO MASHA FOR COMING
FORWARD TO TELL US ABOUT HER HORRIFIC EXPERIENCE AT THE HANDS OF A
PEDOPHILE AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK HER MOTHER, FAITH, FOR ACCOMPANYING
HER UP HERE TO THIS HEARING.
MASHA, WHO IS NOW 13 YEARS OLD, WILL TELL US ABOUT HOW SHE WAS ADOPTED
WHEN SHE WAS JUST 5 YEARS OLD FROM A RUSSIAN ORPHANAGE BY A DIVORCED
MAN, LIVING IN PENNSYLVANIA, NAMED MATTHEW MANCUSO. HER ADOPTIVE
FATHER, MANCUSO, SEXUALLY MOLESTED MASHA FROM THE FIRST DAY SHE ARRIVED
AS A 5 YEAR OLD UNTIL LAW ENFORCEMENT FINALLY CAUGHT HIM 6 YEARS LATER.
MASHA IS A SURVIVOR--AND SHE WILL BE ABLE TO TELL US, AS THE VOICE OF
CHILD VICTIMS EVERYWHERE, HOW SHE FEELS PARTICULARLY VIOLATED BY THE
SEXUALLY EXPLOITATIVE IMAGES TAKEN AND POSTED BY MANCUSO OVER THE
INTERNET.
WE WILL ALSO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM NANCY GRACE, A FORMER STATE COURT
PROSECUTOR IN ATLANTA GEORGIA, WHO I UNDERSTAND HANDLED A NUMBER OF
CASES INVOLVING SEXUALLY ABUSED CHILDREN. WE ALSO LOOK FORWARD TO
HEARING FROM MS. GRACE ABOUT HER MEDIA WORK INVOLVING ISSUES SURROUNDING
THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET.
FINALLY, WE WILL REVISIT SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE PREVIOUSLY HAD FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WITNESSES AT
OUR LAST HEARING WHICH WERE NOT ANSWERED BECAUSE THE KNOWLEDGEABLE
WITNESSES WE REQUESTED WERE NOT SENT UP TO TESTIFY. I MUST STATE
THAT THIS HAS BEEN AN EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING PROCESS TO GET THE WITNESSES
WE WANT--AND WHO WE BELIEVE WILL PROVIDE THE MOST THOROUGH ANSWERS--
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FROM THE FBI UP HERE TO TESTIFY. I
HOPE THAT TODAY IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF MY FRUSTRATION ON THIS
POINT. I AM VERY GLAD TO SEE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS SENT
UP ONE OF THE WITNESSES THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE REQUESTED--
MS. ALICE FISHER. HOWEVER, I AM STILL DISHEARTENED THAT WE WILL, ONCE
AGAIN, NOT HEAR ANY TESTIMONY FROM MR. ANDREW OOSTERBAAN, THE HEAD OF
THE SECTION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT ACTUALLY HANDLES CASES
INVOLVING THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET. I
KNOW THAT MS. FISHER OVERSEES THIS SECTION AND I�M HOPEFUL THAT SHE�LL
BE ABLE TO ADD SOME SIGNIFICANT DETAIL TO HOW THAT SECTION HANDLES THESE
CASES, PARTICULARLY WHEN A COOPERATING CHILD-VICTIM WITNESS IS INVOLVED.
I AM ALSO PLEASED TO SEE THAT MR. ROLDAN AND MR. BELL, FROM THE FBI,
ARE HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY. MR. ROLDAN--I AM SURE YOU KNOW THAT WE
REQUESTED YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THE HEARING WE HAD ON APRIL 6TH. WE WERE
VERY DISTURBED TO LEARN THAT RATHER THAN ATTEND OUR HEARING, YOU WERE
APPEARING ON MORNING NEWS SHOWS LIKE CNN AND THE TODAY SHOW. WE�RE
GLAD YOU MADE TIME FOR US TODAY AND LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT THE
WORK THAT INNOCENT IMAGES IS DOING TO COMBAT THIS GROWING PROBLEM.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE WORK THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS CUT OUT FOR THEM IN
COMBATTING THIS PROBLEM OF THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE
INTERNET IS MASSIVE. I HOPE TO LEARN MORE TODAY ABOUT THEIR EFFORTS IN
THIS AREA--AND ALSO TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE�S
RECENTLY PROPOSED LEGISLATION WILL ADD TO THEIR EFFORTS IN THIS REGARD.
THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
Mr. Whitfield. So at this time, I will recognize our Ranking
Member, Mr. Stupak from Michigan, for his opening statement.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for convening
this hearing. This committee must take our time to adequately
address a number of very serious issues involving child
pornography and exploitation on the Internet. These include
sexual exploitation of very young children by members of their
own family; how to remove pornographic images of children from
the Internet; how to keep these images off the Internet; and
whether the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation are aggressively investigating and convicting
individuals for these crimes.
The sexual abuse and exploitation of children facilitated by the
Internet is a criminal activity of horrible dimensions. Last
month, we heard the story of Justin Berry, when he was a
13-year-old boy, was manipulated to perform sexual acts in from
of a web camera for 5 years. Unlike the case before us today,
the FBI and Department of Justice have largely failed to act on
the information provided by Justin that would have saved other
children from sexual predators. They failed to shut down or
arrest the Internet operator of Justin�s child pornography site.
While the site is now shut down, the operator has fled the
country.
Today, we will hear another tragic story of child pornography,
this one involving a 5-year-old child adopted from a Russian
orphanage for the sole purpose of sexual exploitation. Masha
Allen, a young girl of great courage, will tell us of her
5 years of rape and how she became featured in one of the most
sought after sets of child pornography images. Masha�s adoptive
father specifically requested a blonde-haired, blue-eyed
5-year-old girl, and three adoption agencies helped fulfill this
wish. The adoption agency that delivered Masha to this monster
did not check the living and sleeping arrangements for the child.
The agency did not interview the adoptive father�s estranged
daughter, whom he had previously abused when she was the same
age as Masha. The agency did not perform follow-up home visits
after the adoption, as required. The agency delivered a
5-year-old child into a living hell. Masha was rescued only
after an undercover Illinois police officer corresponded with her
adoptive parents--excuse me, her adoptive father, and obtained
his Internet address and a search warrant. When executing this
warrant, authorities rescued Masha.
Masha, now 13, will testify how her images became the most
sought-after images for pedophiles. We will learn how, because
of web file sharing, her terrible ordeal did not end with her
rescue.
As the Supreme Court observed over 20 years ago in New York
v. Ferber, and I quote "The distribution of photographs and
films depicting sexual activity by juveniles is intrinsically
related to a sexual abuse of children, and harm to the child is
exacerbated by their circulation."
Mr. Chairman, this Nation has done very little to stop the
Internet exploitation of children like Masha. Last month, we
were shocked to learn that 80 percent of the pornographic images
on the Internet involve children less than 12 years of age.
Thirty-nine percent involve children under 6 years of age, and
19 percent portray children age 3 or younger. Even more
disturbing is the fact that at least a third, and perhaps as many
as 75 percent of the men caught with these images molest and rape
their own children, just as Masha�s adoptive father did.
Also today, we will finally hear from the Department of Justice.
I will be interested to know why, after 8 months, there has been
little follow up in the Justin Berry case, while other cases,
like Masha�s, received an immediate response with search warrants
and arrests. Is there a Constitutional, legal, or resource
impediment that Congress does not fully understand? Why are
there so few of the tens of thousands of perpetrators who buy,
sell, and trade images of young children being raped and
tortured are not prosecuted.
After our last meeting, U.S. Attorney General Gonzalez announced
that his agency had rounded up 1,100 violent sexual offenders,
some of which were child molesters. But from what this
subcommittee has heard, 1,100 is a small fraction of the true
number of sexual predators in our society. So what is the
Justice Department�s plan for the rest of these people?
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I know that you plan to call Internet
service providers and related businesses that facilitate the
transmission of images over the Web. It is important to learn
what they believe can be done to prevent the dissemination of
the estimated 3.5 million pornographic images currently on
the Internet. I truly hope that when these companies testify,
they will have viable plans to remove the horrible images of
Masha and other young victims from the Internet. Voluntary
action to clean up the Internet has not been successful in
dealing with this problem.
I look forward to continuing to work with you to make sure
Congress does everything it can to protect our children and
prevent images of abuse from flooding the Internet. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Stupak, thank you very much, and I am
going to go out of order for just 1 minute. Congressman
Phil Gingrey is on the first panel with us, and he is the
Representative and represents in the Congress Masha Allen and
her mother, Faith Allen, and he has some amendments on the
House floor that he is going to have to take care of, so
Congressman Gingrey, I will recognize you now for any comment
you would like to make about Masha and her family, or this
issue.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Stupak and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for allowing
me the opportunity to talk about a remarkable young lady,
Masha Allen. Masha is a strong, resilient 13-year-old girl who
lives in Georgia�s 11th District, which I am honored to
represent. I want you to hear Masha�s story from her in her
own words so you can fully grasp what horrors she has lived
through, but I guarantee the first thing you will notice, as
I did, is her strength of spirit. This little girl was forced
to grow up too fast in order for her to process the numerous
atrocities that she has experienced. However, Masha�s
determined spirit gives her the power to stand up and tell her
story, illustrating the fact that she is much more than a victim
of child sexual exploitation. Masha is a wonderful, willful
girl who has decided to be empowered by her situation, and to
do something to deter the disgusting world of Internet child
pornography that has grown to be a multi-billion dollar industry.
There are many places in this young girl�s story where the
system failed to protect her from the monster who adopted her.
Even before the horrible sexual exploitation began, it is
important to understand how she has come to be before you today.
You should ask yourself, as I did, how the regulations that
exist in international adoption agencies failed, how follow-up
visits or school intervention did not rescue this child much
sooner, how our Federal laws have really abandoned this area of
child welfare, and most importantly, what is Congress�s
responsibility now that we have heard her story?
The world of Internet child pornography is vast, it is dark, and
it is deep. These possessors of child pornography trade these
images like we would trade baseball cards, and the business
indeed is booming. With the Federal government stretched thin
trying to investigate, prosecute, and convict these numerous
and varied possessors of child pornography, advocates are left
trying to find new avenues to expose these animals with the goal
of deterring future acts of child pornography. This is how the
idea of Masha�s Law came to fruition: the need to introduce
legislation that updates a 20-year-old civil statute and brings
it into the 21st Century. Current civil law allows victims of
child sexual exploitation to recover damages of no less than
$50,000; however, Federal copyright law provides statutory
damages of $150,000 to be awarded to a copyright holder when a
song is illegally downloaded from the Internet. There is
something wrong with that picture. Masha�s Law allows a civil
remedy for the dissemination of child pornography to be equal
to other illegal downloads. By increasing the amount of damages
a victim is able to recover, the Government can accomplish in
civil court what is a lengthy and complex process in criminal,
stopping the pictures.
Congressman Tierney and I introduced H.R. 4703, Masha�s Law, as
a companion to legislation in the Senate spearheaded by Senators
Kerry and Isakson, to even out a horrible inequity that currently
exists in Federal law. It is one step that can be taken to stem
the tide of child pornography; however, I know that it is just
one step.
As you listen to testimony today, keep in mind the responsibility
of the Federal government to protect our children. We need to
be proactive. We need to respond to the reality that Internet
child pornography is a growing business, one that victimizes our
children and leaves them with scars that may never heal. As a
physician Member of Congress, it is very important for me to
convey to you what a devastating and lasting effect these images
have on children. The physical injuries they suffer as a result
of child molestation may be more obvious; however, the
psychological damages are lengthy and they may not be fully
realized until these children are well into adulthood. Child
victims struggle with constant feelings of guilt and
responsibility for the abuse and betrayal, a sense of
powerlessness, and a feeling of worthlessness.
In the case of Internet child pornography, these images are
permanent proof of their exploitation. Unfortunately, with
these images documented in cyberspace, they are irretrievable
and can continue to circulate forever, allowing the child to
be victimized each and every time the image is downloaded and
viewed. The reality of these crimes are horrible; however, I
am encouraged when I see victims who have the courage to tell
their story. By supplying Americans with the knowledge of
these criminals and arming prosecutors with an avenue in civil
court to attack their pocketbooks, we can take tremendous
strides toward ending the cycle of pornography.
As I said earlier, I am proud to be here today with such an
amazing and courageous girl who is looking to turn her
victimization into an avenue to stop this horrendous criminal
behavior.
This completes my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
giving me the opportunity to go out of order.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Congressman Gingrey.
At this time, I recognize Dr. Burgess for his opening statement.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having
this important series of hearings. As a father of three, I
cannot comprehend how people can commit these types of crimes
against children. And like my colleagues, I continue to be
angered and astonished by the cruelty in the stories that we
hear. Just last week, I read another story in my hometown
newspaper about a local man charged with sexually abusing
children and posting their pictures on the Internet. This is
happening in our communities, and it must be stopped. For the
sake of our children, we cannot afford to ignore the problem
any longer.
Mr. Chairman, I view these hearings as having two main goals.
The first, of course, is to educate Congress and the public, and
second, to implement stricter laws for deterrence and
retribution. I, for one, have learned a great deal more than I
ever wanted to know about this topic; however, it is crucial for
the safety of our children for all of us to know about these
evils so that we can help end this abusive and dangerous
practice. It is through the brave souls of children like Justin
Berry and Masha Allen that we know so much about this secretive
world. Masha, thank you for appearing before us today. Your
courage and your dignity are apparent, and you are, in fact, an
inspiration to all of us.
I also would like to thank my friend, Dr. Gingrey, for
introducing Masha�s Law. When enacted, this law will help to
ensure that abused children receive a portion of the justice
they deserve. I am a cosponsor of the bill and I encourage my
colleagues to also cosponsor this important legislation.
As I mentioned before, I feel that the goal of this hearing
should be stricter laws regarding this type of abuse.
Congressman Gingrey�s legislation is a good start. I am also
aware that the Department of Justice has ideas regarding an
increase in penalties for Internet service providers not
reporting known violations. Just one step, as Dr. Gingrey
said. It is my sincere hope that these hearings will be a
catalyst for even more legislation named at curbing this
problem. Our children are depending upon us to do this.
Mr. Chairman, I believe, as we learned in other hearings, we
have to hold organizations and Federal agencies like the
Department of Justice accountable for enforcing these laws.
It does us no good to continue to pass laws if enforcement
is nonexistent.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your continued leadership
and dedication to this grave situation. I look forward to
working with you and others on the committee as we continue
to seek solutions to the most egregious deviation from the
norm that I think I have ever seen.
I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Dr. Burgess.
At this time, I recognize Ms. DeGette for her opening statement.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
add my thanks for this series of important hearings. We are all
learning a shocking amount, and I am hoping that instead of just
emoting for the next few months, we actually have legislation
that actually comes out of these hearings.
I want to extend a special welcome to our first witness. Masha,
we are really privileged to have you here with us today. You
had quite a journey in your life, and I know it has been hard,
but we think that there are many, many wonderful things ahead of
you and this is just the first one of those many things. You
are really brave and you, and also Justin, who testified before,
are going to teach us a lot of things that we can help both make
laws and enforce laws that will stop this from happening to other
children. So you are starting with what I hope will be a
lifetime of helping other people.
Mr. Chairman, what happened to Masha is one of the worst cases
any of us have ever heard about. It really boggles the mind to
comprehend how someone as evil as this was allowed to adopt a
young girl. I hope that some light will be shed on how this was
allowed to happen, and while it is not under this committee�s
purview, maybe the hearing will spur some needed changes in the
system, the adoption system, to make sure this never happens
again.
So Chairman, in preparing for this hearing, I learned that the
primary investigators on the case tracked down Masha�s adoptive
father by using an IP address. They were able to locate his
whereabouts by obtaining the IP address, which then led them to
his home. Tracing pedophiles and others who produce and
distribute child pornography through their IP addresses is an
important tool used by law enforcement agencies. In our last
hearing, by way of contrast, we heard some testimony from
investigators who actually saw a 2-year-old being raped live on
the Internet. It was shocking. They were able to trace this to
my home State of Colorado. They knew that the perpetrator and
the little child were in Colorado, but when they tried to
subpoena the IP address, those records had been destroyed by the
Internet service provider because ISPs do not keep those records
on any kind of consistent basis.
After the hearing, Mr. Stupak and I had the idea, maybe we can
do some simple legislation, and what that legislation would say
is that Internet service providers have to maintain the
addresses for a period of 1 year. This created havoc among the
IP community, and I am horrified that the provider community is
not working with us on this, because it seems to me to be a very
simple piece of legislation. I am going to continue to fight
for it. I am telling this to all the people sitting out there
in the audience. We are not saying that the Internet providers
should keep all of the communications. That would be
burdensome. All we are saying is that they should have to keep
the IP addresses of their subscribers for a period of 1 year.
We are also not saying that we want anybody to violate folks�
privacy rights. Instead, just like if you were subpoenaing
bank records--and Ms. Grace knows about this. She is a former
prosecutor and I used to be a public defender in my youth. If
the law enforcement investigators had probable cause, they could
go and get a warrant. They could serve that warrant, and they
could get that information from the Internet provider. That
seems to be a very minor burden to ask to be able to find these
horrible criminals who are making crimes on the Internet.
One last thing I will say that I have been thinking about is
use of an Internet service provider is a contractual agreement.
I would assume that all of the Internet service providers enter
into a contractual agreement with their subscribers that they
will not commit crimes over that Internet service. And so
therefore, if Internet service providers are obtaining evidence
of criminal activity under their contract with their
subscribers, they should be able to turn that over to law
enforcement authorities. I don�t understand what the big deal
is, but I will tell you this, Mr. Chairman. I have heard that
our next hearing is supposed to be a hearing when the Internet
service providers come in, and I am very much looking forward
to asking them these questions.
In addition, if we have a telecom bill that comes up on the
floor next week or the week after, I do intend to work with
Chairman Barton, who has said he wants to work with me, and I
know you do, too, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that we craft
something that is sensible, that is narrowly drafted, and that
protects these kids so that all of the kids, just like Masha,
that we can find these criminals and we can bring them to
justice.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Ms. DeGette, and we do look forward
to the Internet service providers when they come to testify.
I know that Ms. Fisher is going to be making some comments, I
believe, about a recent meeting that she had with some Internet
service providers on this issue.
At this time, I recognize the Vice Chairman of this
subcommittee, Mr. Walden, for his opening statement.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am actually
going to waive my opening statement. I very much appreciate
our witnesses today, but I want to reserve the extra 3 minutes
I will get for questioning of this panel. So I am going to
waive at this time.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much.
At this time, I recognize Ms. Baldwin for her opening statement.
Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to also acknowledge and commend the subcommittee�s work
in prior sessions examining the proliferation of child
exploitation over the Internet.
Sexual exploitation and the assault of minors is simply one of
the most heinous crimes that can ever be committed, yet
advancements in Internet technology have greatly enabled the
production, viewing, and trafficking of images that are the
result of such crimes against children. I applaud this
subcommittee�s effort to shed light on these abhorrent but
burgeoning networks of child predators online, and to educate
the public, especially parents, about the dangers such
individuals pose to children�s access to the Internet.
Having read the New York Times article detailing the harrowing
story of Justin Berry and his testimony before the committee
several weeks ago, it is clear to me that our Department of
Justice has some explaining to do over the way its Child
Exploitation and Obscenities Section handles child sexual
exploitation over the Internet. Although I am disappointed,
as the Chairman is, that Mr. Andrew Osterbein, Chief of CEOS,
still will not be testifying today, I hope that Ms. Fisher
will be able to offer some insight into the general operations
of the Section in handling the referral of online child
exploitation cases.
