Investigating Internet Crimes Against Children
The Internet Control Dial
April 3, 2006, Dr. Frank Kardasz
I have had the opportunity to speak with citizen groups about Internet crime on many occasions, and at the end of each presentation audience members ask questions. There is often some senior individual in the group who raises a hand and asks with a concerned mature voice, "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. Opponents of Internet control argue that regulations are costly, imperfect and draconian violations of constitutional freedoms. While absolute government control over the Internet is not only improper in a Democracy but as a practical matter impossible in the real world, 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?
Survey of ICAC Affiliates
On March 31, 2006 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?
I received 35 responses from detectives, special agents and prosecutors in 17 states and the District of Columbia. The most frequent response involves data storage and retrieval by Internet service providers (ISP). The second most frequent response involved jurisdiction as it pertains to subpoenas and search warrants to Internet service providers.The following paragraphs briefly discuss each issue.
1. Data Storage and Retrieval by Internet Service Providers
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 obtained and served, there is information remaining with the ISP that will help investigators find the offender. Most ISP organizations are operated by conscientious and professional business people. Most of them 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. Presently, the law requiring ISP's to report (42 USC 13032) is weak.
Because mandated data retention is a bottom-line cost issue, some ISP's will not comply unless a law is passed. Mandated data retention is not a draconian privacy violation. Law enforcement simply needs the data retained but not disclosed, 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 an Internet predator identifiable only by the subscriber information associated with his screen name, but the responsible ISP did not preserve the subscriber information, the investigation ends while the predator remains free.
Recommendations
A. Mandate that Internet service providers retain information about subscribers for at least one year.
B. Mandate that Internet service providers respond to subpoenas involving crimes against children investigations within one week of receiving a subpoena and more quickly under exigent circumstances.
Conclusion
The law enforcement personnel who are tasked with protecting children on-line need additional legal tools to help navigate those dark alleys of the Internet where they are working 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.