[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 42 (Tuesday, April 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2728-S2730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 2137. A bill to facilitate the protection of minors using the 
Internet from

[[Page S2729]]

material that is harmful to minors, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
 Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I want to introduce a very 
important piece of legislation, the Family Privacy Protection Act. Let 
me just take a few minutes to explain this bill to my colleagues.
  In this age of high-technology, we are blessed with many things that 
our ancestors did not have. Cell phones and e-mail allow us to 
communicate quickly. Advances in medical science are allowing our 
citizens to live much longer and healthier lives. And advances in 
computers and other equipment help make workers and businesses many 
times more productive. However, technology is a double-edged sword. 
Sometimes the bad comes with the good. This fact hit home in the most 
tragic way when it was learned that the September 11 hijackers had 
communicated through e-mail and cell phones.
  As frightening as this is, it is not the only example of the problems 
associated with advances in technology. There are day-to-day issues 
that must be resolved. For instance, technology has exposed our 
citizens to breaches of privacy that could never have taken place 
before the days of the Internet and other advances.
  Former Chief Justice Earl Warren once said, ``The fantastic advances 
in the field of communication constitute a grave danger to the privacy 
of the individual.'' If Chief Justice Warren were alive today to offer 
his remarks, he might substitute the word ``technology'' for 
``communication.'' Let me give one example of an incident which 
highlights this fact.
  In the early 1990's, a shocking thing happened to a family in Monroe, 
Louisiana. Monroe is a relatively small city, at least by the standards 
of most parts of the country, but it is the largest city in the 
northeastern section of my state. I want to talk about a family who 
lives in Monroe, the Wilsons. Susan Wilson was just an average woman 
with an average family.
  Unfortunately, something terrible happened, which tore apart the 
quiet life of this family. A family friend, a former deacon at the 
Wilson's church, did something despicable. While the Wilson's weren't 
home, this man broke into their house and planted a video camera in 
their bathroom. The Wilson's eventually learned that, for almost 2 
years, video cameras had been filming everything in their bathroom. 
This man filmed all of their private moments for the past years for his 
own sick and twisted purposes.
  But even then, the family's nightmare wasn't over. You see, 
under Louisiana state law, and the law of most States, there was no 
crime under which this man could be charged for filming the family 
without their consent. Although he was eventually charged with 
unauthorized entry, there was no way to punish this man for the more 
serious crime he committed.

  The State legislature remedied this in 1999, passing a law making 
video voyeurism a crime. This was thanks in large part to Susan Wilson, 
who spoke with the media, testified before committees--in short, give 
up her privacy and put her life on public display, doing everything she 
had to do to call attention to this problem. In short, she has 
sacrificed so that women such as herself will not have to experience 
the pain of watching the individuals who devastated their lives walk 
away virtually untouched by the law.
  And she continues to make this sacrifice to this day. There was even 
a recent movie detailing Susan's story, some of my colleagues may have 
seen it. It aired February 6 on Lifetime, starring Angie Harmon. It was 
a very compelling, though obviously disturbing, film, and if my 
colleagues have not seen it I would urge them to do so.
  Since the law was passed in Louisiana, several individuals have been 
prosecuted under it. Let me just give a couple of examples. Two years 
ago, a New Orleans man was arrested under the law after a video camera 
was found in his neighbor's air conditioning vent. In nearby Marrero 
just a couple of months before, a man was arrested for allegedly 
pointing a video camera in someone's window. And just before that, a 
man was arrested under the video voyeurism law and charged with 
videotaping a woman during intercourse and then trying to sell the 
tape. And, just over a month ago in Lafayette, LA, a man was charged 
for undressing a sleeping woman and videotaping her in his apartment.
  This law has also be used in conjunction with laws already on the 
books, to give police another tool with which to charge offenders. For 
instance, last year in Slidell, LA, a man was charged with seven counts 
of video voyeurism in addition to various pornography-related charges. 
And in Leesville, LA, a year ago, three people, including a Sheriff's 
deputy, were arrested and charged with video voyeurism and juvenile 
pornography.
  Louisiana is not the only State to pass this law, or to charge 
offenders with violating it. A principal in Arkansas was charged with 
the crime, although the charges were later dropped. And in Milwaukee, a 
man was arrested late last year and charged with videotaping guests in 
his house while they showered and undressed.
  These are terrible crimes; they are a violation of privacy, and more. 
They strike at the very heart of one of our most cherished personal 
freedoms, the right to live our lives free of the fear of people 
watching us perform the most regular of tasks, bathing, getting 
dressed, or sleeping.
  In the past, someone who looked in another person's window at night 
was called a ``Peeping Tom.'' We are not dealing with people looking in 
windows anymore, we are dealing with technologies like video cameras 
small enough to fit in an air conditioning vent. In the past, that 
person looking in the window could be caught by police and charged with 
a crime. Unfortunately, for the person who plants the camera in the air 
conditioning duct, as things stand now, except for a few states that 
have passed this type of legislation, that person can at best only be 
charged with a crime like unlawful entry.