In addition, I am pleased that Mr. Roldan has finally agreed to
testify before this subcommittee on its second panel today. I
hope we will have an informative discussion regarding the
operation of Innocent Images, especially the level of resources
that this Section has devoted to investigate sexually explicit
images of children online.
Finally, I also want to acknowledge and thank Masha Allen for
her courage and the courage you have exhibited in coming before
this committee to testify today regarding your experiences. It
is really unimaginable to me to know how the international
adoption process, which is aimed at giving children a new start
through a nurturing family, would become a tool of child
predators. Masha, your story is one of both despair and hope.
Our adoption system failed you in ensuring that a healthy, stable
home was provided to you, and as a result, you have endured years
of inconceivable suffering. But yours is also a story of hope, as
law enforcement officers worked to bring you to safety and to
provide you an opportunity to live a life free of violence. I
admire your courage very much.
I hope that the hearings this subcommittee has been conducting
will lead directly to a reduction in such violent crimes against
children. Whether it is through informing parents of the dangers
of online child predators, or a greater oversight of Federal
responses to the issue of child exploitation on the Internet, or
new legislative proposals that would deter online pedophilia.
Again, I thank the subcommittee for holding this important
hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my remaining time.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mrs. Baldwin.
At this time, I recognize Ms. Blackburn for her opening
statement.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I
thank you for holding the hearing, for the time and effort that
you have put into it, and the work that the staff continues to
do to help us and work with us on this issue. I also want to
thank our witnesses. We appreciate your time and the efforts
that you put in to preparing your testimony, and being here with
us today. Masha, we are especially happy and we are grateful
that you would agree to join us and be with us.
This subcommittee started with these hearings, just as you have
heard other members mention today, with testimony from Justin
Berry about the pervasiveness of child predators on the
Internet. One of the things that has surprised us, it is like
anything else you begin to investigate and you look at it, and
you realize as you are peeling back the layers that it is much
deeper than you ever imagined it could possibly be. So we know
that there is a lot of work to be done on this. Justin described
for us how the predators help teenagers set up websites and
webcams and how they lure them into the sexual acts for money.
He also told the committee that the Department of Justice�s
CEOS failed to act on information provided to them. At the
risk of his own life, he provided that information of over
1,500 child predators and distributors of child pornography,
yet it seems that the Department of Justice is unconcerned
about the information or has chosen not to move forward. We
are looking forward to getting that answer, because it is
troubling when the FBI has used similar information in Operation
Falcon and the Regpay investigations that led to hundreds of
warrants and arrests and convictions. It is very difficult for
us to comprehend why the information from Mr. Berry has not led
to similar actions.
I would have to say, too, I am also concerned about the funding
for the Departments that are investigating child pornography and
exploitation. I have yet to hear from the Department about
their budget submissions to cover the exponentially increased
workload that has come from the investigations. But not all
the blame should be put on the Department of Justice. Right now,
unfortunately, there are some Members of Congress who would
rather see multi-hundred million dollar railroads and
multi-million dollar subsidies to corporations that already have
$7 billion in revenues, but yet cannot adequately fund the
Departments that are trying to save our children from being
victims of these crimes.
The House has acted to implement a nationwide sex offender
registry and enhanced criminal penalties for crimes against
children. The bill, the Child Safety Act, was passed by the
House this past September, but we have got some members in the
Senate that have refused to allow the bill to be considered.
These members have put their unpolitical ambitions ahead of
the protection and welfare of our children. That needs to
stop.
I have also had brought to my attention, and I would like to
bring to the attention of the committee, a recent investigation
by News Channel 5 in Nashville, Tennessee, which is there in my
district, and they found a fast-food restaurant franchise all
over the country that had been hiring sex offenders to work in
the restaurants. This has seriously troubled me because of the
actions that we have seen of these despicable people and what
they go to to try to get close to the children so that they can
proposition the children. This is something we are still
working on, Mr. Chairman, and hope to have more information for
the committee on that issue at some point soon. We are also
looking at the work opportunity tax credit that is there to help
in hiring and retraining expellant and wanting to be certain
that none of that money is directed towards individuals that
would have committed these crimes.
Again, to our panel, I thank you. I thank you so much,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mrs. Blackburn.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Inslee for his opening statement.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. I just hope that the courage of
Masha Allen and Justin Berry is matched with appropriations by
the U.S. Congress for resources to actually do something about
this instead of just talk about it.
As a prosecutor, I learned that you could have all the laws on
the books and you can have all the fancy library books you
wanted in your library of all the great statutes that
legislators had passed with great fanfare, but if you didn�t
have detectives, if you didn�t have Internet search tools, if
you didn�t have prosecutors, if you didn�t have victim advocates
to help them through this process, this didn�t get shut down.
This is not getting shut down. It is a $20 billion industry,
we are told, on the Internet. To put that in context, it is a
$3 billion industry for music, just to give a context to how
large this is.
So while this has exploded exponentially, the United States
Congress, the way it is currently formed, has had tiny little
dribs and drabs of additional appropriations to get the
prosecutors, to get the detectives, to get this job done.
There is no secret here. When Justin Berry had the courage to
come forward several weeks ago to talk about this, we learned
from these detectives that said I got stacks, I got boxes back
in my office that we can prosecute tomorrow if we had any
resources to investigate them. So you will know whether Masha
Allen�s courage is matched by Congress when you see whether or
not we do the Federal appropriations to help the FBI and the
Justice Department to get to the bottom of this, and whether
also we help local communities with their local prosecution,
because they are just as important as the Feds are in this.
And instead, what this Congress has done is cut funding for
local law enforcement in the COPS program and a variety of
other places.
So I just want to say I just hope that Congress will show
respect for Masha�s courage here with appropriations in
addition to our verbal thanks for her courage here today.
Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Inslee.
The Chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee has just
come in from a meeting, and at this time I recognize Chairman
Barton for any opening statement he may want to make.
Chairman Barton. Well, thank you. I am not going to give an
opening statement. I do want to appreciate you, Mr. Chairman
and Mr. Stupak for continuing to focus on this issue. I want
to thank the young lady here who is brave enough to come
forward. I want to thank the media representatives who have stood
by her and helped to protect her and bring her story to the
public. I appreciate what you all are doing.
This is an issue that this subcommittee takes absolutely
seriously. I have four children and two stepchildren, of which
three are still at home, and on a bipartisan basis, we are going
to absolutely guarantee that when the hearings get through, if
there is legislation that can be passed at the Federal level to
help prevent this obscenity, we are going to do it.
I will be back to ask my questions, Mr. Chairman. I will come
back for the second panel. I want to ask our friends at the
Justice Department some questions. But on this panel, I just
want to say thank you and we will continue to work together to
try to find ways to prevent this problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on
Energy and Commerce
Thank you, Mr. Whitfield, for holding this hearing.
Today�s hearing marks the third in a series of hearings that
this subcommittee has held about the sexual exploitation of
children over the Internet. Our previous hearings have
revealed a shocking and revolting problem. Unfortunately,
with regard to the Justin Berry case, these hearings also have
raised serious questions about whether the Justice Department
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are being aggressive
enough in pursuing those individuals who seek to abuse and
exploit children over the Internet.
Today, we are joined by two witnesses who can help explain how the
Justice Department and the FBI investigate and prosecute these cases:
Alice S. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division
at Justice, and Raul Roldan, Section Chief of the Cyber Crime Section
of the Cyber Division at FBI. I thank you both for taking the time to
appear before us this afternoon although I am disappointed that Andrew
Oosterbaan, the chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
at the Justice Department, was not sent to this hearing.
The recent arrests of 1,102 sexual offenders as part of the "Operation
Falcon II" investigation are an example of the progress that is being
made by the Justice Department, FBI, and other law enforcement agencies
in the war against the sexual exploitation of children. I would like
to take this opportunity to commend your departments for everything
they did to make "Operation Falcon II" a success. Bringing these
sexual predators to justice will undoubtedly help to make this world a
safer place for our children. However, I think one thing this
Committee�s investigation has shown us is that there is still much more
work to do.
Therefore, in addition to learning how effectively these cases are
investigated and prosecuted, I hope Ms. Fisher and Mr. Roldan can comment
on the role of Internet Service Providers and credit card companies in
these investigations. The previous hearings have demonstrated that the
war against child pornography is not simply a matter of law enforcement
resources. For example, at our last hearing, agents from the state
Internet Crimes Against Children task forces explained that some of
their investigations have been thwarted because Internet Service
Providers did not retain the data that would allow them to identify
online child predators. There may be other areas where more should
be required of the Internet and financial services industries with
respect to retaining data and conducting due diligence of those who use
servers and financial networks to distribute child pornography. As
the Committee moves forward with this investigation, we are simply
trying to better understand the scope of the problem, the adequacy of
law enforcement efforts to fight it, and what we should do legislatively
to help put an end to this epidemic of abuse.
We are also joined today by Masha Allen. After being adopted from a
Russian orphanage, Masha was raped and molested by her adoptive father,
Matthew Mancuso, who placed images of that abuse on the Internet.
Thankfully, Mancuso was prosecuted, convicted, and is now incarcerated.
However, hundreds of images of Masha�s abuse are still on the Internet
today. For this reason, Masha bravely decided to come forward and tell
the public about the abuse she suffered and about the dangers lurking
online. I know appearing before us today must not be easy, Masha, but
I hope you will take some comfort in knowing that your story might help
others.
With Masha today is our colleague, Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia.
Congressman Gingrey has introduced a bill, H.R. 4703, also known as
"Masha�s Law," which he will discuss with us today. This bill will
increase the civil statutory damages available to victims of online
child exploitation to $150,000, the same fine that is imposed on
those who illegally download music from the Internet. I thank the
Congressman for taking the time to appear before the Committee this
afternoon.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think that
concludes all the opening statements, so we will now get to
the testimony, which is where we learn most of the important
issues that we need to deal with.
You are aware that--I would, first of all, say that on the
first panel, obviously, there has been a lot of reference to
Masha Allen. Masha is on this first panel. She is 13 years
old. She was the young lady who grew up until she was 5 years
old in Russia. She was adopted by a gentleman in Pennsylvania
and she will be testifying today. In addition, Ms. Nancy Grace,
who is with CNN and was a former prosecutor, and has had a lot
of experience and interest in this particular subject matter.
We welcome her.
In addition, although the next three people that I am going to
introduce are not going to be giving opening statements, they
may be answering some questions. Mr. James Marsh, who is the
attorney for Masha, and then Maureen Flatley, who works with
Masha and her family and I understand she is an expert on
adoption agency practices and other child issues. And then,
of course, we are delighted that Masha�s adoptive mother,
Faith Allen, is with us today, and we welcome you to the panel
as well, Faith.
So we take this testimony under oath because it is an
investigatory hearing, and I would ask you now, do any of you
have any objection to testifying under oath? I would also
advise you that under the rules of the House and the rules of
the committee, everyone is entitled to legal counsel, and we know
that Masha does have legal counsel. I have already introduced
him. But the rest of you, do any of you desire to be advised by
legal counsel? Okay.
All right. In case not, then I would ask all of you to stand and
raise your right hand, and I will swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much. You are now sworn in, you
are under oath, and we will begin the opening statements.
Masha, we are going to recognize you first for your 5-minute
opening statement, and once again, we genuinely appreciate your
willingness to testify before the committee and help bring this
issue to the public.
STATEMENTS OF MASHA ALLEN, C/O JAMES R. MARSH, ESQ.; AND NANCY GRACE,
CNN NANCY GRACE
Ms. Allen. Thank you. My name is Masha Allen. I am 13 years
old and I live near Atlanta, Georgia, with my mother, Faith
Allen.
When I was 5 years old, Matthew Mancuso, a Pittsburgh
businessman who was a pedophile, adopted me. I was rescued
almost three years ago when the FBI raided his home in a child
pornography citing. After I was rescued, I learned that during
the 5 years I lived with Matthew, he took hundreds of
pornographic pictures of me and traded them over the Internet.
Thank you for conducting this hearing. Also, thank you for
letting me have Nancy Grace here. Nancy is really special to my
family and me. She has been an advocate for me and lots of
other kids.
The Internet is everywhere in my story. You need to do
something about it right away.
I was born August 25, 1992, in Russia. For the first 3 years of
my life, I lived at home with my mother and siblings. My mother
was an alcoholic. When I was 3 years old, she tried to kill
me. She stabbed me in the neck and I almost died. The
Government took me away from her and I went to live in an
orphanage near my family�s home in Russia.
Living in the orphanage was scary and dangerous. There was
constant noise and the older children abused the younger ones.
I was afraid all the time. I kept all my belongings under my
pillow because I was afraid that they would be stolen. After
living in the orphanage for 2 years, I found out that I was going
to be adopted. Matthew visited the orphanage a couple of times.
He seemed nice. He gave me presents. I asked if he was married
and if I would have a mother, but he said no. He adopted me in
Russia in July, 1998. After that, we left Russia and traveled
to his house outside of Pittsburgh. The abuse started the night
I got there.
Matthew didn�t have a bedroom for me. He made me sleep in his
bedroom from the very beginning. He molested me all the time.
He made me dress up in adult clothes and even pretended to marry
me. Sometimes he kept me chained in the basement. Because he
didn�t want me to grow up, he only let me eat a little bit of
food: plain pasta, raw vegetables, no meat. Five years after I
went to live with him, I was only gaining a little bit of weight.
When I was rescued, I was 10 years old, but I only wore a size
6X.
Matthew let me go to school and sometimes play with friends, but
he told me if I ever told anyone what was happening, that
something bad would happen to me. Even though I was the size of
a 5-year-old when I was 10, no one at my school ever said
anything to anyone. No one from the adoption agency ever came
to check on me to make sure I was okay. I never told anyone
about the abuse because I was afraid and I thought that no one
cared.
A lot of people ask me how anyone could let a pedophile adopt a
little girl. I didn�t know very much about my adoption until my
lawyer investigated everything. Now, I know there were three
adoption agencies involved with my adoption by Matthew. The
first was Families Through International Adoption in Indiana.
I think Matthew found them on the Internet. He went to an office
they had in New Jersey. The State of New Jersey found out that
they were operating without a license and closed them down. The
same people who worked for that agency just started a new agency
in the same office in New Jersey that they called Reaching Out
Through International Adoptions. The two agencies are fighting
over who was really responsible for Matthew adopting me, but
the name of the Families Through International Adoption is on
the home study, the immigration paperwork, and the Russian
government documents. I think Matthew also paid Families Through
International Adoptions. Reaching Out Through International
Adoption was really just the same agency, the same people, with
different names. A third agency did Matthew�s home study to
adopt me. They were in Pittsburgh and were called the Family
Health Council, but they just changed their name to Adagio Health.
I found out, after I was safe, that none of these agencies asked
Matthew any questions. They never really checked him out. They
showed him pictures of me, probably on the Internet, before he
had a home study to adopt me. In some of the pictures they
showed him of me from the orphanage, I was naked. He told them
he was divorced and had a daughter that he wasn�t close to. I
found out later that the reason his daughter didn�t talk to him
was because she was molested, too.
While I lived with Matthew, no one from any of the adoption
agencies ever came to check on me, though the Russian
government requires it. As my story came out, we found out two
other kids, a boy from Romania and a girl from Russia were
adopted by pedophiles, too. Just so you know, 14 other Russian
kids have actually been murdered by their adoptive parents. I
am sure there are other kids in trouble, but no one seems to
care about any of this. When I told my story in public for the
first time, all the adoption agencies, not just Matthew�s, tried
to cover up my story. I lived with Matthew for 5 years. The
whole time, he starved and molested me. The whole time, he took
pictures of me. I didn�t know until later that he was putting
my pictures on the Internet to trade, maybe to sell to other
pedophiles. I was rescued when the FBI discovered that Matthew
had a lot of child pornography on his computer. They came to
raid his house; they didn�t know I would be there. When the
FBI arrested Matthew, I was taken to the hospital, examined,
and then put in foster care. My foster mother was Faith Allen.
She understood what I was going through because she was
sexually abused when she was little. She was a foster child
in Georgia when she was growing up. As soon as I went to live
with her, I felt safe. She adopted me on May 14, 2004.
Matthew was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney�s Office in
Pittsburgh on September 25, 2003. He was convicted on child
pornography charges for all the pictures he had on his computer.
He was only sentenced for 15 years in prison for that. I was
afraid he would get out of jail too soon. He was convicted
again in Pennsylvania State Court on August 23, 2005, of 11
criminal acts for some of the things he did to me. He was
sentenced last November to 35 years in prison. I was really
upset that he didn�t receiver a harder sentence. I was even
more upset that he was sent to a hospital in Massachusetts so
he could be rehabilitated. A person like Matthew can never be
rehabilitated. Plus, in this hospital prison, he has free
healthcare, free mental health services, and can read
magazines, play ping-pong, and have hobbies. No one cares
about rehabilitating me. I just lost my Medicaid and my mom
has to work doubly hard to pay for the things that I need
while Matthew lays around in the hospital playing games.
I was really mad that Matthew didn�t get a harder sentence and
that he went to an easy prison, but I got much more upset when
I found out about the pictures of me that he put on the
Internet. I had no idea he had done that. When I found out
about it, I asked our lawyer to get them back. He told me
that we couldn�t do that. I found out that they would be
there forever. That is when I got mad and decided to go
public with my story. Usually when a kid is hurt, the abuser
goes to prison and the abuse is over, but because Matthew put
my pictures on the Internet, the abuse is still going on and
everyone can see them. People are still downloading them. We
get notices from the FBI every time someone is arrested for it.
I want every single one of them to go to jail, and they will be
punished, but that is a problem too.
I found out last summer that if someone downloads a song off the
Internet, the penalty is three times worse than if someone
downloads child pornography. I couldn�t believe it. How could
this be? That is when I decided we had to change the laws about
downloading child porn. Senator Kerry and Senator Isakson and
Congressman Gingrey and Congressman Tierney introduced bills in
Congress that make the penalty the same as downloading songs.
That was a few months ago. There hasn�t been a vote on it. I
want every single Member of Congress to support these bills
and want Congress to pass them right away. There are lots of
cases of people downloading our pictures, and I want every
single one of them to be punished as much as possible.
There might be more pictures of me on the Internet than any
other real child. The police told my lawyer that a lot of
child pornographers, more than half even, have my pictures on
their computers, and there are a lot of other kids like me, too.
People who are doing this should be afraid. We know who they
are. A lot of people downloading those pictures are
professionals. They are doctors and teachers and ministers who
would like to put their pictures on the Internet and tell people
what they are doing. People stopped downloading songs when they
found out they could be sued. We are going to sue these guys
too, every single one of them. I want to tell them you aren�t
doing this in secret anymore. Everyone can find out who you are.
I am really upset about the pictures on the Internet, and I am
upset about what Matthew did to me, physically. A lot of people
are surprised that I wanted to go public with my story, but I
have been on the Internet since I was 5 years old. Going on
television shows wasn�t going to hurt me. I did it because I
don�t think anyone is doing enough about the things that
happened to me and a lot of other kids. Talking to John
Quinones and Nancy Grace helped me. They were my champions. I
felt in charge of my story because of them. I know they will
help me to help other kids like me. People need to know about
this stuff. The adults who let this happen have just tried to
cover it up.
You have to do something about the Internet. Matthew found the
adoption agency on the Internet. They let him look at my
pictures from Russia on the Internet, even though they didn�t
know anything about him. Other kids have been adopted by
pedophiles the same way. Matthew put my pictures on the Internet
after he got me. People are still downloading them, even though
he has been in prison for 2 years. We don�t even know whether he
still makes money from them, even though he is in jail. Even now
that I am safe, the Internet is still a dangerous place for me to
go. The police detective who found Matthew�s home for the FBI
said I should never go to chat rooms even for fun things, because
they almost always have pedophiles.
Ten years ago, I was a scared little girl in a Russian orphanage.
For 5 years, I was held hostage by a monster. But in the last
2 years, a lot of amazing things have happened. John Quinones
and Nancy listened to me and told my story to the whole world.
I called my Congressman, Dr. Gingrey, who didn�t even know me.
He introduced a bill in Congress right away to help me and other
kids like me. Because of all these things, I believe I can do
something for other kids so they don�t have to go through what
I did.
Some people say we can�t control what is on the Internet, but
that is ridiculous. If we can put a man on the moon, we can
make the Internet safe for kids. That is just common sense. I
am going to work hard to protect other kids and make sure people
who hurt them are punished. I hope you will help me. You can
start by passing Masha�s Law right away. That would be a good
start.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Masha Allen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Masha Allen, c/o James R. Marsh, Esq.
My name is Masha Allen. I am 13 years old and live near Atlanta,
Georgia with my mother, Faith Allen. When I was five years old
Matthew Mancuso, a Pittsburgh businessman who was a pedophile,
adopted me. I was rescued almost three years ago when the FBI raided
his home in a child pornography sting. After I was rescued I learned
that during the five years I lived with Matthew he took hundreds of
pornographic pictures of me and traded them over the Internet. Thank
you for conducting this hearing. Also, thank you for letting me have
Nancy Grace here. Nancy is really special to my family and me. She
has been an advocate for me and lots of other kids. The Internet is
everywhere in my story. You need to do something about it right away.
I was born on August 25, 1992 in Novochakhtinsk, Russia. For the first
three years of my life I lived at home with my mother and siblings. My
mother was an alcoholic. When I was three years old she tried to kill
me. She stabbed me in the neck and I almost died. The government took
me away from her and I went to live in an orphanage near my family�s
home in Russia.
Living in the orphanage was scary and dangerous. There was constant
noise and the older children abused the younger ones. I was afraid all
the time. I kept all of my belongings under my pillow because I was
afraid they would be stolen. After living in the orphanage for two years
I found out that I was going to be adopted.
Matthew visited the orphanage a couple of times. He seemed nice. He
gave me presents. I asked him if he was married and if I would have a
mother but he said no. He adopted me in Russia in July 1998. After
that we left Russia and traveled to his house outside of Pittsburgh.
The abuse started the night I got there.
Matthew didn�t have a bedroom for me. He made me sleep in his bed from
the very beginning. He molested me all the time. He made me dress up
in adult�s clothes and even pretended to marry me. Sometimes he kept
me chained in the basement. Because he didn�t want me to grow up, he
only let me eat a little bit of food -- plain pasta, raw vegetables, no
meat. Five years after I went to live with him I had only gained a
little bit of weight. When I was rescued I was 10 years old but I only
wore a size 6X.
Matthew let me go to school and sometimes play with friends. But he
told me if I ever told anyone what was happening that something bad
would happen to me. Even though I was the size of a five year old when
I was ten, no one at my school ever said anything to anyone. No one from
the adoption agency ever came to check on me to make sure I was OK. I
never told anyone about the abuse because I was afraid and I thought no
one cared.
A lot of people ask me how any could let a pedophile adopt a little
girl. I didn�t know very much about my adoption until my lawyer
investigated everything. Now I know there were three adoption agencies
involved in my adoption by Matthew. The first was Families Thru
International Adoption in Indiana. I think Matthew found them on the
Internet. He went to an office they had in New Jersey. The state of
New Jersey found out that they were operating without a license and
closed them down. The same people who worked for that agency just
started a new agency in the same office in New Jersey that they called
Reaching Out Thru International Adoption.
The two agencies are fighting over who was really responsible for
Matthew adopting me. But the name of Families Thru International
Adoption is on the home study, the immigration paperwork and the
Russian government documents. I think Matthew also paid Families Thru
International Adoption. Reaching Out Thru International Adoption was
really just the same agency and the same people with a different name.
A third agency did Matthew�s home study to adopt me. They were in
Pittsburgh and were called the Family Health Council. But they just
changed their name too, to Adagio Health.
I found out after I was safe that none of these agencies asked Matthew
many questions. They never really checked him out. They showed him
pictures of me, probably on the Internet, before he had a home study
to adopt me. In some of the pictures they showed him of me from the
orphanage I was naked. He told them he was divorced and had a daughter
that he wasn�t close to. I found out later that the reason his daughter
didn�t talk to him is that he molested her too. While I lived with
Matthew no one from any of the adoption agencies ever came to check on
me even though the Russian government requires it. Since my story came
out we found out that two other kids -- a boy from Romania and a girl
from Russia -- were adopted by pedophiles too. Just so you�ll know,
fourteen other Russian kids have actually been murdered by their
adoptive parents in America. I�m sure there are other kids in trouble.
But no one seems to care about any of this. When I told my story in
public for the first time all the adoption agencies, not just Matthew�s
tried to cover up my story.
I lived with Matthew for five years. The whole time he starved and
molested me. The whole time he took a lot of pictures of me. I didn�t
know until later that he was putting my pictures on the Internet to
trade and maybe sell to other pedophiles. I was rescued when the FBI
discovered that Matthew had a lot of child pornography on his computer.
They came to raid his house. They didn�t know I would be there.
When the FBI arrested Matthew I was taken to the hospital, examined
and then put in foster care. My foster mother was Faith Allen. She
understood what I was going through because she was sexually abused
when she was little. She was a foster child in Georgia when she was
growing up. As soon as I went to live with her I felt safe. She
adopted me on May 14, 2004.
Matthew was prosecuted by the US Attorney�s office in Pittsburgh and
on September 25, 2003 he was convicted on child pornography charges
for all the pictures he had on his computer. He was only sentenced to
fifteen years in prison for that. I was afraid he would get out of jail
too soon. He was convicted again in Pennsylvania state court on
August 23, 2005 of eleven criminal acts for some of the things he did to
me. He was sentenced last November to 35 years in prison. I was
really upset that he didn�t receive a harder sentence. I was even more
upset that he was sent to a hospital in Massachusetts so he could be
rehabilitated. A person like Matthew can never be rehabilitated. Plus
in this hospital prison he has free health care, free mental health
services and he can read magazines, play ping-pong and have hobbies. No
one cared about rehabilitating me. I just lost my Medicaid and my mom
has to work double hard to pay for the things I need while Matthew lays
around the hospital playing games.
I was really mad that Matthew didn�t get harder sentences and that he
went to an easy prison. But I got much more upset when I found out
about the pictures of me that he put on the Internet. I had no idea he
had done that. When I found out about it I asked our lawyer to get them
back. He told me we couldn�t do that. Then I found out that they would
be there forever. That�s when I got mad and decided to go public with
my story.
Usually, when a kid is hurt and the abuser goes to prison, the abuse is
over. But because Matthew put my pictures on the Internet the abuse is
still going on. Anyone can see them. People are still downloading
them -- we get notices from the FBI every time someone is arrested for
it. I want every single one of them to go to jail and really be
punished. But that�s a problem too.
I found out last summer that if someone downloads a song off the Internet
the penalty is three times worse than if someone downs child
pornography. I couldn�t believe it! How can this be? That�s when I
decided that we had to change the laws about downloading child porn.
Senator Kerry and Senator Isakson and Congressman Gingery and Congressman
Tierney introduced bills in Congress that make the penalty the same as
downloading songs. That was a few months ago. There hasn�t been a vote
on it. I want every single member of Congress to sponsor these bills and
I want the Congress to pass them right away.
There are a lot of cases of people who downloaded my pictures and I want
every single one of them to be punished as much as possible. There might
be more pictures of me on the Internet than any other real child. The
police told my lawyer that a lot of child pornographers -- more than
half even -- have my picture on their computers. And there are a lot
of other kids like me too. The people who are doing this should be
afraid. We know who they are. A lot of the people downloading these
pictures are professionals. They are doctors and teachers and ministers.
We�re going to put THEIR pictures on the Internet and tell people what
they are doing. People stopped downloading songs when they found out
they could be sued. We�re going to sue these guys too -- every single
one we find out about. I want to tell them, "You�re not doing this in
secret anymore. Everyone can find out who you are!
I�m more upset about the pictures on the Internet than I am about what
Matthew did to me physically. A lot of people are surprised that I
wanted to go public with my story. But I�ve been on the Internet since
I was five years old. Going on a television show wasn�t going to hurt
me. I did it because I didn�t think anyone was doing enough about the
things that happened to me and to a lot of other kids. Talking to
John Quinones and Nancy Grace has helped me. They were my champions. I
feel in charge of my story because of them. I know they will help me to
help other kids like me. People need to know about this stuff. The
adults who let this happen have just tried to cover it up.
You have to do something about the Internet. Matthew found the adoption
agency on the Internet. They let him look at my pictures from Russia on
the Internet even though they didn�t really know anything about him.
Other kids have been adopted by pedophiles the same way. Matthew put my
pictures on the Internet after he got me. People are still downloading
them even though he has been in prison for two years. We don�t even
know whether he still makes money for them even though he�s in jail.
Even now that I�m safe the Internet is still a dangerous place for me
to go. The police detective who found Matthew�s house for the FBI said
I should never go to chat rooms even for fun things because they almost
always have predators.
Ten years ago I was a scared little girl in a Russian orphanage. For
five years I was held hostage by a monster. But in the last two years a
lot of amazing things have happened. John Quinones and Nancy listened
to me and told my story to the whole world. I called my Congressman,
Dr. Gingery, who didn�t even know me. He introduced a bill in Congress
right away to help me and other kids like me. Because of all these
things, I believe I can do something for other kids so they don�t have
to go through what I did.
Some people say we can�t control what�s on the Internet but that�s
ridiculous. If we can put a man on the moon, we can make the Internet
safe for kids. That�s just common sense. I�m going to work hard to
protect other kids and make sure people who hurt them are punished. I
hope you will help me. You can start by passing Masha�s Law right
away! That would be a good start!
Witness contact information:
James Marsh, Esquire
Marsh, Menken and Weingarden, PLLC
81 Main Street
Suite 305
White Plains, NY 10606
914.686.4456
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much, Masha, for your testimony.
At this time, I will recognize Ms. Grace for her 5-minute
opening statement.
Ms. Grace. Thank you.
After growing up in a loving home where there was nothing the
eye could see except soybean fields and pine trees, I suddenly
learned about a whole other world, a world I had never known
anything about, after the murder of my college sweetheart just
before our wedding, my fianc�. In deep grief, I answered the
call not just to be a crime victim, but to fight violent crime.
I applied, entered, and graduated from law school and had the
opportunity to fight violent crime over 10 years in inner city
Atlanta. I learned about a world I never knew existed. I
learned there were people who do not follow the rules as we know
them. During that time, I often represented the single most
innocent segment of America, its children.
I learned in court that children speak a language all their
own. Prosecutors and social workers are very hard-pressed to
understand it sometimes. Once I broke that barrier, I was
pained to learn the suffering of our children. No, not children
far, far away in some other country, where we can go to bed at
night and put our head on the pillow and sleep, and think no, no,
not here. Not here in America. They are here in our country,
in our States, on this very block. Their suffering knows no
barrier, white, black, good students, bad students, the
well-to-do, the poor.
I can�t begin to tell you what I saw with my own two eyes. How
many children ranging from infants to toddlers, elementary
schoolers, beaten, raped, used, covered in cigarette burns,
sometimes starved, left alone. Child by child, case by case,
jury by jury, I tried so hard to make a difference so that one
day these children would know when they grow up that someone had
fought for them when they were too powerless to struggle.
As the years went on, I began to realize that I was simply
putting a band-aid on a mortal wound. That while I could detect,
apprehend, and punish child predators, I had no way of stopping
future predators. What could be done, I wondered, besides
taking the individual offender off the street. I didn�t know
the answer, so I, like you, just struggled every day and wrestled.
My life path landed me at Court TV and CNN�s Headline News, and I
have the opportunity to continue this battle in another forum. It
is there at Headline News I learned of Masha. When I approached
Headline executives, we joined together to tell the world her
story. Together, we join forces today to ask you for our voices
to be heard.
All the statistics that you have heard became real for me when I
met this girl, this little girl, a tiny girl with a big, big
voice. As you know, her case highlights so many grievous
failings of our system, from illegal foreign adoption, what can
go so horribly wrong, to undetected full-blown child molestation
that went undetected by teachers, friends, neighbors from age 5
to age 10. Most of us have memories of birthday cakes, of
Christmas trees, of dinner around the table when your parents
come home from work with your brother and your sister. Not
her. Her memories are fear and pain and sexual exploitation at
the hands of a man we now know to be a virtual clearinghouse for
the most horrific child pornography I have ever laid my eyes on.
In addition to the outright abuse he heaped on his own child,
dozens and dozens, hundreds of photos of this girl will be
forever on the Internet. Did you hear her say, I asked my
lawyer could he get them back? Nothing she said hurt me so much
as that, that innocence of a child believing she could take it
all back and it would be okay.
Now, technology has made it so easy for these twisted
perpetrators to not only fill their appetite for our children,
but allow them a window back into the child�s home, every home
in America where a child is sleeping, is playing, is setting the
dinner table tonight, doing their homework. In addition, the
so-called Super Highway is just that. It is just a pit stop for
predators to gather, to share stories, share their illegal
photos, and pass on tips to each other, and they do, to how
better meet, seduce, have sex with, and sometimes kidnap our
children.
This child, a little girl, has been so very brave. A staggering
majority of little children, child molestation victims, never
speak out. They never make a peep. Often, they can�t. They go
on living their lives in quiet desperation with the albatross
hanging around their neck of pain and helplessness like no
other. Not only has this child come forward and spoken out, she
has made her way here to our Nation�s capital. How many of us
dreamed of being here one day to make a difference?
As you all know, it is written in the oldest book of all, "A
little child shall lead us," and so she has. She has displayed
more courage in her short life than many of us will in a
lifetime. I am here today before you, humble, on behalf of
every child victim I ever knew, every child victim I never met,
for those who are too young or weak or innocent or simply afraid
to speak out, to ask you, sirs and madams, for your help in
passing legislation, forcing it through, that will stop child
sex predators.
I am so proud to be in this room today that you may often take
for granted. My prayer is that you will use your power to
protect the weakest among us.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Nancy Grace follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nancy Grace, CNN Nancy Grace
After growing up in a loving home, where there was nothing but soybean
fields and tall pine trees as far as the eye could see, I suddenly
learned about a whole other world. Suddenly and without warning, I
became a victim of violent crime when my fianc�, my college sweetheart
was murdered shortly before our wedding. In deep grief, I answered the
call not to simply be a victim of violent crime, but to fight it. In
that vein, I applied, entered, and graduated from law school and then,
had the opportunity to fight violent crime for over ten years in the
courtrooms of inner-city Atlanta. During that time, I learned about a
world I had never before known existed. A world where rules, as we know
them, do not apply--where those more powerful or cunning prey on others
that are weaker or simply more innocent than themselves. During that
time, I often represented the single most innocent segment of American
life, specifically, children.
I learned in court that children speak a language of their own that
prosecutors and social workers are hard pressed to understand. Once I
broke that barrier, I was pained to learn the suffering of children--
not far, far away in another country so we could say "No, no-never here
in America!" and put our head to our pillow at night to sleep easy, but
here, in this country, in this region, in this state".on this street.
Their suffering knows no barrier, white, black, good students, bad
students, the well-to-do, the poor.
I can not begin to tell you what I saw with my own two eyes. How many
children did I see? Ranging from infants to toddlers to elementary
schoolers beaten horribly, raped, used, covered in cigarette burns,
sometimes starved, left alone. Child by child, case by case, jury by
jury, I tried so very, very hard to make a difference in these
particular children�s lives--so that one day they would know when they
grew up, that someone had cared, someone had fought for them when they
were to young and innocent, too powerless to fight back.
As the years went on, I began to realize that I was simply putting a
Band-Aid on a mortal wound-- that while I could detect, apprehend, and
punish child predators, I had no way of stopping future predators.
What could be done, I wondered, besides taking that individual offender
off the street after-the-fact? I didn�t know the answer--so I just kept
on and on and on.
My life-path landed me at Court TV and at CNN�s Headline News, where I
have the opportunity to continue my battle in another forum. And it is
there, at Headline News, I first learned of Masha. When I told
Headline News executives of her story, the call to try and DO SOMETHING
was heard. Together, we join forces in asking you for her, for our
voices to be heard.
The threat of internet child predators is like no other. Some studies
put numbers of child internet victims at one in five young internet
users. (Youth Internet Safety Survey, 2001). When asked, many of the
children stated the solicitation made them feel extremely upset or
afraid. Ninety-seven percent of the solicitors were strangers. (Id.)
Shockingly, seventy percent of these unwanted solicitations happened
when the child was using a computer in their own home.
These statistics became real to me the evening I met Masha, a tiny little
girl who now, has a big, big voice. As you know, her case highlights so
many grievous failings of the legal system, ranging from illegal foreign
adoptions and what can go so horribly wrong, to undetected full-blown
child molestation that went undetected by teachers, friends, and
neighbors from Masha�s age five to age ten. Most of us have memories of
birthday cakes, Christmas trees. School bus rides and dinners around the
family table each night. Not Masha. Her early childhood memories are
those of fear, pain, and sexual exploitation at the hands of a man we
now know to be virtual clearing house for internet child pornography.
In addition to the outright abuse he heaped on his own adopted child for
years, dozens and dozens of photos of her in pornographic poses remain
forever in cyberspace, traded like baseball cards amongst child
predators. It is horrific. It is wrong.
And now, technology has made it so easy for these twisted perpetrators
to not only fuel their own sick appetites for our children through
internet child pornography, but to allow them a window into every home
in America where a child is sleeping, playing, setting the table, doing
their homework. In addition, the so-called Super Highway is just that,
and serves as a pit stop for predators to gather, share stories, share
their illegal photos, and pass on tips to each other as to how better
to meet little children, then seduce, and even abduct them.
This child, Masha, a little girl for Pete�s sake, has been so very,
very brave. A staggering majority of child molestation victims never
speak out, never make a peep, and go on living their lives in quiet
desperation, never really being free of the albatross hanging around
their necks, a hidden pain and feeling of helplessness like no other.
Not openly has this child come forward and spoken out, she has made her
way here, to our nation�s capital, to ask for you to act.
As it was written "a little child shall lead us," and so she has. She
has displayed more courage in her short life than many will show in a
lifetime. I am here today on behalf of every child victim I ever
represented, of every child victim I never met, on behalf of those who
are too weak or young or innocent or simply too afraid to speak out,
to ask you for your help in passing legislation that will not only
crack down upon, but help stop ongoing child sex predators.
I am so proud to be here today. My prayer is that you will use your
power to protect the weakest among us.
Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Ms. Grace. Your testimony was
certainly compelling, both of you. You almost don�t know where
to really start. When you think about this subject matter, it
shows, I think, something systemically wrong with our society
because I have been told that in the U.S. this problem is so
pervasive that it is just mind-boggling for everyone. We have
heard testimony about Masha and what has happened to her, and
earlier today I found out that there have been 14 adopted
children from Russia that have been murdered by their American
adoptive parents. We can�t fathom why adoptions like this have
been allowed to happen, why someone like Mancuso would be able
to adopt a child from anywhere.