  This brings me to the first provision of the legislation that I am 
introducing today. I met with Susan last year, and promised her I would 
introduce Federal legislation addressing this crime. Currently, only 
five states have laws dealing with video voyeurism. This is one of the 
reasons I am here today to introduce my legislation, the Family Privacy 
Protection Act.
  This measure contains several important provisions, but the first one 
I want to focus on today is the video voyeurism section. This bill will 
make it a Federal crime to film someone in these circumstances without 
their consent. The bill provides exceptions for legitimate purposes 
such as police investigations and security; but the bottom line is that 
this legislation would hold these individuals responsible for their 
actions.
  Actress Judy Garland, speaking of her lack of privacy, once said, 
``I've never looked through a keyhole without finding someone was 
looking back.'' How frightening it would be for all of our citizens to 
feel this way; that they are not safe from prying eyes in their own 
home.
  The video voyeurism component, while important, is only one part of 
this bill. This bill also contains a provision to protect children from 
Internet websites with pornographic material. A recent study showed 
that 31 percent of children aged 10-17 who used the Internet have 
accidentally come across a pornographic website. That includes 75 
percent ages 15-17.
  One of the problems is that companies and individuals who have 
websites make money from ``hits'' by Internet users. It doesn't matter 
whether someone intentionally visits a website or does so on accident, 
it still counts as a ``hit''. So some of these companies that set up 
pornographic websites specifically choose names that will cause people 
to accidentally find them. Let me give a quick example. As I'm sure all 
of my colleagues know, the web address for the White House is 
www.whitehouse.gov. But if you make a mistake--and it's not a difficult 
mistake, I know many people who have made it, and type a slightly 
different address, www.whitehouse.com, you will access a different site 
altogether, a pornographic website. While I'm sure these companies are 
not targeting children specifically, they inevitably come across these 
inappropriate sites.
  I have already mentioned some statistics on how many children have 
accidentally visited inappropriate

[[Page S2730]]

websites. I just want to share a few examples. An 11-year-old boy was 
searching for game sites, typed in ``fun.com'', and a pornographic site 
came up. A 15-year-old boy was looking for info on cars, did a search 
for ``escort'', and an escort service site came up.
  And, in one of the most disturbing examples that I came across, in 
one instance a 15-year-old boy was doing a report on wolves, and found 
a site on bestiality. I just want my colleagues to imagine for a moment 
this happening to their son or daughter. I think we can all agree that 
this is something that we need to be concerned about.

  The American people are certainly concerned about it. In the same 
Kaiser study, 84 percent of the American people worry about the 
availability of pornography online, and 61 percent say the government 
should regulate it. Sixty-one percent. And I am certain that number is 
much higher among parents.
  That is why I believe this legislation is so important. I understand 
that these websites are protected by the First Amendment. This bill 
does not intrude upon these sites' right to free speech. Instead, it 
would set up a whole new domain name for pornographic material. A 
domain name, as my colleagues know, is the three letters at the end of 
the web address. Dot-com, dot-gov, dot-org, dot-net--these are all 
domain names. My legislation would instruct the Internet Corporation 
for Assigned Names and Numbers to set up a new domain name for 
pornographic websites. The owners of these sites would have 12 months 
to move their sites to the new domain.
  This is a very simple yet effective method of protecting our children 
from these sites. A new domain would make ``filter'' programs, which 
screen out these pornographic sites, much more effective. It would 
eliminate mistakes like the whitehouse dot-gov, dot-com, problem that I 
mentioned earlier. And, I firmly believe this bill passes First 
Amendment tests for freedom of speech.
  I understand that some people will not agree with me, saying that 
this bill does not go far enough and that this type of material should 
be banned altogether. But the First Amendment to the Constitution 
protects even material of this kind, whether or not we may agree with 
it. My bill would not infringe on the right of free speech, but would 
simply restrict where this type of speech could be presented on the 
Internet. As one of my constituents from Louisiana said, ``We need to 
put it where the people who want to see it can get to it, and the ones 
who don't want to see it don't have to.'' That is all this provision 
does.
  Finally, a similar provision in the bill provides protection for 
children from pornographic e-mails. This language is very similar to a 
bill that was introduced in the House of Representatives by 
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California. I wanted to take a second to 
acknowledge Congresswoman Lofgren for her efforts, and I hope to work 
with her on this initiative.
  In short, the bill would require that e-mail advertisements be 
clearly labeled as containing sexually oriented material. We are all 
familiar with receive e-mails with subjects that say ``Lose weight 
now'' or ``You have won!'' that in reality contain pornographic 
material. Many of us simply delete these e-mails without look at them, 
knowing them to be deceptive or junk. However, it is easy to be fooled. 
I have received letters from several constituents who were offended, 
and rightly so, after opening falsely labeled e-mails.
  As you can imagine, children are particularly vulnerable to this type 
of deceptive e-mail. In a study done for Congress by the Crimes Against 
Children Research Center, 25 percent of children studied were exposed 
to unwanted sexual pictures in the previous year. Of these exposures, 
28 percent occurred by opening or clicking on an e-mail.

  There is one case that upsets me in particular. A 12-year-old girl, a 
little girl who collects Beanie Babies, received an e-mail with a 
subject line saying ``Free Beanie Babies.'' As you can imagine, this 
excited little girl quickly opened the e-mail, only to be confronted 
with pictures of naked people. Again, I'd like my colleagues to stop 
for a moment and imagine that this was their child.
  Let me just conclude with a few more facts. The Kaiser study also 
looked at the consequence on these children from encountering these 
pornographic websites and e-mails. Fifty-seven percent of those age 15-
17 who were studied believed that exposure to online pornography could 
have a serious impact on those under 18. And 76 percent of children 
surveyed by Kaiser said that pornography that kids can see is a ``big 
problem.''
  I just want to add that I am hopeful that, in the future, we can take 
even stronger steps to address the problem of pornographic e-mails. 
However, at the moment, this bill will at least ensure that Internet 
users, particularly children, know that an e-mail contains sexually 
oriented material before opening it.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important 
legislation. It is intended to protect our most vulnerable citizens, 
our children, while protecting the right of individuals to free speech. 
I believe this is something that we can all support.

                          ____________________