So one of the questions that I would like to get into to start
off with relates to this adoption issue. It is my
understanding, and Mr. Marsh, you may be able to help in this,
or Ms. Flatley or maybe Ms. Grace, that the name of the
adoption agency was the Families for International Adoption,
is that the name of the agency?
Ms. Flatley. Families Through International Adoption is the
agency of record.
Mr. Whitfield. Families Through International Adoption. And
Mr. Mancuso initially went to New Jersey, is that correct?
Ms. Flatley. An office that they had in Cherry Hill, New
Jersey, correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And was that a licensed agency in New Jersey?
Ms. Flatley. It was not, and the State of New Jersey
ultimately suspended their operations.
Mr. Whitfield. And when did he actually adopt Masha, was it
in 1998?
Ms. Flatley. The adoption was finalized, I believe, in July of
1998.
Mr. Whitfield. And he went to Russia to pick her up, is that
correct?
Ms. Flatley. Correct.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, Masha, when you first met Mr. Mancuso in
Russia, how was it explained to you about who he was or what he
was or why he was there?
Ms. Allen. I knew that he was going to adopt me because I
found out, but they didn�t really tell me a lot about him, so
yeah.
Mr. Whitfield. So the people at the orphanage in Russia told
you that you would be adopted by an American?
Ms. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield. And I suppose at that time you were maybe
excited about it, because from what you said about the orphanage,
that was a rather unpleasant experience also. Is that correct?
Ms. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield. And how many times did you meet Mr. Mancuso and
spend time with him before you actually went to America with
him?
Ms. Allen. About two or three times.
Mr. Whitfield. Two or three times?
Ms. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield. And how long did you stay with him?
Ms. Allen. He came like for the day to visit for a couple
hours sometimes.
Mr. Whitfield. How did you feel about it? Did you want to go
to America? Did you feel like that was in your best interest
at that time?
Ms. Allen. Well, he seemed nice. He would bring me gifts.
Mr. Whitfield. And you knew that he was not married, correct?
Ms. Allen. Yeah, he told me he wasn�t.
Mr. Whitfield. I guess that was maybe disappointing for you,
but at the same time, it was an opportunity for maybe a new life
for you. Would that be accurate?
Ms. Allen. Yeah.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, when you arrived at Mr. Mancuso�s home, it
is my understanding that there was only one bedroom. Is that
right?
Ms. Allen. Yeah, he only had one bedroom.
Mr. Whitfield. And that is when he told you that you would
actually be sleeping with him?
Ms. Allen. Yeah, he told me that because we got in late, and
so we just went to bed like first thing.
Mr. Whitfield. And what did you think about that?
Ms. Allen. I didn�t--
Mr. Whitfield. Of course, you were very young at the time,
weren�t you?
Ms. Allen. Yeah.
Mr. Whitfield. How old were you?
Ms. Allen. I was 5. At first I thought it might be normal,
because you know how some little kids sleep with their parents,
but then after the first night I figured out that there was
something wrong because he tried to touch me or something.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, I know this has been difficult for you,
but you did testify also that he actually kept you chained in
the basement or in a room or where?
Ms. Allen. In the basement.
Mr. Whitfield. How frequently were you chained in the
basement?
Ms. Allen. Maybe like once a month or something.
Mr. Whitfield. For how long?
Ms. Allen. A couple hours, or sometimes he would leave me down
there for a while.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, why would he do that?
Ms. Allen. I don�t know.
Mr. Whitfield. He would just take you downstairs and chain you?
Ms. Allen. Yeah, he would take my pictures and--
Mr. Whitfield. Were you nude?
Ms. Allen. Yes, I was.
Mr. Whitfield. And did he have you chained to a bed or to a
post or--
Ms. Allen. Yeah, it was a post. There were two of them.
Mr. Whitfield. Two posts?
Ms. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield. Your hands would be chained, or your legs?
Ms. Allen. Both.
Mr. Whitfield. Both?
Ms. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield. That went on for the entire period of time that
you lived with him?
Ms. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield. And did he ever tell you what he was going to do
with those pictures?
Ms. Allen. No, he just said he was keeping them. I don�t know.
Mr. Whitfield. So you had no idea that he was trading them over
the Internet--
Ms. Allen. No.
Mr. Whitfield. --all around the world?
Ms. Allen. At the time, I didn�t think that that was possible.
I didn�t know.
Mr. Whitfield. Was there ever a time that you were scared of him,
that he might injure you physically or try to harm you?
Ms. Allen. I was always scared of him, but I don�t really think
that he--like he never hit me a lot or anything, but I was always
scared of him.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, he did tell you frequently that if you told
anyone that you might be harmed. Is that correct?
Ms. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield. Did you ever think about telling someone else?
I often wonder when a child is experiencing the type of things
that you are experiencing, and we talked to Justin Berry about
this as well. Can you explain to us how you felt and why you
didn�t tell anybody?
Ms. Allen. I was afraid because I thought he would do something
to me, and I didn�t know what would happen. At school, they
would never talk about any of this kind of stuff, so I was really
confused, too.
Mr. Whitfield. Yes, yes. Mr. Marsh or Ms. Flatley, how is it
that an adoption agency--do you have any idea how much money
Mr. Mancuso paid this adoption agency?
Ms. Flatley. We are informed by a reliable source that it was
probably in the neighborhood of about $15,000, which is
actually somewhat less than we might have expected.
Mr. Whitfield. And from the facts of this case and from the
information that you have seen on applications or whatever, is
there any reason that you can fathom why an adoption agency
would approve a gentleman like Mancuso to adopt any child?
Ms. Flatley. I think the question, Mr. Chairman, is more does
an adoption agency like this ever decline to place a child with
anyone. The adoption, as we have discussed, was exceptionally
unregulated. In fact, I wanted to share with Mr. Walden as an
aside that the two other children that we know of who were
adopted by pedophiles were adopted in Salem County, Oregon. The
perpetrators were prosecuted by the same State prosecutor, who
did a wonderful job, by the way. So one of the underlying
issues here, and the thing that I think was of greatest concern
to us is that when we began to investigate the circumstances
around Masha�s adoption, and we certainly believe that the
adoption agencies in this case might have been manipulated by
him, although it turns out not to have been the case, that they
have characterized on national television that the process that
went on in Masha�s adoption was actually typical.
Mr. Whitfield. Typical?
Ms. Flatley. It begs the question in our minds how many other
Masha�s are there out there. The fact is, no one knows. But
the fact is, we are quite certain that there are.
Mr. Marsh. We also, in looking into this, Mr. Chairman, believe
that the fragmentation in the adoption system worked to
Mr. Mancuso�s advantage. He was dealing with a well-regarded
agency in Pittsburgh to do the home study. He was dealing with
another agency headquartered out of State to do the adoption.
That agency was dealing with a facilitator in Russia to actually
find the child. The facilitator was dealing with a different
set of orphanages in Russia to identify and procure the child.
So based on the fragmentation in the system, he was able to
basically pick and choose the avenue by which he wanted to
adopt and I think this is definitely a factor that helped
facilitate.
Mr. Whitfield. Did you say a well-respected agency in
Pittsburgh did the home study?
Mr. Marsh. We initially thought that it would be an independent
social worker or someone very new that had signed off on the
home study, which really reads like a public relations
document. In fact, I wish we had a copy here today because it
is laughable. On the last page of the document, the writer
refers to Mr. Mancuso as being a highly moral individual and
an outstanding citizen. I am not mincing words here. It says
that, ironically and unbelievably. So we believe that it would
be a rookie social worker doing the report that he could have
conceivably paid off, and in fact, it was a well-respected
agency that--
Ms. Flatley. And Mr. Whitfield, if I may add, we also believe
that one of the reasons this happened so readily is the U.S.
State Department has effectively become a lobbying arm for the
adoption industry. We were quite disturbed to learn from the
Salem County, Oregon prosecutor�s office who prosecuted the
two other pedophiles who adopted children, one from Romania and
one from Russia, that the U.S. State Department, this past fall,
attempted to coerce him into deleting any references to adoption
from his press releases, and in fact, furnished him by e-mail
with a draft press release to substitute for the press release
that he had written. Now, it should be noted that he really
didn�t get the adoption connection at the time. It appeared a
coincidence to him. But to the extent that you and we have
been hampered in our efforts to institute greater and more
effective regulation of adoption, it is in large part because,
in fact, the U.S. government has conspired with the system to
remain unregulated.
Mr. Whitfield. So in that instance, it sounds like the State
Department was doing a cover-up as well as the adoption agency
wanted to cover up.
Ms. Flatley. Exactly. When Masha�s story went public on ABC
News Primetime Live in December, 3 weeks before Primetime�s
story aired, when the adoption agencies--not just the ones
involved, I should say, but all of the adoption agencies
involved in international adoption, discovered that Primetime
was doing a story on this, they inundated ABC News with over
3,000 e-mails attempting to coerce them into canceling the
story and/or censoring the story. So to the extent that we
have a culture here in this industry that is not about the
children, we have a more serious problem and the problem you
see in front of you today.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Chairman, just a point of order. Just for
the record, it is actually Marion County. It is the City of
Salem, but I know we may want to follow up just for our
record, but I appreciate the reference.
Ms. Flatley. Very good, thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time, I would recognize Mr. Stupak.
We have, unfortunately, 7 minutes to cast a vote, five votes.
So we are going to recess and we will be back at 5:00. I
apologize once again, and Mr. Stupak will be recognized.
Mr. Stupak. Before we leave, Mr. Marsh, can you give us that
document that you testified to where they described
Mr. Mancuso--
Mr. Marsh. Yes, we can.
Mr. Stupak. --so we can have it for the record to complete your
testimony.
Mr. Marsh. Absolutely.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Whitfield. I apologize. You have been very patient and at
this time, I am going to recognize Mr. Stupak for his line of
questioning, then I understand that some people on the first
panel, Ms. Grace in particular, have some time deadlines, so
I recognize Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Stupak. Well, thank you. Let me thank all the witnesses
for their testimony, especially Masha, for your testimony. I
think we should also acknowledge your mother, Faith Allen, who
is here with you, for her very important role that she plays in
your life.
Let me ask you, Masha, if I may, one question. What is most
important to you, and from your testimony, I think I can
understand it, but I would like you to explain it. Is it
getting your images off the Internet, is that the most important
thing to you?
Ms. Allen. Yeah, it is very important for me, but I understand
that it is very unlikely that they all will be taken off. The
thing that is most important to me right now is trying to help
other people and trying to get everyone aware of the topic.
Mr. Stupak. Okay.
Mr. Marsh, you are Masha�s attorney, and I know you are
contemplating a civil litigation against a number of parties
involved in the actual adoption. We have a book here, it is
titled "Beyond Tolerance: Child Pornography on the Internet" by
Philip Jenkins, in which he describes the great difficulty in
removing these images from the Internet. There are literally
thousands of collectors all over the world who have thousands of
images, some of them decades old. In fact, they call them the
classic collections, if I am correct. These people are
technologically very sophisticated and a click of the button can
give them a new location and a new life. So what can we in
Congress and law enforcement do to help remove these images?
Mr. Marsh. That is a very good question, Congressman.
The first thought that I had when Masha asked me that question
last summer as to whether or not we could remove her pictures
from the Internet was in the nature of copyright law, whether
or not we could gain any sort of legal control over them so that
we would have at least a remedy or a cause of action or some way
to assert a legal claim over the images themselves. I was quite
frankly--
Mr. Stupak. Would you have to cert that through the victim?
Mr. Marsh. Excuse me?
Mr. Stupak. The copyright.
Mr. Marsh. We were actually quite surprised to find that that
provision was already provided for in the criminal code--
Mr. Stupak. Sure.
Mr. Marsh. --and it involved what is the precursor to Masha�s
Law and had been on the book for 20 years. I was, quite
frankly, very shocked to find that our current code provides
for civil remedies for a violation of the criminal possession,
distribution, and creation provisions. Not surprisingly, I
guess, was that law had never been used in 20 years. There were
no reported decisions, and at the time we were developing a
strategy to deal with this, there did come a decision from the
Eastern District of Virginia which dealt with this law. It was
the first reported case, and that is when we contacted our
friends on the Hill about enhancing this.
Mr. Stupak. Sure.
Mr. Marsh. And giving the victims an actual cause of action so
that they can go in and assert a legal claim over these images.
Mr. Stupak. So I take it that Virginia court then upheld the
cause of action?
Mr. Marsh. The Virginia court did uphold the cause of action.
Mr. Stupak. For civil--
Mr. Marsh. For the civil--
Mr. Stupak. --remedies?
Mr. Marsh. --remedies, but it pointed out that due to a quirk
in the law, the law--and your question is very relevant here--
the law as written only allows a victim to file a claim when
they are age 18 or younger.
Mr. Stupak. Right.
Mr. Marsh. So once the victim hits age 19, they lose the cause
of action. It was just based on inartful drafting.
Mr. Stupak. But no matter when images may have been taken--
Mr. Marsh. Exactly.
Mr. Stupak. They may have been 12 years old at the time.
Mr. Marsh. So part of what we are doing with Masha�s Law is we
are removing that limitation. In terms of the--
Mr. Stupak. But if you file a claim--you are under 18, let us
say you have filed a claim that probably hasn�t been litigated,
and then as we talked about the classic collectors may produce
these images years later, would you be able to come back and
bring a claim?
Mr. Marsh. That is what Masha�s Law allows us to do. It
basically eliminates the cap of age 18, so if you discover that
somebody has downloaded the images when you are 20 or 30 or
40, you still have the cause of action to pursue them.
Mr. Stupak. So caps lifted, how about statute of limitations?
Mr. Marsh. The statute of limitations, because of the way the
law is structured, you can get current downloaders--
Mr. Stupak. Correct, okay.
Mr. Marsh. We are actually receiving now notices through the
victims of crime--
Mr. Stupak. So every download or every transmission of the
image should be a new cause of action?
Mr. Marsh. That is correct, and that is how it is worded, and
that is what the criminal law recognizes. In terms of the
international reach of the problem, I was, quite frankly,
shocked by a recent report by the International--it is basically
the equivalent of the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children--
Mr. Stupak. Right.
Mr. Marsh. Ninety-four countries have no laws regarding child
pornography at all.
Mr. Stupak. But still underneath this civil remedy, if you
will, that may be available, you still almost have to go at it
each image at a time.
Mr. Marsh. Absolutely, and that is what we are doing and that
is being facilitated for us by the Victims of Crime Act which
Congress passed 2 years ago. We are now receiving notices from
the FBI and from the U.S. Attorney�s Office regarding every
prosecution and every investigation involving Masha�s pictures.
So this really allows us, instead of being a needle in a
haystack, where do you start, how do you find these guys, how
do you find the perpetrators? We are actually, under the
Victims of Crime Act, receiving notices of individual cases, and
we are receiving dozens of those at a time of individuals who
have pled guilty or been convicted criminally of this crime
today, and then we can pursue civil remedies against each one of
them.
Mr. Stupak. Let me ask you this. Going back to Mr. Jenkins�
book, he states on page 215, let me just read this here. "In
spite of all the enforcement efforts of recent years, it is
still remarkably easy for any reasonably discreet person to
pursue this highly illegal conduct indefinitely, as long as
obvious traps are avoided. Law enforcement agencies and their
political masters have just had a very poor idea of the
organization and the mechanisms of child porn subculture, and
above all, of its critical institutions, such as news groups and
bulletin boards. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Marsh. Absolutely I agree with that.
Mr. Stupak. Is it because of lack of resources, technical
know-how?
Mr. Marsh. I was surprised, Congressman, and we are always on the
lookout technologically for Masha�s pictures, different means of
transmission, how are these pictures being distributed. I was
actually surprised that something called the UseNet--I don�t know
if you know what the UseNet is. I used it 15 years ago prior to
the Internet. The UseNet is still out there and being used to
transmit binary pictures of child pornography. Certainly, some
of the earliest FBI stings involved the UseNet. I thought it
had gone from the face of the Earth, but it is actively in place
out there.
What we are also seeing is that pedophile networks are using a
Napster-like technology to create basically parallel Internets
that only they have access to that are widely distributed,
widely diffuse. There is no central server, and images and
access to that basically underground Internet are strictly
controlled by masterminds in the business of child pornography.
Mr. Stupak. I was going to ask you this question, but let me go
to Ms. Grace, if I may.
As you know, it is a crime for anyone other than law enforcement
agencies to possess images of child sexual exploitation, so not
even news gathering organizations can view it. So the entire
field of knowledge, if you will, or knowing how horrible this
really is and how effectively or ineffectively the laws are
being enforced are really hidden. Do you think there is a need
to have some broader public knowledge of exactly what is going
on than there currently is?
Ms. Grace. Certainly, a broader public knowledge of what is
going on, but absolutely under no condition further
dissemination of child pornography and some misled attempt to
inform the public. And as to the earlier question is how do
you get these off the Internet? There is no way. They are
just like roaches, you can�t stop them. But the ones that you
can apprehend, they you can stop. And I feel that just like
the orphanage that sent her here, the adoption agency that
mishandled it to another one that did a fake home study, they
go off one title and spring up under another name. If they
could just be stopped, just like these--
Mr. Stupak. Sure.
Ms. Grace. Yes.
Mr. Stupak. Ms. Flatley, you were indicating a little bit about
--and I would like to hear your views a little bit more on this
adoption, because the way Masha has described the problems with
the due diligence done by the U.S. adoption agencies that
facilitated her adoption from a Russian orphanage, and by the
agency that did the home study, it is our understanding that
although Mr. Mancuso had a large house, he had no bedroom set
up for Masha?
Ms. Flatley. Correct.
Mr. Stupak. One would assume that when you are doing an adoption
home or foster home study, almost the first thing you do would
just look to see if the person is going to have their own room
, a place to sleep--
Ms. Flatley. Exactly.
Mr. Stupak. That the basic steps, it seems like even if they
were initially taken, there was no follow-up. I find it sort
of outrageous, you take a look at it, even the Humane Society
does follow-up on placement of dogs and cats and things like
that, but we don�t do it for children?
Ms. Flatley. The standards are quite a bit lower for home
studies for foreign adoptions than they are, for instance, for
adoptions from foster care. So one of the first exercises that
we went through when we obtained Mancuso�s home study, which we
did with some difficulty, was to compare his home study done in
Pennsylvania to the one that was done when Faith readopted Masha,
and they are like night and day. They have had to submit to all
kinds of invasive tests, there were home visits and so forth.
I think the thing that we found the most troubling about this
home study is that it is not clear from the language of the home
study that they ever visited Mancuso�s house even once.
Mr. Stupak. After the adoption?
Ms. Flatley. Before the adoption. But there is a very vivid
description in the home study, which I believe we are having
faxed to the committee right now--
Mr. Stupak. Okay.
Ms. Flatley. --that there was no room set up for the child,
that there was an extra room, but it was a mix and match of
furniture. Let us say for the sake of discussion that they might
have tried to play that off by saying well, he hadn�t gotten the
child yet and so therefore he wasn�t ready. Any reasonable
person might suggest that you would go back to make sure that he
had, especially because he was a single father.
Mr. Stupak. Well, international adoptions by U.S. child welfare
agencies, are there any legal oversights?
Ms. Flatley. There is not only no real oversight, this has been
a conspicuous exception to what is in every other respect in this
country a broad regulatory framework at the Federal and the
State level. The argument is often made by the industry to
foreclose more regulation, but adoption is a State law issue
and we can�t tell the States what to do. That will come as
quite a shock to the States in a number of other important
areas. More importantly, they extend that argument by saying in
the case of foreign adoption that we simply can�t dictate to the
foreign governments about what should happen. But that is in
two important ways. One is that the Russian government
requires post-placement supervision, which almost never happens,
or at least doesn�t happen enough, but the other issue is that
we have had a number of foreign countries who have closed down
international adoption to the United States because we
apparently suspend American child welfare law when these
children enter the country.
So we have some real serious issues in terms of the regulatory
framework.
Mr. Stupak. Well, when these children enter the country, do
they come in as U.S. citizens then if the adoption is--
Ms. Flatley. They do and they don�t. There has been a change
recently that Congress passed a couple of years ago, the Child
Citizenship Act, which now facilitates citizenship for kids
when they are adopted abroad before they enter the United
States as if they were born to their families, but that was
probably not in effect when Masha was adopted. But more
importantly, so what? What difference does it make, if they
are here as illegal aliens or they are adopted by American
families or if they are here to visit people, the child welfare
system in this country would shut down if we said that families
who had children had any kind of right to privacy when there was
an issue of the best interest of the child. And so the agency--
and I have interviewed the agency at some length about why there
wasn�t supervision, and they argued to me that, well, Mancuso
didn�t want to cooperate with the Russian standards. Well, I
believe the Russian standards are the standards we should have,
and in fact, that the Russian standards for post-placement
supervision are not only quite a bit stronger than ours, we
don�t have any that are standard.
The other issue is that adoption is largely inherently
interstate commerce. Every single international adoption is--I
believe that the Energy and Commerce Committee should have
jurisdiction over this issue. I have said that for years. But
ultimately, if we are allowing children to enter this country
with people that we have not done adequate due diligence on, and
then on top of it we are going to argue that we have no moral or
legal authority to check on those children once they get here,
we are out of our minds.
Mr. Stupak. Well, I believe the chairman and everyone on this
committee would agree that the Energy and Commerce Committee
certainly has jurisdiction over this. This subcommittee though,
Oversight and Investigations, we do not write legislation. We
can only make recommendations, but we are very interested and we
will make sure we get those recommendations to the proper people.
Ms. Flatley. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you. Thank you all.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Stupak. Mr. Walden is going to
be recognized next, but I understand, Ms. Grace, that you have
another commitment and we need to dismiss you. But before you
go, Mr. Walden, do you have a specific question for her?
Mr. Walden. I just have one quick question for Ms. Grace, and
first of all, I appreciate all the work you have done in this
area, both as, I guess, a prosecutor, but also on the air, I think
you have gotten the message out to Americans on the kind of problem
that we have uncovered here and that you have continued to do work
on.
I guess this morning you were on Good Morning America and had some
ideas about how we might be able to combat the proliferation of--
Ms. Grace. Yes, I did.
Mr. Walden. Can you share those ideas?
Ms. Grace. Yes, and I consider them to be more innovative than
simply increasing the time that felons would do behind bars,
which I coincidentally am all for.
First of all, I feel that parents don�t know what their
children are doing online. It is very obvious. I mean, if you
look at Columbine, they were cooking up bombs in the garage and
they didn�t know that, much less where they go online. I think
that it would be a fantastic idea, and so easily done, just as
you get a readout of what calls you have made on your cell phone
every month to pay another dollar to AOL and they could for $6 a
month to get a readout of where your computer has gone. Also,
when you buy a beer, not that any of you esteemed drink or
imbibe, but when other people buy a beer, look at it. There is
a warning there, and I don�t understand why on laptops and
desktops all over the country there is not a warning for adults
to see. Also, I don�t know how many of you have a TiVo, but to
get into the thing, you have to go through a tutorial. And I
don�t understand why every time you buy a computer, a new
computer, which can be controlled through interstate commerce,
there is not a warning. They are on microwaves, they are on
beer bottles, they are on cigarettes, and none as to the dangers
of the Internet. We do public warnings all the time. I have a
very extensive list of ideas which I will be happy to submit to
the committee.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. That would be most helpful. I
appreciate it. I realize you do have to leave. I have got
questions for the other panelists.
Ms. Grace. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. Thanks again for your good work.
Ms. Grace. And again, thank you for having me.
Mr. Whitfield. Chairman Barton, Ms. Grace is going to be
dismissed. She has--
Chairman Barton. I don�t have any questions for this panel,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Ms. Grace, thank you very much for being with us,
and thank you for the leadership that you are providing on this
issue.
Ms. Grace. We are focusing on you. This committee is so kind
to hear us tonight on our live show and taking calls from
America, so I hope you listen.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay.
Ms. Grace. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
Mr. Walden, you want to continue?
Mr. Walden. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Flatley, if I might ask you just a follow-up question. I may
have missed this in the intervening period. What has become of
the agency in Pennsylvania that did the home study review that
said that her adoptive father was this marvelous moral character?
Ms. Flatley. As is the case with the other two social service
agencies involved in this, they continued to operate and thrive.
I believe, although I am not positive, that the agency in
Pennsylvania may receive actually some Federal funding because
they do quite a bit of family planning. They are all in
business. They are all considered leaders--
Mr. Walden. Did they suffer any penalty?
Ms. Flatley. Absolutely none. This is the first public
discussion. Today is the first day that their identities have
been revealed publicly.
Mr. Walden. What is the name of the agency that did the
reviews?
Ms. Flatley. The agency in Pittsburgh was called the Family
Health Council at the time that the home study was done. They
recently changed their name to Adagio Healthcare. They are
based in Pittsburgh.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Marsh, are you Masha�s legal counsel?
Mr. Marsh. Yes, I am.
Mr. Walden. Is there not some grounds here for litigation?
Mr. Marsh. There are plenty of grounds, and to be quite frank
with you, we have been so busy in the 6 months since I met
Masha trying to figure out exactly what happened, who were the
players, how it happened, we have a fraction of the
documentation that we believe is out there. Because of the
confidentiality concerns, we are only able to get it through a
third party, not through the agencies themselves. Despite
waivers and requests and letters, they are hiding behind
Mr. Mancuso�s right to privacy and refusing to release those
documents to us so we can gain a fuller understanding of exactly
why this happened. We know why it happened, excuse me, we don�t
know exactly how it happened and we are going to get to the
bottom.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Chairman, that almost sounds like something we
ought to be looking at and perhaps use our subpoena power to
get there.
Ms. Flatley. Well, if I may add that, when James and I because
involved in this case, we had a sense of what had happened, but
even we, I don�t think, under any circumstances anticipated the
alacrity with which this adoption took place. And we have
reached out to all the social service agencies involved because
we initially believed that they, in fact, had been somehow
manipulated and would want to join with us in helping to close
these loopholes and do a better job.
As I said before, not only did they argue that this adoption was
routine and this is how they always did business, but in fact,
when we began a discussion with them to obtain voluntarily from
them a copy of Masha�s home study, they asserted that Mancuso
had a right to privacy and they could not disclose it. We
ended up getting it from another source in November, but to
your point, I think that what has been the most troubling about
this is that the more we have investigated it, the more we
realize we needed to know, so in fact, this case is much more
complicated than we originally thought it would be.
Mr. Walden. And I appreciate the work you are doing, and just
for the record, I am a big fan of adoption. My two brothers are
adopted, my niece is adopted.
Ms. Flatley. Adoption is what saved this child, and I just want
to say that at many points in this discussion, James and I and
Masha and Faith have been accused of trying to somehow undermine
adoption, stop adoption, being anti-adoption. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Let it be clear that adoption saved
this child�s life. Faith adopted her.
Mr. Walden. No, I--
Ms. Flatley. And that Masha felt so strongly about the power of
adoption in her own life that she actually wrote a letter to
President Putin which was hand-delivered to him several months
ago. So I think we all want to say very clearly that the only
good adoption is a safe adoption--
Mr. Walden. Right.
Ms. Flatley. --and it makes it safer for all consumers of
adoption services to regulate adoption effectively and
consistently.
Mr. Walden. Masha, if I could, first of all, thank you for
speaking out. I can�t begin to imagine the pain and suffering
and sorrow you have gone through, but what you are doing today
obviously will have enormous benefit for others.
When Justin Berry was in that very seat not long ago, testifying
about the problems he encounters on the Internet and all, I
asked him a similar question, one I want to ask you. As a
child, what advice do you have for parents and adults and for
other children who might be in your situation, who might be
watching this sometime and say I know somebody who may be in
this situation. How could your friends have helped? What
should we be looking for? What would you tell other kids who might
find themselves in a situation similar to that which you were in?
Ms. Allen. I would just say that even if you are threatened, you
should speak out because that is the only way that it is going to
stop.
Mr. Walden. Who do you speak out to, your teacher, your pastor,
your--
Ms. Allen. Whoever you trust more, because it is easier to talk
to someone you trust.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Ms. Allen. And I think parents should be watching out for their
kids, too, like and doctors should be checking to see if the kids
have any problems or eating disorders or anything like that.
Mr. Walden. Did you get any medical treatment in those years when
you were--
Ms. Allen. Yes, I did.
Mr. Walden. And the medical providers didn�t question your
health status?
Ms. Allen. No.
Mr. Marsh. She did receive, if not routine, sporadic
healthcare. We did get a copy of her medical records, and
ironically, in the context of all of this, we got the school
records. It is obvious to me that Mancuso was a very savvy
operator. His initial contact with the school was with the
school nurse, who he immediately befriended, knowing that as a
medical professional on site she would be a natural conduit for
any sort of abnormalities or information. Although it is hard
to believe that the growth charts that are in the school records
show Masha at the 10th percentile in terms of weight, and she
was quite a bit taller, so that even suppressed her more,
because her height was normal but her weight was severely
underweight. So consistently throughout her school record, we
have--and we have a doctor here--a growth chart which indicates
a child year after year after year, growing--
Mr. Walden. Did they never ask?
Mr. Marsh. They never asked, according to Masha. No one ever
asked anything about her. Nobody ever asked anything about her
time in Russia, why she came to America. It was as if the person
is in front of your house screaming rape and no one is hearing,
seeing, or realizing what is going on right under their nose.
And so for us, at least, the growth charts were a chilling
indication that something was very wrong with this child and
someone should at least have made an inquiry about her health
status, given that she was so underweight.
Ms. Flatley. If I could just add, I mean, having interviewed a
lot of people that were involved in life, what is shocking to me
as a parent myself--
Mr. Walden. Nobody noticed.
Ms. Flatley. --is that her teachers never said anything,
despite the fact that she looked emaciated. The pictures of
Masha when she was rescued, she literally looks like a
concentration camp survivor. The social service agencies
involved, there were three, none of them checked on this child.
The neighbors never said a word, obviously. It is somewhat
mystifying to me that her physician did not somehow want to
explore even perhaps a neglect allegation because she wasn�t
growing.
So it is one of the issues in Masha�s case that is particularly
troubling is that this child was failed by literally everyone
that could have protected her.
Mr. Walden. Well, Masha, thank you, and thanks to all of you
on our panel, and to my colleague for the work that you are
doing to bring light to this problem. Hopefully we can bring a
little legislation to this problem, get a handle on it.
So thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Walden.
Mr. Chairman, Chairman Barton, do you have any questions for
this panel?
Chairman Barton. Not for this panel. I am here to support
this panel, and I have questions for the second panel.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
Well, I want to thank those of you on the first panel. Masha,
we once again appreciate very much your coming forward. You
have been immensely helpful. Mr. Marsh, Ms. Flatley, we will
continue to stay in touch with you. Ms. Allen, best wishes to
you, and Congressman Gingrey, thank you very much for being with
us today, and for your legislation as well. This panel is
dismissed.
Mr. Marsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. At this time, we will call the second panel. First,
we have the Honorable Alice Fisher, who is Assistant Attorney
General for the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.; and Mr. Raul Roldan, who is the Section Chief
for the Cyber Crimes Section of the Cyber Division, FBI, U.S.
Department of Justice. And we have Mr. Arnold Bell, who is the
Unit Chief, Innocent Images Unit, FBI, U.S. Department of
Justice. They are also joined by Mr. Swecker from the FBI.
As you all--I want to apologize to this panel as well. I know
when you arrived at 2:00 you thought you would probably be home
by 6:00, but we had a lot of interruptions, and thank you for
your patience. We appreciate your being here.
You are aware that the committee is holding an investigative
hearing, and when doing so, we have the practice of taking
testimony under oath. Do any of you have any objection to
testifying under oath? And of course, under the rules of the
House and rules of the committee, you are entitled to be advised
by counsel. Probably all of you are lawyers, so I am assuming
you don�t need to be advised by counsel.
So if you would please stand and raise your right hand, I would
like to swear you in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. You are now under oath. Ms. Fisher,
you may give your 5-minute opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF ALICE S. FISHER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL
DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND RAUL ROLDAN, SECTION
CHIEF, CYBER CRIME SECTION OF THE CYBER DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ms. Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Stupak, Chairman
Barton, and other distinguished members of this committee. Thank you
for inviting me here to testify before you today about the Department of
Justice�s efforts to protect children from sexual exploitation on the
Internet, and thank you for having these hearings that shine light on
this horrific growing problem.
The anonymity of the Internet has provided opportunities for
criminals who prey upon our children. Our children face a
threat from molesters who troll the Internet, looking for
young victims so they can lure and molest. Other criminal
elements sponsor sex tourism aimed at children and facilitated
by the Internet, but the most pervasive crime against children
perpetrated on the Internet is child pornography. The mere
thought, yet alone depictions, of children, some still in their
infancy, being subjected to such degrading treatment turns the
stomach and boggles the mind. Despicable, unconscionable,
intolerable, sickening. These are words you have used over the
past weeks describing this problem, and I could not agree with
you more.
In my role at the Department of Justice and as a mother of two
boys, 4 and 8, I would like to see all child predators put
behind bars. I am committed to doing what we can for this
problem.
You have heard testimony about the scope of the problem, which
is enormous, but make no mistake, the investigation and
prosecution of those who generate, traffic in, and possess
child pornography is a top priority of the Department of
Justice. The Attorney General has reiterated this time and
again, and he is personally committed.
The Department of Justice prosecutes these cases in all 94 U.S.
Attorney�s Offices across the Nation. The Criminal Division
also through its Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
coordinates nationwide investigations, takedowns, and also
prosecutes these cases. These career prosecutors, as well as
State prosecutors, as well as Federal and State law enforcement,
I thank them all for their service, for they have one of the
hardest jobs. I can tell you that I am still haunted today by
some of the materials which I have reviewed, but these
professionals who work day in and day out to protect our children
are exposed to and are forced to review these horrific materials,
photos, videos, every day, and then come home to their own
children. These professionals come to work every day because
they are committed to making a difference and protecting our
children, and stopping the pain that we have heard so much about
over these weeks at your hearings.
The Department has made great progress, and I want to take a
moment just to give you a few examples of some of our recent
prosecutions and takedowns. First, an example of trading in
child pornography. The Internet, as you know, has allowed
predators who create and traffic in child pornography to create
a virtual community where they can share and trade in these
disgusting images. One such community, a chat room that went by
the name "Kiddypics & Kiddyvids" allegedly included among the
images, a live streaming video of one member sexually molesting
an infant. Law enforcement conducted an undercover operation
resulting in charges against 27 individuals in the U.S., Canada,
Australia, and Great Britain, and seven child victims of sexual
molestation were identified.
Second, an example of sexual abuse of children. Child predators
have also used the Internet to provide so-called molestation on
demand. In one case, a predator took scripts here in this
country, so-called orders, then went to Cuba and to Ecuador and
paid poverty-stricken families to let him molest their children,
some of whom were under the age of 12. He would then send those
pictures back over the video of him playing out these sick
fantasies. We caught that man responsible for this ring. We
prosecuted him and his co-conspirators, and he received a
100-year prison term.
But our efforts did not stop there. We launched Operation Lost
Innocence to target Mariscal�s customers across the country, and
to date, that operation has resulted in 107 searches, 55 arrests,
and 44 convictions.
Third, we also prosecute, as we must, the financial facilitators.
We pursue the companies that provide the means by which these
predators can create, market, and sell these horrendous images.
In the Regpay case, for example, we prosecuted the Belarus
company that had provided credit card processing services to
hundreds of child pornography sites. We secured guilty pleas
from the executives, but again, that was only the beginning.
That Regpay case gave rise to a follow-on investigation, which
resulted in 341 domestic and approximately 703 foreign arrests,
254 indictments, and 241 convictions.
I could go on all day with examples like these, successful
prosecutions of horrendous crimes. Prosecuting child predators
is and remains a top priority for the Department of Justice. The
Attorney General made this clear when he announced the Project
Safe Childhood Initiative, which seeks to integrate Federal,
State, and local efforts to prosecute child pornography, to
educate the communities, and to provide enhanced training for
law enforcement, and $14 million will go out this year to
support ICECs across the country who prosecute these things on
a State and local level.
Federal prosecutions, investigations, and caseloads in these
matters have dramatically increased in the last decade, and
the Department is working aggressively, but is it enough? You
heard from Ernie Allen of NCMEC last week who told you that
1,500 leads come into the Cyber TipLine every week, and
50 percent of those come from ISPs, but it will take all of us
to combat this problem. I pledge to you, as the Attorney
General has pledged, that the Department is committed and
dedicated to this task.
Congressman Barton said he had never been more revolted in
preparing for a hearing than having to read the material about
these predators who prey on our most vulnerable, our children.
I have looked at the pictures and I have looked at the videos,
and sir, you are right.
I thank you for this hearing, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Alice S. Fisher follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Alice S. Fisher, Assistant Attorney
General, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much, Ms. Fisher.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Roldan for his opening statement.
Mr. Roldan. Thank you, chairman.
Good evening Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stupak, and members of
the subcommittee. On behalf of the FBI, I would like to thank
you for this opportunity to address the FBI�s role in combating
the sexual exploitation of children through the use of the
Internet.
I will start with the personnel involved in this particular
program. The number of funded positions assigned to the FBI�s
Innocent Images program is 127. Due to the seriousness of these
matters, however, the FBI has consistently utilized the equivalent
of 242 agents working child exploitation matters. Let me
emphasize something, too, that is just not the agents. We have
many other employees involved in this. I don�t give you the
numbers because there are so many analysts, people involved in the
forensic analysis, secretaries that are supporting this particular
program, so it is just not the agents.
The men and women involved in the Innocent Images program are
some of the most dedicated and hardworking people in the Federal
government. They enjoy my respect and sincere appreciation for
the work they do every day. I can tell you this: I have been
assigned here for approximately 10 months. I have been in the
FBI for over 18 years, and I have met some of the most committed
individuals that I have worked with anywhere and anyplace. So
I am very proud to be among them.
At any one time, the FBI has more than 2,400 active child sexual
exploitation investigations. Because of the magnitude of the
crime problem, our primary focus is on complex investigations
targeting organized criminal groups, financiers, and illegal
websites, individuals, or groups who engage in the production
of child abuse images, sexual predators who travel from one
jurisdiction to another, and persons with large collections of
child abuse images. As an example, I would like to describe
how we work a typical sexual abuse website investigation.
First, we must locate the server where the website content is
physically located. Once the server is located, and upon
finding probable cause, a search warrant is requested. Once a
search warrant is executed, the media containing the illegal
content is seized for forensic analysis. Once a computer
analysis is completed, the targets of the investigation are
prioritized. I want to state unequivocally that any
information that would lead us to a child who is being sexually
abused is treated as a top priority, and not only as a top
priority, but as an urgency. That includes expediting the
forensic analysis. Then after we identify the website
administrators, the producers of the images, and the financiers
of the website. Once the illegal website and the organizations
managing, financing, and producing the child pornography have
been taken out of business, the information associated with
the customers paying for access to the website is analyzed and
acted upon. However, this endeavor is very complex.
First, we must attempt to accurately identify each and every
customer accessing the website. This piece of the investigation
requires vast resources. Child sexual abuse websites
investigated by the FBI have been found to contain anywhere from
9,000 to more than 30,000 different customer entries. The most
useful data utilized to identify the customers at this time is
the credit card information. In order to obtain credit card
information from a financial institution, the FBI must seek a
Federal Grand Jury subpoena for each bank who issued a credit
card use for the website customers. The information obtained
can then be utilized to identify each and every individual
account holder who paid to enter the illegal website. Even
after all of the financial information is obtained, and a
thorough analysis of all of the information is conducted, there
is not enough probable cause established to request a search
warrant on the customer�s residence. The only option that
remains is knocking on the customer�s doors and asking for
consent to access their computers. If this consent is not
granted, the investigation cannot proceed until additional
incriminating evidence is uncovered. This whole process is
labor intensive and takes an excessive amount of time. In
addition, it would also take more than 11 special agent hours
to accomplish what we would call a knock and talk type of
investigation on each illegal website customer.
In contrast, another totally separate investigative technique
that the FBI currently utilizes addresses child sexual abuse
matters in a peer-to-peer investigation. It allows for us to
capture the child sexual abuse images as they are being
transmitted real time and collect identifying information on
the perpetrators the instant the crime occurs. Immediately
thereafter we can obtain search warrants and seize the
evidence. One such investigative initiative resulted in over
400 cases open, 300 search warrants, 50 convictions, and 14
victim children identified and rescued.
In conclusion, we would like nothing more than to knock on
each person that is involved as a customer in child sexual
abuse websites, but again, those are the resources that are
required, for example, in a case of 30,000. That is how many
people we would require to send out. My comments today are
intended to reassure the subcommittee and the American people
that the FBI takes this matter very seriously, and has a very
aggressive program assigned to address child sexual exploitation.
I would like to express my appreciation to the subcommittee for
addressing this very serious issue. I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Raul Roldan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Raul Roldan, Section Chief, Cyber Crime Section,
Cyber Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States
Department of Justice
Good Morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Stupak, and Members of the
Subcommittee. On behalf of the FBI, I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to address the FBI�s role in combating the sexual
exploitation of children through the use of the Internet. Specifically,
I would like to explain to the Subcommittee how the FBI manages the
Innocent Images National Initiative on a national and an international
level.
Two weeks ago, the Subcommittee heard the testimony of Acting Executive
Assistant Director Chris Swecker which described this initiative and
its accomplishments. As he testified, over the past 10 years, the
Innocent Images program has grown exponentially. Between fiscal years
1996 and 2005, there has been a 2050% increase in cases opened (113
to 2500). During this ten-year period, the program has recorded over
15,556 investigations opened; 4,784 criminals being charged; 6,145
subjects being arrested, located or summoned to appear in a court of
law; and 4,822 convictions obtained.
The FBI�s Innocent Images Unit is responsible for the creation and
implementation of national and international initiatives targeting
those who use the Internet to sexually exploit defenseless children.
The unit, housed in Calverton, Maryland, also works closely with and
has a sizable contingent assigned to the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children. The Innocent Images Unit serves as a central
location for addressing major cases such as the sexual exploitation of
children through pornographic websites, distributing investigative
leads to our field divisions and Legal Attach� offices, and managing
the FBI�s national program. Its responsibilities include developing
and publishing policy, managing program funds, certifying undercover
operations, and the training of FBI employees, state, local and
international partners.
The number of funded positions for the Innocent Images program is
127 positions. Due to the seriousness of these matters, however, the
FBI has consistently utilized personnel resources at a higher level
than those funded. We currently have the equivalent of 242 Agents
working child sexual exploitation matters. Not just anyone can do this
work. Our dedicated men and women are exposed to the most graphic and
disturbing images and movies that you could possibly imagine. They
wade through thousands of pieces of material every day, all day, and
then they go home and tuck their own children into bed. However, the
men and women of the Innocent Images Unit, and those involved in
investigating the sexual exploitation of children in our field offices,
are some of the most dedicated and hard working people in the federal
government. They enjoy my respect and sincere appreciation for the
work that they do everyday. They are some of the most dedicated and
passionate employees I have met in my 18-year career as a Special Agent
of the FBI.
At any one time, the FBI has more than 2,400 active child sexual
exploitation investigations. Because of the magnitude of the crime
problem, and in an effort to capitalize on the FBI�s intelligence
collection, analysis, and investigative strengths, our primary focus is
on complex investigations targeting organized criminal groups involved
in commercial child sexual abuse websites. As Mr. Swecker testified,
these investigations almost always span multiple jurisdictions and
usually expand beyond the borders of the United States. In an effort
to reach beyond the borders of the United States in a more efficient
manner, the FBI has partnered with law enforcement officials from
several countries who work side by side with FBI agents in Calverton,
Maryland in a task-force setting.
Other areas where the FBI makes a major impact include investigating the
financiers of illegal websites, as well as individuals or groups who
engage in the production of child sexual abuse images. The FBI also
investigates sexual predators that travel from one jurisdiction to
another to engage in sex with minors. Finally, we target persons with
large collections of child sexual abuse images. These individuals
represent a real danger as we find a large percentage of those we arrest
for possession of images of child sexual abuse are also committing
contact offenses. Our investigative efforts attempt to maximize the
impact the FBI can have on this very serious crime problem. I would
like to describe how we work a typical case, such as a child sexual
abuse website investigation.
An investigation may sometimes be initiated from a referral by the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. We utilize a variety
of investigative techniques, to include administrative subpoenas and
data base checks, to capture evidence in an attempt to locate the
server where the website contents are physically located. Once the
server is located and upon finding probable cause, a search warrant
is requested and issued. In many cases the company that runs the
server is not aware that its computers contain illegal content as they
may also host hundreds of legitimate websites. Once the search
warrant is executed, the media containing the illegal content is seized
and delivered to our Computer Analysis and Research Teams (CART) for
forensic analysis. Given the tremendous amount of digital data seized
by the FBI, this analysis could take months to accomplish, as these
teams are responsible for the forensic examination of digital data in
all of the FBI�s investigative programs, to include counterterrorism
investigations and other high priority matters.
Once the computer analysis is completed, the targets of the investigation
are prioritized in partnership with prosecutors from the Department of
Justice. I want to state unequivocally that any information that would
lead us to a child who is being sexually abused is treated not only as
a top priority, but also as a matter of great urgency. Our second
priority is the identification of the website administrators.
Generally, these individuals administer more than one child sexual
abuse website. Thereafter, the producer of the images is identified,
as these images represent evidence of the actual sexual molestation
of a child. Next the funding vehicle and the financiers of the
website are identified.
Once the illegal website and the organizations managing, financing,
and producing the child sexual abuse and exploitation images have
been taken out of business, the information associated with the
customers paying for access to the illegal website is analyzed and
acted upon. Of course we recognize that the customers of the
websites may also be sexually exploiting children and we do everything
possible to investigate these individuals. But this endeavor is
complex and labor intensive. First, we must accurately identify the
customers accessing the website. I must reemphasize the word
accurately, because in order for us to initiate an investigation,
each and every one of the perpetrators must first be accurately
identified. This phase of the investigation is very lengthy and
requires vast resources as child sexual abuse websites investigated
by the FBI have been found to contain anywhere from 9,000 to more
than 30,000 different customers entries. Another issue to consider
is the fact that most illegal-website customer entries are normally
years old. Once outdated, this information cannot be utilized to
show probable cause, request search warrants, or acquire the
appropriate evidence to proceed with an investigation.
The most useful data for the purpose of attempting to identify the
customer is the credit card numbers. In order to obtain credit card
information from a financial institution on these types of
investigations the FBI must seek a Federal Grand Jury subpoena.
Currently this requires a presentation to a Grand Jury to request a
subpoena for each individual bank in order to identify each and every
individual account holder who paid to enter the illegal website.
Even after all of the financial information is obtained through these
subpoenas, and a thorough analysis of all of the information is
conducted, there is rarely enough probable cause established to
request a search warrant on the customers� residences. The only
option that remains is knocking on the customers� doors and asking
for consent to access to their computers. If this consent is not
granted, the investigation cannot proceed any further until additional
incriminating evidence is uncovered through other investigations.
Under our current process, it takes an excessive amount of time for a
team of intelligence analysts to process and analyze a customer list
on an average child pornography website. It would also take more
than 11 special-agent-hours to accomplish a knock-and-talk type of
investigation on each illegal-website customer. Again, let us
remember that every illegal-website investigation will have a minimum
of thousands, and sometimes hundreds of thousands of customers. We
are exploring ways to expedite this process, but there are numerous
hurdles to overcome.
In contrast, another totally separate investigative technique currently
being utilized by the FBI to address child sexual abuse matters through
Peer-to-Peer investigations, allows for us to capture child sexual abuse
and exploitation images as they are being exchanged by pedophiles, and
collect identifying information on the perpetrators the instant the
crime is occurring. Immediately thereafter, we can obtain search
warrants, and have the authorities go in and seize evidence in as little
as a one-week time period. Using the technique I just described, and
others also currently available, the FBI makes hundreds of arrests and
prosecutable cases every year. For example, one such investigative
effort resulted in over 400 cases opened, 300 search warrants, over
50 convictions to date, and 14 victim children identified and rescued.
This example was presented to you in order to better describe how the
FBI has to prioritize not only who must be targeted in an investigation,
but also what investigative tools must be utilized in order to maximize
investigative results by making a serious impact on the overall crime
problem, and putting the most egregious sexual offenders behind bars.
My comments today are intended to reassure the Subcommittee and the
American people that the FBI takes this matter very seriously and has
a very aggressive program designed to address child sexual exploitation.
In closing, the FBI looks forward to working with other law enforcement
agencies, private industry, and the Department of Justice in continuing
to combat this very serious crime problem. The protection of our
children requires the combined efforts of all sectors of our society. I
would like to express my appreciation to the Subcommittee for addressing
this very serious issue, and I would also like to thank Chairman
Whitfield, Ranking Member Stupak, and the Subcommittee for the privilege
of appearing before you today. I look forward to answering your
questions.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Mr. Roldan and Ms. Fisher both.
The committee values your testimony and certainly the input the
FBI and the great job that you do in trying to bring
perpetrators of these crimes to justice.
As you know, when we first started these hearings we got off on
a little bit of a rough edge, I guess, with the Bureau, the FBI,
and the Department of Justice, and I think a lot of that stemmed
from the fact that it appeared to us that in the Justin Berry
case that there was some bias against Justin Berry. There was
some relationship there that just did not work out with the FBI
and the Department of Justice, and many of us felt--whether we
are correct in that perception or not, but we felt that valuable
information that was given to the Department was not followed up
on in an expedited way and a timely way and that, in effect,
jeopardized the opportunity to catch some perpetrators that you
had some very hard evidence on.
So I would make that comment just starting off, and we will get
into some of this later, but I know Ms. Fisher, for example, you
had a meeting recently with some Internet service providers, and
one of the issues that we have heard a lot about is maintaining
those records for a length of time that would facilitate an
investigation by the Bureau or other law enforcement agencies.
Could you tell us how your meeting with the Internet service
providers went?
Ms. Fisher. I would be happy to.
I think the data retention issue that was raised by the
Congresswoman is a very important one, because law enforcement
does need data to track down ISPs and track down some of these
perpetrators, but it is also, as I learned from the ISPs, a very
complex one, and I am glad that you will be hearing from them
directly next week as to how data is stored and how you can
retrieve it and those issues.
Many of the service providers retain it for a certain period of
time, 90 days or longer. Some retain it for much less periods
of time, some 14 days. So I think it is important that we all
look at this issue. The Attorney General, in a speech that he
gave at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
just last week or the week before, said that he wanted the
Department to look at this issue and has set forth an expert
group to deal with this issue, both with the policy people and
people that understand the technology. That working group has
already been meeting and those meetings are going to go forward.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, do you have any information that would lead
you to believe that some of the Internet service providers and
remote computing services are not reporting apparent child
pornography on their network that they know about?
Ms. Fisher. Well, I know that there are several, about 217 ISPs
that are reporting to the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, and have reported evidence of these crimes.
Those go into the database, and then of course NCMEC sends it out
to law enforcement so it can be acted on, whether it is in the
State, local, Federal level.
Whether there are others out there that are not reporting on
evidence of these crimes is something that we are on the lookout
for. One thing that I would like to point out to you, because
now we are into talking about the statute that you have, 13032,
that requires ISPs to report when they have this kind of
evidence, and in that statute it talks about liability when ISPs
don�t report. We just cleared today, the Administration just
cleared today a proposal that would add and enhance, I believe,
significant penalties for ISPs to report in the following way.
Right now the statute provides that the penalties exist for
people who willfully and knowingly fail to report. This new
proposal which we have talked to your staff about just this
morning, because it just got cleared, this new proposal would
allow for civil penalties for people who negligently fail to
report evidence of the crime. That, I believe, enhances our
efforts and our ability to go after those who aren�t reporting
when we discover that they aren�t reporting.
Mr. Whitfield. Have you all ever prosecuted anybody under the
existing statute?
Ms. Fisher. To date we have not prosecuted anyone under the
existing statute, but that certainly shouldn�t imply that we
wouldn�t, and it came to our attention that there were ISPs out
there that were willfully and knowingly not reporting to NCMEC.
We are on the lookout for that and we would prosecute under the
statute.
We want to enforce all the laws in this area and we want to
enforce them aggressively and we want to use the sentences and
the penalties that Congress has given us under the PROTECT Act
and others to put these people behind bars.
Mr. Whitfield. I would ask you and Mr. Roldan both this
question as people involved in law enforcement and prosecuting
what I would consider some of the worst crimes that could be
committed. What is the most frustrating aspect of this whole
process from your perspective, and what frustrates you the most
in bringing people to justice for committing these crimes?
Ms. Fisher. Well, when we actually bring them to justice and
get them convicted, that doesn�t frustrate me. That is a good
thing. But what I think, as these hearings have demonstrated,
what is frustrating is that this problem continues to grow, and
it is going to take all of us working together. Law enforcement
alone is not the answer. It is going to take Congress, it is
going to take educators, it is going to take parents, and that
is why I think the visibility of these hearings and making
people aware of what happens when there are children going on
the Internet is so important.
Mr. Whitfield. It is so pervasive. I know I was reading an
article just yesterday that a gentleman from Saudi Arabia,
37 years old, flew to California and he had been involved in
the Internet and he thought he was in a conversation with the
father of a two and a half year old child, and he flew to
California for the purpose of molesting this child and was
paying the parents. Of course, when he arrived, it was law
enforcement that had set him up. But this was a 37-year-old
psychiatrist from Saudi Arabia who flew to California for this
purpose.
Mr. Roldan, in your testimony you indicated that from �96 to
2005 that the FBI had opened something like 15,500 some odd cases
in this area, but had obtained like 4,800 convictions. I was
just curious what happened in those other cases. The evidence
just was not good enough to convict, or--
Mr. Roldan. There is a variety of reasons. I am going to go
ahead and defer to Mr. Bell because he has worked most of those
cases. Arnold, please?
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my remarks,
I would like to thank the committee for bringing this issue to
light, and thanks for the opportunity to be here this evening.
In cases that we investigate, oftentimes the evidence either is
not there to have a successful prosecution, or in some
instances, cases are deferred to other agencies or deferred to
a State authority, and we don�t capture some of those
statistics.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. Now, you all presented a legislative
proposal just in the last couple of days that you feel like
would assist the Department, is that correct?
Ms. Fisher. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And could you briefly cover some of the
provisions of that legislation that you think would be
particularly helpful?
Ms. Fisher. Are you referring to the legislation that was sent
up last week and this is included in that--
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Ms. Fisher. And this relates to ISP reporting.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Ms. Fisher. There is also some other legislation that I thank
the House for passing on child safety and that is now with the
Senate, but that is important. The PROTECT Act was very
important to this effort.
What this new legislation does is again, for ISPs that fail to
report it increases the penalties for those who willfully and
knowingly fail to report, and in addition, it now allows us to
set up a regulatory scheme where ISPs that negligently fail to
report will also be fined $50,000 for the first time, $100,000
for each subsequent time.
We look forward to working with this committee and with
Congress in any other ideas in this area to move forward, and
we are constantly looking for new ideas. I think it is
important, again, to make sure that we have all the tools to
fight this problem.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, do you feel like there is any specific
way that this committee can help or--
Ms. Fisher. Well like I said, I think you are already helping.
I think the fact that the House passed the Child Safety Act
helped.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay.
Ms. Fisher. I would note also on sentencing, you know,
sentencing reform is an issue that the Department is very
concerned about. The Sentencing Commission just did a look at
what has happened in the post-Booker world, after the Supreme
Court came out and said that the sentencing guidelines were
advisory instead of mandatory. And one important thing that
they noted was that in child sexual abuse cases they are seeing
more downward departures, meaning more sentences given by judges
under the guidelines. So sentencing reform is another thing that
should be focused on here.
Mr. Whitfield. Okay. Well, I see my time is about expired, so
I am going to recognize Mr. Stupak, but I think he is yielding
his time to Ms. DeGette, so Ms. DeGette.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are working together
because we both have scheduling constraints, so I will just take
a few minutes and then I will yield the rest of the time to
Mr. Stupak.
I want to thank all of you for coming and I have a few
questions. One of them, my main issue as I discussed in my
opening statement is this concept of retention of subscriber
information by ISPs, not, in fact, the communications, but
rather the subscriber information. I am wondering if all of
you in law enforcement--and I know, believe you me, Ms. Fisher,
I have been meeting with these ISPs, too, and I know all of the
explanations and the excuses and everything else, but the fact
is, these ISPs retain subscriber information now. What we would
really be talking about is accounts that had been closed,
because if it was an ongoing account and law enforcement tried
to subpoena that, it would be available because it is an
existing account. So what you are really talking about is
closed accounts, and I think that having that retained so if
there was probable cause to think that a crime had been
committed by that subscriber, law enforcement could subpoena
that and it would be useful in the investigation. Don�t you
think that that would be helpful to investigators? Maybe I
should ask some of the investigators.
Mr. Swecker, I think you testified before that that would be
useful.
Mr. Swecker. It would be. We find that the information is often
stale by the time we get the information, if we get it. Most of
the major ISPs are keeping it for about 90 days, but you are
right on the money when you talk about retaining at least the
ISP. Maybe not necessarily the content, but at bare minimum at
least the ISP addresses.
Ms. DeGette. I just keep thinking about that investigator who
we have talked to quite a bit in my office who talked about the
child who was being raped online, and then by the time they got
to Colorado the data was gone. Mr. Roldan or Mr. Bell, do you
have any sense of how helpful do you think that would be
towards investigation of these cases?
Mr. Roldan. Yes, if you notice from my testimony, the process
is very long to initially identify the individuals, the
customers that are entering the illegal websites, and obviously
the IP address would provide the first information. The more
information we have, the more helpful it is to the investigation.
Ms. DeGette. And because it does take some time to identify the
perpetrator, you can�t always subpoena that information within
14 or 30 days, correct?
Mr. Roldan. And there is also a difference in the subpoenas that
are available. On the credit cards, we have to go through a grand
jury. On the ISPs for the IP address, we go through--
Ms. DeGette. It is administrative, right.
I have a couple more questions, and then I will yield to
Mr. Stupak, about the search warrants. In the Larry Walt case
in Missouri, there was a Sergeant Michael Ziglefa who was
involved in that case, the local FBI office got a warrant with
an e-mail address and an IP address, which led to a physical
address for the defendant, which was obtained from the ISP.
Nobody knew whether the computer was at that address or not, but
the FBI got a search warrant anyway, and the judge said that
probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant exists when
there is "a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a
crime will be found in a particular place. Any of you who know
the answer to this, is that the criteria used by the Justice
Department and the FBI when requesting search warrants for
child pornography?
Ms. Fisher. Certainly, all of the cases depend on the facts and
circumstances, and I am not sure about the facts in that case.
But you have cited the right standard for probable cause. Now,
what is going to allow you to get a search warrant with your
judges in that district is going to be best known by the
prosecutors in that district, as far as what more you are going
to need. If you have an ISP address that takes you back to a
computer and you have evidence that somebody is in the house
using that computer, what do you know about that person, are
they living there, et cetera. But all of those facts and
circumstances are going to be looked at I believe that the
prosecutors that I work with are going to look for that first
opportunity to get that search warrant.
Ms. DeGette. So you wouldn�t have to prove that the computer
was actually there, just that there was a fair probability?
That is the definition of probable cause, right?
Ms. Fisher. Well again, yes, but you would have to look at the
whole facts and circumstances.
Ms. DeGette. Exactly. Thank you very much, and I will yield to
Mr. Stupak. Thank you for your comity, Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Stupak. Ms. Fisher, you indicated that these new provisions
have been sent up here on Section 13032, had there been any
prosecutions? You said no. Have any efforts been made to
prosecute anyone under 13032?
Ms. Fisher. I know that there have not been any prosecutions.
Mr. Stupak. Have any efforts been made to seek any
prosecutions under 13032?
Ms. Fisher. Well, certainly we are on the lookout for it, and
if we found evidence of that. I can�t tell you how far certain
investigations have gone, but I can assure you, Congressman--
Mr. Stupak. 13032 was an act in �99 by the Congress, right?
Ms. Fisher. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Stupak. And in 2000, the Clinton Administration put forth
the regulations to implement the law, is that correct?
Ms. Fisher. I believe there were some regulations that did go
out, sir.
Mr. Stupak. And then since then, nothing has been done to use
this law to apply it to any cases, isn�t that correct?
Ms. Fisher. I can�t say that nothing has been done, but I will
agree with you, sir, that there have been no prosecutions under
the standard that is put forth in the statute. With regard to
ISPs, again, with regard to ISPs who have not reported--
Mr. Stupak. Has the Justice Department or you or anyone ever
come to Congress and say we don�t feel your law is enforceable,
and therefore we have to make some changes until today?
Ms. Fisher. No, I am not aware of that.
Mr. Stupak. Well, we had testimony at the last hearing from the
Center for Missing and Exploited Children that you weren�t using
the law because you didn�t think that it was enforceable, that
the Department of Justice didn�t think it was enforceable.
Ms. Fisher. There is nothing that strikes me about this law
that is not enforceable.
Mr. Stupak. Then why are you recommending changes to it?
Ms. Fisher. We believe that we are going to make it more
enhanced, because now we will be--
Mr. Stupak. Well, how would you know if it needed to be
enhanced if you have never used it?
Ms. Fisher. Sir, we have never prosecuted a case under that.
I can�t say that we have never used the statute.
Mr. Stupak. So why would you want--
Ms. Fisher. In fact, I think the whole--
Mr. Stupak. The law has never been used for prosecution, why
would it have to be changed?
Ms. Fisher. Well, this act has a lot of provisions that have
been used with regard to reporting in, and I am sure, as you
know, you heard from NCMEC, the reporting in is a success
story. There are over 200 ISPs that are reporting--
Mr. Stupak. Out of how many ISPs are there?
Ms. Fisher. I don�t know the answer to that, sir, but
Congressman--
Mr. Stupak. And they don�t report underneath this law. They
report under a different law.
Ms. Fisher. There are over 217 ISPs that are now reporting to
NCMEC. This deals with ISPs that are not reporting and
willfully and knowingly not reporting. That is correct.
Mr. Stupak. So why isn�t this law being enforced?
Ms. Fisher. I can�t say that it is not being enforced. I think
we are talking past each other for there has not been a
prosecution under this law. That does not mean that it hasn�t
been investigated. That does not mean that we don�t stand
ready, that when--
Mr. Stupak. Wait a minute. We already had testimony that it
hasn�t been used at all. Are you saying that the people who
testified before did not tell the truth before this committee?
Ms. Fisher. No, absolutely not.
Mr. Stupak. Well, one of you--
Ms. Fisher. I think I am being completely consistent.
Mr. Stupak. Well, either Justice is not telling us the truth,
or the other people who testified are not telling the truth.
We can�t have the same reading or the same understanding of
the same law.
Let me ask you this question. Isn�t it true, with your
so-called changes today, you are really shifting your
responsibility, Justice Department�s responsibility, to the
Federal Communications Commission?
Ms. Fisher. Absolutely not.
Mr. Stupak. Well, under Section C, the purpose of this
paragraph, "The Federal Communications Commission shall have
the authority to levy civil fines under it and shall promulgate
the rules and consultation with the Attorney General to
effectuate the purposes of subparagraph B and to provide the
appropriate administrative review of civil penalties." To some
of us sitting up here, it looks like you are shifting this
responsibility from Justice to the FCC.
Ms. Fisher. Absolutely not. The criminal penalties for willful
and knowing failure to report will still be prosecuted by the
Department of Justice. The civil penalties in the civil regime
as under this bill will be administered by the FCC, but now,
what is great about this is that we can get both. We can get
people who negligently failed to report, but we can also get
people who willfully and knowingly failed to report.
Mr. Stupak. Have you ever used it?
Ms. Fisher. We stand by--it has not been prosecuted. There
is--
Mr. Stupak. Can you tell me a case where you have used it?
Ms. Fisher. No, sir, I agree with you. This statute has not
been used to prosecute an ISP for failing to report.
Mr. Stupak. And I will bet you if we never would have brought
up these hearings, we wouldn�t have these so-called enhancements
of this law unless we had these hearings, correct?
Ms. Fisher. I don�t know when exactly these enhancements were
starting to be discussed at the Justice Department. I can tell
you that we are always looking at enhancements on reporting and
looking at enhancements to laws that combat this horrific
problem. I thank you for these hearings.
Mr. Stupak. Let me ask you about Operation Falcon. You
discussed in your testimony, you said it resulted in 372 open
investigations, 579 search warrants, 341 domestic arrests, 254
indictments, and 241 convictions. ISIS told us that they, as
well as State and local law enforcement, verified the names,
credit card information, and physical addresses of over 21,000
individuals in the United States that paid to download images
of the rape and torture of children. You have testimony that
at least one-third, as much as three-fourths of these
individuals have or will engage in such horrible acts
themselves. There are at least 20,000 individuals known to the
Department of Justice that are a threat to the safety of
children where no attempt has been made to remove them from the
community. Are you content that CEOS has done everything it
can to prosecute these individuals, these remaining 20,000?
Ms. Fisher. Well, I certainly, as I said, want all child
predators put behind bars. That--
Mr. Stupak. I am just going off the 20,000.
Ms. Fisher. This investigation, like many others, continue, and
hopefully we will find and prosecute the people that are
committing these horrible acts on our children.
Mr. Stupak. So it is your testimony you can�t find the 20,000?
You have the names and addresses--
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Stupak, your 10 minutes have expired. I am
going to go to the full committee Chairman, and then we will
come back. Very good.
Chairman Barton. Mr. Chairman, thank you, but if Mr. Stupak
wants to conclude that, I am happy to defer until he has
concluded that particular line.
Mr. Stupak. What happened to the other 20,000? You had the
credit card information, their names, and their physical
addresses, so what happened to 20,000? You said you couldn�t
find them.
Ms. Fisher. I never said I couldn�t find them.
Mr. Stupak. Okay.
Ms. Fisher. I said that the investigation continues.
Mr. Stupak. Okay. So you are still working on it?
Ms. Fisher. Absolutely. We are still working on all of these
investigations and these operations.
Mr. Stupak. Is that since we have had these hearings or--
Ms. Fisher. No, sir.
Mr. Stupak. I just wondered if it was like the statute, that
is all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will look forward to my 5 minutes
later.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Barton. Well, thank you, Chairman Whitfield, for
holding this hearing. I am going to start off thanking all
you witnesses for being here. I mean that. One of you has
been here before, in a little bit of a difficult situation. The
other three of you have gotten here in a somewhat unusual
fashion, but the truth is, you are here and we are happy you
are here. I want this to be a positive hearing. I have not
normally had the Attorney General of the United States walk
into my office and say that either he would come or you folks
would come, and so I thank Attorney General Gonzalez for making
that commitment, and I have not often had to call the Director
of the FBI and have the kind of conversation I had with him to
get some of our FBI witnesses here. So I am sincere in saying
we appreciate it and I think we are on the same team. Congress
wants to bring these folks to justice, these child predators,
and you folks obviously do. You all have dedicated a large
part of your professional career to that.
So I want to start off by kind of reestablishing what the
problem is, and I guess, Ms. Fisher, I go to you since you are
the senior Department of Justice official here. How many
perpetrators do we think there are in the country that engage
in child pornography and preying on children for pornographic
purposes? Does the Department of Justice have an estimate of
that?
Ms. Fisher. I don�t have an estimate with me, but it is
hundreds of thousands.
Chairman Barton. Hundreds of thousands. Mr. Swecker, as the
FBI senior person, would you agree with that?
Mr. Swecker. I would. I mean, it is very difficult. There
are different categories, if you will, possessors versus people
who are actually producing and abusing the children. So there
are different--as you well know, there are different categories,
but there are a lot of them out there and I think--
Chairman Barton. So you wouldn�t disagree with the order of
magnitude?
Mr. Swecker. No, not at all.
Chairman Barton. Okay. Do we have an estimate of the number of
commercial child pornographic sites there are on the Internet on
any given day? Anybody?
Mr. Bell. I don�t know if there is a way to determine with
certainty a number like that. I did a simple Google search on
some terms that I know, and I had 130,000 hits.
Chairman Barton. One hundred thirty thousand?
Mr. Bell. Right, and that was on one search term.
Chairman Barton. So we have hundreds of thousands of potential
if not actual predators. We have hundreds of thousands of
commercial sites. What is our estimate on number of victims
then, the actual children themselves, based on that? Would that
also be in the hundreds of thousands, the millions, the tens of
thousands? Just kind of a general order of magnitude, what
would it be?
Mr. Roldan. Sir, it would have to be in the hundreds of
thousands--
Chairman Barton. Hundreds of thousands.
Mr. Roldan. --because every time we arrest someone, there is
more than one victim.
Chairman Barton. Okay.
Now, at our previous hearing, one of our witnesses from law
enforcement made the point that I thought was rather telling,
that this wasn�t just a law enforcement problem, and I agree with
that. I mean, with this kind of an order of magnitude, we cannot
ask a handful of Federal officials backed up by State and
local--I mean, this is a huge problem. My first question, and I
will direct this to Ms. Fisher, given the order of magnitude,
when I look at the number of officials at the Department of
Justice and the number of agents at the FBI that are dedicated
to this problem, it is in the dozens at DOJ, and at the FBI, it
is several hundred. What does the Congress need to do to
significantly increase the personnel and the financial resources
that are being dedicated to tracking this problem? I have no
doubt that everybody that is assigned is absolutely committed to
bringing to justice these fiends, but I am a little puzzled as
to why given the order of magnitude that we all understand in
general terms, there hasn�t been a huge request to put more
agents, more prosecutors, more resources into combating the
problem? We are fighting a forest fire with a can of aerosol
spray or something. Is it a Congressional problem that we are
unwilling to work to increase the resources, or is it there are
so many other problems that you just don�t feel like you can put
more resources into it?
Ms. Fisher. I think you can always put more resources to attack
this problem. One of the things that we have tried to do in the
Department of Justice, and I will let the FBI follow me, because
I know that they put a great deal of resources on this. We use
all 94 of our U.S. Attorney�s offices to prosecute this.
Second, the Attorney General himself has told the prosecutors
and told the U.S. Attorneys this is our priority. Third, we
have this new initiative called Project Safe Childhood, and what
that does is it makes us link up with the State and locals who
also have resources to prosecute these crimes, to train them,
to give them money to prosecute. I think $14 million is going
out to ISIS this year, and to enhance community awareness.
So those are some of the things that we are trying to do to
address the problem, sir.
Chairman Barton. I don�t want to beat a dead horse here. The
young man who was the primary witness at the last hearing who
had been sexually abused indicated that the website that he was
operating, his one website, if I understand, that one website
took in $1 million a month. We estimate that the national take
on child pornography in the United States through the Internet
is upwards of $20 billion a year, $20 billion. And we are
talking about a $14 million upgrade? A million million, a
thousand million is a billion. I think the Congress will work
with the Administration to find a way, instead of having a
couple of hundred FBI agents, a dozen or so specialists at DOJ,
or even--so let us put thousands. If we are serious about this,
let us put some real muscle in. Again, I am not negative on
what you are doing, but if I have got to put out a major forest
fire, I don�t send out one firefighter, no matter how good he
is. You know, I mobilize the entire operation.
My next point. The gentleman on the end here, Mr. Bell, said
that he put in a phrase and he got 130,000 hits that there
was--he thinks there may be a commercial site on the Internet
for child pornography. Now, it is illegal to engage in child
pornography. Why wouldn�t it be possible, and if we need to
change the law, if you can prove that that is a site that is a
child pornographic trafficker, shut it down immediately? Why
can�t you do that? It is an illegal act, it is engaged in
illegal activity. Why don�t we just take it off as soon as we
know it is there?
Mr. Bell. The difficulty in addressing the commercial websites
in particular is there are several mechanisms for masking where
they actually are. We have to identify where the host server
is. Oftentimes, that is not in the United States. Oftentimes,
these websites are administered by people who are not in the
United States.
Chairman Barton. Is there anyplace in the world where child
pornography is legal?
Mr. Bell. Not that I am aware of, but I think as you mentioned
there are 90-some countries where it is not--I am sorry, there
are 94 countries where it is not illegal, we heard testimony
today. Some of the guys that are doing this that are doing it
for profit and as a business are situating themselves in those
places where they kind of have safe harbors. We have tried to
address this through international cooperation. We have an
international task force. I think some of your staff members
have met some of the officers that we have from overseas that
are working with us, and we are trying hard to address these
sites, wherever they might be in the world.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Chairman, I might just make a comment,
though, that 94 countries do not have any laws on child
pornography, but I have been told that it is estimated that
40 percent of all the sites are right here in the U.S.
Mr. Bell. What we found through some of our investigation is
that oftentimes when we finalize our investigations, we find
the services to be housed in the U.S. are in Western European
modernized countries and the reason for that, we believe, is
that the infrastructure is so much better here for high speed
broadband and such.
So the guys--the subjects who are administering these sites
tend to be offshore, but the mechanisms are here.
Chairman Barton. Do we have the technical capability, if it
were legal, if I put up a child pornography site called
Kiddyporn.barton--or Bartonkiddyporn.com, and I am engaged in
illegal transactions for child pornography, it is technically
possible to shut my site down and not let it be accessed. Is
that not correct?
Mr. Bell. It is possible. It is possible to shut the site
down, but what happens is sites are generally hosted in several
locations at one time. The analogy I like to use is owning
four homes. If you are a drug dealer and you own four homes
and the police raid one of your homes, you just go to the next
home. What we are finding in our investigations is that sites
are located in multiple servers in multiple locations.
Chairman Barton. But my point is, if we have detective
capability to shut these sites down, why don�t we make sure you
have the constitutional and legal ability to just do it if you
can prove by accessing it there is child pornography on that
site. Boom, shut it down, just do it. Make it tough on these
guys, you know, make it tough on them. There are not that many
of you, so just--I mean, I think we will back you up. I don�t
believe anybody on either side of the aisle this is the
committee of jurisdiction for the Internet. Now, we don�t have
criminal penalty enforcement. That is your friends on the
Judiciary Committee. But if you need--I mean, what the Attorney
General has sent up in terms of a legislative package I think is
a step in the right direction, but it appears to me that there
is so much that we could do if we are serious about this, and we
just are not doing it.
And so my plea is let us think big. Let us think as big as the
traffickers think. They are having hundreds of thousands of
sites, hundreds of thousands of perpetrators, and we are
fighting that with, you know, just a handful of people.
I have some other questions, Mr. Chairman, but my time is
expired. I do want Mr. Roldan�s thoughts in writing and will
give him a question in writing. He says the best way to get at
these folks is through credit card information, but they have to
go on a case-by-case basis to a Grand Jury to get a subpoena to
get that identification of the individual with the credit card
number. I would like to see what we need to do to make it
possible to access those credit cards without having to go on a
case-by-case basis. Again, if you can prove that that credit
card has been used at a site that traffics in commercial child
pornography, I would be willing to vote for a bill that makes
it an automatic that you can go to the bank and get the
identification of that credit card holder. If you prove that
they purchased child pornography or accessed a site and paid
to go to a site where child pornography was there, that would
be prima facie evidence that they are engaged in it and you can
get their name. You don�t have to spend all the time to go to
do th--and again, I don�t want to violate anybody�s
constitutional rights, but I would think if you can prove that
that credit card has been used, you ought to be able to get the
name of the person using it without having to do all the effort
that the FBI and the State law enforcement people are having to
do.
Thank you folks for coming, and again, Mr. Whitfield, thank you,
and Mr. Stupak for doing this investigation.
Lastly, I am told that the million dollars a month was not a
site that was operated by Justin Berry, it was another case, the
Reedy case. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Stupak for his remaining 6 minutes.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Fisher, you said in your response to the Chairman that 94
DA�s are all working on this and it is a priority with the
Attorney General to prosecute these cases. Then what happened
last July when Justin Berry came to the Justice Department with
some current IP addresses, physical addresses, credit card
information of persons who were subscribers to his website, but
neither the FBI nor Justice has used this information to obtain
search warrants? What happened there?
Ms. Fisher. Of course because this is a pending investigation
there is some stuff that is public that I can talk about and
there is material that is not public with regard to the
investigation that I can�t talk about. What is public is that
there has been two people charged with regard to this
investigation, Mr. Mitchel and Mr. Richards--
Mr. Stupak. Two out of 1,500 I believe it is, right? Wasn�t
there 1,500?
Ms. Fisher. There have been two people charged. One has been
convicted, one is pending trial. There have been--the website
itself has been taken down. There have been search warrants.
It would be inappropriate for me--that is public and that is
what I can tell you about the investigation.
Mr. Stupak. Wait a minute. You guys didn�t do anything to shut
down this server. The guy fled the country.
Ms. Fisher. I am sorry. There were search warrants that were
done that have taken down that commercial website.
Mr. Stupak. Tell me, what was done to put down this website
then?
Ms. Fisher. I will leave that to the FBI.
Mr. Stupak. Okay, someone tell me.
Mr. Swecker. I can just say that all the information that was
given to us is being aggressively pursued, very aggressively
pursued with substantial resources. Without going into the
details--
Mr. Stupak. Sure. So are there going to be more indictments
or what? You have 1,500 names and addresses, credit card
information, physical addresses, IP addresses. Do you
anticipate more indictments or anything on this case? It has
been 8 months.
Mr. Swecker. It is ongoing, but what I would like to do is have
Mr. Bell just generically go over--
Mr. Stupak. We all sit here and talk about the courage of these
young people coming here, and when they give you the information
and it is 8 months and you get two out of 1,500, their confidence
is rather shaken. I think we do more harm to these young people
who are willing to step forward if we take the information and
it is such a slow process. The website, the person fled the
country. That is a given, right? The operator fled the country
by the time you got around to it.
Mr. Swecker. The agents working this case, the prosecutors
working this case are aggressively pursuing every lead in this
case.
Mr. Stupak. Understood, and I have heard that so much today,
but the point I hope you understand as we sit up here and these
young people who are willing to come forward, and we hear oh, we
are aggressively pursuing this case. Justin Berry has gone to
you a couple times and asked for information, and no one would
give him information. Don�t you think you at least owe him an
explanation what is going on, other than can�t talk about it or
ongoing pending case?
Mr. Swecker. Sir, I know you have a law enforcement background
and I know that you know that we don�t discuss cases with
witnesses in terms of the details of the case.
Mr. Stupak. But you certainly discuss cases with the victim,
because they have the right to know.
Let me ask this one. The Chairman was making an excellent
point, Chairman Barton. In the UK, Internet service providers
have a process for identifying websites that contain this filth
and remove those images 48 hours after identification, unless
law enforcement requests otherwise. I understand that is a
voluntary regulatory system that will not work here, as most of
our ISPs are unwilling to even use the NCMEC reporting forms.
The UK reduced the percentage of its images located on their
servers from 18 percent of the worldwide total to four tenths
of one percent in 2005. In 2 years, they went from 18 percent
to four tenths of one percent. Of course, that doesn�t count
the U.S. part.
So has the Department thought about requesting from the Congress
some legislation that would create a mechanism to notify ISPs
of violation or sites that may be violating and mandate removal
of these sites from our servers within 48 hours of notification
from either NCMEC or from law enforcement? Have you thought
about that?
Ms. Fisher. Congressman, just last week when I met with the
ISPs I raised this issue with them, and I know they are coming
in next week to talk about this. In fact, one of the ones that
I met with is AOL, who has been a very good reporter to NCMEC,
but they, I believe, are on the board of that entity in the UK,
and so I think that they would be better seen to address that
particular issue, but I can tell you that we constantly work
with the ISPs and with NCMEC to do everything that we can.
Mr. Stupak. All right, I guess we will talk to the ISPs.
Do you have any suggestions? We heard administrative warrants
last hearing on how we crack down on this, other than talk to
the ISPs? We heard administrative warrants, which I thought was
a good idea. We will work on that. Do you have any other
comments for us or this proposal that you gave us today where
you shifted to the Federal Communications Commission? Any other
suggestions?
Ms. Fisher. I applaud the legislation that was passed by the
House that is now pending with the Senate. I think that you
should look at sentencing reform with regard to the downward
departures, that is an issue. There is something called the
cyber convention that is now pending also in the Senate that
tries to get our foreign countries that sign on to that cyber
crime treaty to have data retention in place so we can work with
our international partners. I think any--
Mr. Stupak. Let me ask you this idea. How about if we pay
overtime to local law enforcement who work this area? You do
it Justice-based terrorism task force and violent crime task
force, because the sergeant who really broke Masha�s case
doesn�t do it anymore because his jurisdiction can no longer
afford the overtime. So why doesn�t Justice use some of that
money and pay overtime to local law enforcement who seem to be
ahead of this problem, or trying to stay ahead of this problem?
Would that be an idea?
Ms. Fisher. Certainly. We do send money out through the ICECs
to help the local efforts. The State and locals do such an
amazing job at combating child exploitation, and I commend them
for their work.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman�s time is expired.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Walden for 10 minutes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Fisher, at our hearing on April 4, concerns were raised by
Justin Berry and his attorney, Steve Ryan, about the handling of
Justin�s case by Department of Justice. I am sure you are aware
of our hearing. In particular, Justin and Mr. Ryan described
how an affidavit was unsealed in the case involving Gregory
Mitchel, a man we understand allegedly molested Justin and also
was engaged in a commercial enterprise involving the production
of sexually exploitative images of children. The unsealing of
this affidavit was particularly detrimental to Justin because it
was only partially redacted and contained information that other
child predators involved with Mr. Mitchel in this commercial
enterprise would realize came from Justin. In effect, it
altered--it alerted, I should say, other potential perpetrators
that Justin was a government witness.
Mr. Ryan, Justin�s attorney, testified under oath that he had
been assured the day before the unsealing of Mr. Mitchel�s
affidavit by Mr. Andrew Oosterbaan, head of the CEOS section,
that the affidavit would remain sealed. Subsequently, we
learned that an error was made and the affidavit was unsealed.
I understand that those sorts of mistakes can happen. However,
I asked Justin�s attorney, Steve Ryan, while he was under oath,
whether he, on behalf of Justin, ever requested the Justice
Department reseal the affidavit. Mr. Ryan said that he would
get back to us on that question because he wanted to make sure
he gave us an accurate response. I have an e-mail that was
forwarded from Mr. Ryan to staff the following day. There
should be a copy of it on the dais for you if you want to read
it.
Ms. Fisher. That is okay.
Mr. Walden. We can share it with you. I don�t know if somebody
is able to do that.
I would like to move that the e-mail be entered into our record,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Walden. The e-mail he forwarded staff is an e-mail dated
September 15 of 2005 from Holly Roth, an attorney working with
Mr. Ryan and Justin, to Mr. Andrew Oosterbaan, Sherri Stephan of
DOJ, and Stephanie Thacker of DOJ. In this e-mail, Ms. Roth
writes, and I quote "Drew: Reserving all of our rights in light
of what has happened, we would like you to take every possible
action to get the warrant affidavit back under seal. Please
advise us right away of your position on this." We note this
affidavit remains unsealed. Can you explain to us why this
affidavit was not resealed?
Ms. Fisher. Well, I can. When this e-mail was sent about
resealing the affidavit, which the complaint underlying arrest
warrant affidavit that describes all the facts that was unsealed
in a redacted form by the court, that affidavit was already in
the public realm, and according to the U.S. Attorney, the press
already had that affidavit. So the judgment was made that they
would offer protection for Justin, and I believe that that
offer--
Mr. Walden. Physical protection?
Ms. Fisher. Yes, physical protection and any other kind of
protection, and that was made. Of course, because the Mitchel
case was ongoing, he had already had his initial appearance and
he was going forward, that affidavit at some point was going to
become unsealed, but at that period of time after this Thursday
e-mail, that is the event that took place.
Mr. Walden. But is that sort of standard procedure in these
types of cases?
Ms. Fisher. Eventually, yes. The complaint and the affidavit--
if there is a complaint and an affidavit, they are unsealed as
to the defendant because the defendant gets to know the charges
against him.
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Ms. Fisher. And then as the case progresses, sometimes it is
30 days, sometimes it is immediate, sometimes it is a little bit
later, those documents are unsealed because the case is going on
and the defendant is making further appearances, and of course,
our court proceedings are public.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Ms. Fisher. But let me assure you, Congressman, because I think
this gets at the issue. There would never be a deliberate
attempt by the Justice Department to put a victim or a
cooperating witness in harm�s way. There certainly was no
attempt to do that here. We want to protect our victims and we
want to protect our investigation and our case.
Mr. Walden. Sure, but when Mr. Ryan asked that it be resealed,
why was it--that just didn�t matter at that point?
Ms. Fisher. It is not that it didn�t matter at all.
Unfortunately, it was already in the public realm and so
resealing would have been ineffective, so the judgment was made
at the time by the people on the ground to offer him protection.
Mr. Walden. Okay. And when you say it is already in the public
realm, does that mean that it was at one time open and available
but could it--I am not an attorney, so you are going to have to
work with me on this. But resealing it, would that take it out
of the public realm?
Ms. Fisher. Well, when I said it was already in the public
realm, the press in Roanoke already had a copy of the affidavit
and had called the U.S. Attorney in Roanoke, according to my
conversations with the U.S. Attorney in looking into this. And
so it was already in the public realm, and of course, it had
been made--
Mr. Walden. But it was like one reporter in Roanoke had it?
Ms. Fisher. I believe that is right but I am not sure that they
knew that at the time. But I think that when they were
considering whether resealing would be effective, and of course,
it would only have remained resealed for a certain period of
time--
Mr. Walden. How long would that be, normally, in a case?
Ms. Fisher. It would depend on the local rules in the
courthouse down there. Sometimes it is 15 days, sometimes it is
longer. It depends on your relationship with the court and the
motions that are filed. But this was not done on purpose. We
want to protect our victims. I am sorry that it happened. I
believe everybody is sorry that it happened.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Mr. Roldan, what is the current budget for the Innocent Images
Unit?
Mr. Roldan. Sir, I can break it down for you, but--
Mr. Walden. You need to turn your mic on there if you would.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Roldan. I can break it down for you, sir, but right now it
is a little bit less than $20 million.
Mr. Walden. And is it--
Mr. Roldan. Including personnel.
Mr. Walden. And has the Unit�s budget been the same since its
inception?
Mr. Roldan. No, sir. It started in 1998 and we received
60 positions equivalent to $5.8 million.
Mr. Walden. That was in �98?
Mr. Roldan. In 1998. We also received--
Mr. Walden. And what is it today?
Mr. Roldan. Total in personnel or non-personnel. I will give
you the whole--1998, 60 positions, equivalent $5.8 million.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Mr. Roldan. In addition, non-personnel $4.2 million. In 1999,
45 positions equivalent to $5.2 million.
Mr. Walden. So it has gone down?
Mr. Roldan. No, in addition. This is reoccurring. So in
addition to the 60 positions, we received an additional
45 positions.
Mr. Walden. You got an additional 45 positions.
Mr. Roldan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. Okay.
Mr. Roldan. And in 2005, in addition to the $4.2 million
non-personnel, we received an additional $3 million
non-personnel. No additional positions, but we received $3
million in non-personnel. So now we are up to $7.2 million
reoccurring. It will reoccur every year. And then in 2006, we
received an additional 22 positions, which is approximately
$2.69 million.
Mr. Walden. Okay. Do you believe that is adequate to keep up
with the volumes we are hearing about here?
Mr. Roldan. We could use more resources in this particular
matter, obviously, from the numbers we are getting.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Within the cyber crimes section, what priority is placed on
Innocent Images investigations as opposed to intellectual
property crimes, such as downloading music from the Internet,
for example? How many positions do you have on these
intellectual property cases?
Mr. Roldan. Minimal, sir. As a matter of fact, the Innocent
Images program is just below the intrusion matters, which
address counterterrorism and counterintelligence.
This was just recently changed, too, by the way.
Mr. Walden. When?
Mr. Roldan. Most recently, we started working on a national
strategy approximately a year ago or a little less than a year
ago, and that national strategy was recently signed. That is
where the changes were made.
Mr. Walden. Okay, because it used to be like third in your
priority, didn�t it?
Mr. Roldan. Yes, sir, you are correct.
Mr. Walden. After intellectual property cases, after hacking,
and after intrusion?
Mr. Roldan. Yes, sir, you are correct.
Mr. Walden. Okay. All right.
Ms. Fisher, one final question on this affidavit issue. Have
you ever resealed an affidavit in a case?
Ms. Fisher. No, sir. I have not had occasion to do so.
Mr. Walden. Does it ever happen in--I meant the Justice
Department in general, not necessarily you personally.
Ms. Fisher. The Justice Department, I couldn�t say for the
entire Justice Department. I think it unusual, but I would
never say that it couldn�t happen or wouldn�t happen. It would
be up to the court, obviously.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Ms. Fisher. Could I clarify one thing--
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Ms. Fisher. --Mr. Chairman? I think I mentioned the cyber crime
treaty earlier as something that could be done and could be
worked on that is in the Senate right now, and I mentioned it in
regards to data retention. It actually helps us with
international cooperation and information sharing, not data
retention, so I apologize for that. I just wanted to clarify
that for the record.
Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is
expired.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Walden.
At this time, I recognize Dr. Burgess for 10 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being out
of the room for a while during part of the testimony.
When evidence comes to light that some of this activity has been
going on, but it comes to you late, does it reach a point where
the evidence is just too stale to pursue an investigation or a
search warrant?
Ms. Fisher. There could be a staleness problem with regard to
search warrants, but as far as the investigation goes, I would
defer that to Mr. Swecker.
Mr. Swecker. Can you repeat that question?
Mr. Burgess. If you don�t catch something right away, is there
an expiration date on the ability to investigate it and pursue a
search warrant?
Mr. Swecker. The answer is yes, because data can become stale and
you can�t use it in a search warrant, for example, because it is
not current enough. We often get information that is a year,
2 years old, and unless you can update that information and get it
to the point where it is fresh enough to get a search warrant, you
can�t act on it without just knocking on the door and doing the
knock and talk that I think Raul discussed earlier.
Mr. Burgess. So then what happens? Does the case just get
dropped?
Mr. Swecker. No. I mean, if you have a list of subscribers that
are 2 years old, for example, you continue with the
investigation. It goes into a database. If you do get to the
names of the subscribers and you get the information on it,
that goes into the Innocent Images database and usually we run
across these folks again.
So it doesn�t just die, I mean, the investigation continues
on.
Mr. Burgess. Is there any tool that we could give you here
that would help you with the staleness problem? Is there any
legislative tool that Congress could supply you?
Mr. Swecker. I will defer to Justice on that one. I mean,
we like data retention. It is a question of how long and
how much data is going to be retained. There is an issue
ith our regional forensic labs, frankly. There is a bottleneck
there. Innocent Images cases, as we refer to them, have to
take a backseat to terrorism exploitation with respect to our
computer forensic examinations. There are only about nine
labs, I believe, forensic labs around the country right now,
and these are labs that are shared by State and local and FBI
and other Federal agencies. There are times when we can�t get
to this information because of the press of terrorism,
counterintelligence cases, and other cases that the Director
has stated, and rightfully so, that are higher priorities. So
more forensic labs would help.
Mr. Burgess. I have a hard time differentiating between this
type of terrorism and some of the other types that you pursue,
but I understand what you are saying.
So you will try to pursue a case even though some of the
information has become quite dated?
Mr. Swecker. Yes. Arnold, can you elaborate on that a little
bit?
Mr. Bell. Yes, sir.
Even when we receive dated information, we have several
databases that are contained in house. In addition, we have
databases that are available to us at the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children. We will take the names of the
individuals that we have, we will take whatever information we
have, and we will bounce it off those databases. Sometimes we
find people that we have encountered before, sometimes we find
people that we already have active investigations on, or when
we go through the National Center, some other agency may have
active investigations on. The information that we have, if
someone else has an investigation, our information generally
will bolster some other investigation or allow us to continue
on with investigations we might already have ongoing on a
particular subject. For example, on a website case we might
have 10,000 such leads, but all that information might be 2 or
3 years old. We bounce that off of all the databases that are
available to us.
Mr. Burgess. So you have someone who is continually working
on those?
Mr. Bell. We do those regularly.
Mr. Burgess. Do you have any--I mean, are there success stories
from successful prosecutions from that?
Mr. Bell. You know what, I can�t think of any that came
specifically from some data of that age right now. I am sure
there are. I can get back to the committee if it is necessary.
Mr. Burgess. Well, I am sure all of you were in the room when
we heard the testimony from the pervious panel. I have just got
to tell you, I am really bothered by human traffickers
masquerading as adoption agencies. I mean, I had no idea that
that sort of thing could even happen.
Is there any role for the Department of Justice or the FBI in
working up these cases and pursuing these individuals? I mean,
that is really at the heart of what we are talking about, from
the standpoint of the Internet. The Internet has put all of
this stuff on steroids. At the heart of it, you had a pedophile
go overseas and adopt a baby, and went through three agencies in
order to do it. Is that possible?
Ms. Fisher. It was such a sad and horrific story that she told,
and she is such a brave girl.
I was thinking that same thing as she was testifying, is there
something--
Mr. Burgess. Well, are you guys investigating--
Ms. Fisher. --for the Department--
Mr. Burgess. Go ahead--aspects of those adoption agencies? I
mean, I don�t want to come down hard on international adoption
agencies that are doing good work and providing people the
children they have always longed for, but this is so heinous.
Surely, the FBI is investigating adoption agencies, international
adoption agencies, after seeing this kind of information, because
as someone on the previous panel said, there have got to be other
Mashas out there. We just haven�t found them yet.
Mr. Swecker. Can I address that?
Mr. Burgess. Sure, I wish you would.
Mr. Swecker. You hit it right on the head. It is a human
trafficking case, and we address human trafficking cases. We
have a pretty sizeable inventory of human trafficking cases. We
can get back to you as to how many of those that would involve
adoption agencies. As you know, we played a role in this case,
although it was first scoped out by a local officer. He came to
the FBI for some additional help in getting the search warrant
put together and actually conducting the raid.
But to answer your question, we do have a role to play.
Mr. Burgess. Are any of the people who were involved in this
case that was before us today, any of the adoption agency
people in jail, on trial, awaiting trial? Has anyone been
punished for what happened to this 5-year-old?
Mr. Swecker. Not that I am aware of.
Ms. Fisher. Other than the defendant, her adoptive father who
is in prison, I am not aware of any others.
Mr. Burgess. And I mean, the failures are--her teachers, I
don�t know whether she got medical care during her 5 years with
this guy. I don�t know whether he took her in for her
immunizations. If she went to school, I presume she had
immunizations. I presume she was weighed by a nurse and someone
should have noted that her weight was lower than the 20th
percentile for a 10-year-old. I mean, it is just hard to
imagine how this was missed over and over and over again. The
failings of our system are just rampant in this case.
The Toronto police department spent considerable time and
resources to find this child, only to learn that her identify
had been--or that she had been found 2 years earlier by the
FBI working with the Chicago police department. Do you have
things in place internationally now to try to help that? What
is being done amongst Federal law enforcement agencies and the
Justice Department?
Mr. Swecker. The answer is yes. Our database has been merged
with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
database, which is actually when the match was made in this case
two years after she was recovered. NCMEC has put out a list of
protocols that need to be followed in these types of cases, and
as a last resort, placing the child�s picture out on the public
domain. That protocol wasn�t followed in this case, and I will
let Arnold follow up on that, but we can�t force other
international law enforcement agencies to follow those protocols.
They are really advisory in nature. Most countries do.
Mr. Burgess. How do our efforts compare with that of other
countries? Are we keeping up?
Mr. Swecker. We do. We have recovered--in comparison to the
international law enforcement agencies, we have recovered 124
children versus the combined efforts of 181 other countries in
the recovery of about 257 children. So one agency has recovered
124; combined, 181 agencies have recovered 250. So we compare,
I mean, we lead the world in these types of investigations in
terms of recovered children.
Mr. Burgess. Is there any idea how big the universe of children
who are exploited by child predators is? I mean, how does that
figure of 187 compare with--
Mr. Swecker. We tried to take a stab at that a little earlier,
and we think it is hundreds of thousands internationally,
probably tens of thousands--
Mr. Burgess. Probably not a great figure.
Mr. Swecker. --nationally.
Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman, it has been a long day. This is an
emotionally exhausting topic. I am going to yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Burgess.
Once again, I want to thank the panel. We look forward to
continuing to work with you as we continue efforts in this area.
The record will remain open for 30 days and the documents and
these records will be submitted in to be formally a part of the
record.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Roldan, I think Chairman Barton indicated he would
be getting a question to you, and we would appreciate an answer on that.
I hope you all enjoyed being with the Energy and Commerce
Oversight Subcommittee this afternoon. With that, the hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 7:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]