11.23.10
Posted in Uncategorized at 05:47 by Administrator
Metal detectors expose airline passengers to minimal amounts of radiation. Pat down searches are uncomfortable to some who refuse the metal detector. Both of those inconveniences are still preferable to that sick feeling you will have in your last moments after the plane blows up and you wish that someone had done a better job of searching the other passengers. Blame the terrorists for this situation – don’t blame the government for trying to protect you.
Permalink
09.11.10
Posted in Uncategorized at 16:33 by Administrator
The link below leads to my September 2010 presentation at the plenary session of the Iowa Crimes Against Children Conference.
Many thanks to the host agencies for inviting me to speak.
Internet Crimes Against Children: Systemic Hurdles and Organizational Challenges
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B3XfthhGWg7RYjllYmJlNWQtNDhhOC00NzhkLTkxMjMtZTg1YjRmOGNiMGYz&hl=en&authkey=CK6-v_oD
Permalink
08.10.10
Posted in Internet crimes against children, Uncategorized at 12:36 by Administrator
Notes of interest from the National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention & Interdiction report to Congress
Introduction:
* Nelson Mandela said, “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.” Ohio Congressman John Adams commented, “Given the current statistics surrounding child pornography, we are living in a country that is losing its soul” (p.1).
* Ensuring that all children come of age without being disturbed by sexual trauma or exploitation is more than a criminal justice issue, it is a societal issue (p.1).
* …the threat to our nation’s children of becoming a victim of child exploitation is a very serious one (p.2).
Child pornography offenses present a real threat to children:
* …knowing that all copies of child pornography images can never be retrieved compounds the victimization. The shame suffered by the children is intensified by the fact that the sexual abuse was captured in images easily available for others to see and revictimizes the children by using those images for sexual gratification. Unlike children who suffer from abuse without the production of images of that abuse, these children struggle to find closure and may be more prone to feelings of helplessness and lack of control, given that the images cannot be retrieved and are available for others to see in perpetuity (p.9).
Child pornographers are increasing their efforts to avoid being identified:
* In the United States, there is no federal statute or regulation requiring providers to keep user IP information for any length of time, or at all. Some U.S. providers only keep the information for a few days. In a 2009 survey of 100 U.S. Internet crimes investigators, 61 percent of the investigators reported that they had had investigations detrimentally affected because data was not retained; and 47 percent reported that they had had to end an investigation because data was not retained (p.23).
Psychological Impact to a Child Pornography Victim:
* …a child suffers lifelong psychological damage and may never overcome his or her trauma from being a child pornography victim (p.D-12).
* …children suffer from knowing that their images exist in perpetuity and that even if their abuser is convicted, there are still other child pornography offenders out there viewing their images, offenders that the victims may run into in social settings (p.D-12).
The Effect of the Lack of Internet Regulation on Law Enforcement Investigations:
* … the lack of Internet regulation has restricted law enforcement investigations and assisted offenders in committing child pornography offenses (p.D-12).
The Link between Child Pornography and Contact Offenses Among NDIC interviewees:
* …child pornography creates a market for new images of an increasingly graphic and violent nature.
* …stimulation from child pornography images drive some child pornography offenders to engage in contact offenses with children (p.D-13).
Recommendations
* Enact longer mandatory minimum sentences for child pornography offenders.
* Require a federal law that mandates all ISPs to establish child pornography filters, regulates their recordkeeping, and obligates them to report child pornography to law enforcement.
* Increase law enforcement capability by allocating more funding, training, and personnel dedicated specifically to child pornography investigations (p.D-14).
Recommendations
* Educate children, parents, schools, and communities on the subject and steps to prevent their children from becoming victims. Initiate a nationwide school-based program on online enticement starting in third grade and continuing throughout high school for all children and finding a way to incorporate parents’ participation in such a program.
* Have parents place home computers in a common space in the house and not to allow Internet access when they are not available to monitor their children’s activity.
* Install tracking software to monitor children’s activity.
* Develop better online enticement reporting and regulation practices for ISPs. (p.D-19).
Source: U.S. Department of Justice. (August 2010). The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction: A Report to Congress. Retrieved August 9, 2010 from http://www.projectsafechildhood.gov/docs/natstrategyreport.pdf
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Notes from the UNICEF report to the United Nations:
* UNICEF estimates that there are more than four million websites featuring sexually exploited minors. Further, the number of child pornography websites is growing: 480,000 sites were identified in 2004 compared to 261,653 in 2001. More than 200 new images are circulated daily, and UNICEF estimates that the production and distribution of child pornographic images generates in between 3 and 20 billion dollars a year (p.9).
* In July 2009 the United Nations reported that there are approximately 750,000 sexual predators using the Internet to try to make contact with children for the purpose of sexually exploiting them (p.9).
Source: United Nations. (2009). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, Najat M’jid Maalla. A/HRC/12/23. 13 July 2009. Retrieved August 9, 2010 from http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?docid=4ab0d35a2
The full National Strategy report to Congress can be found at http://www.projectsafechildhood.gov/docs/natstrategyreport.pdf
Permalink
04.28.10
Posted in Uncategorized at 00:29 by Administrator
Dr. Frank Kardasz, April 27, 2010. Revised May 12, 2010
As a career law enforcement officer, first in Michigan and for the past 25 years in Arizona, I have admired many immigrants who came here legally and worked hard to succeed while following the laws of the land. I have also seen some people quietly slink into the US, not because they had criminal motives, but because they wanted to find productive work and send money back to their families in other countries.
I have empathy and respect for legal, first-generation immigrants who do the jobs that spoiled and “entitled” Americans refuse to do. They often toil in necessary but low-paying jobs including day-laborers, farm workers, cab drivers, housekeepers, caregivers, restaurant kitchens and hundreds of other places where they just want to do honest work and survive.
I am grateful for my born-into US citizenship and I have been employed in law enforcement for the past 30 years. I also have friends and family who properly emigrated and dutifully followed the lawful and cumbersome naturalization processes for obtaining US citizenship.
As a young law enforcement officer in Michigan in the late 1970′s I was only vaguely aware of the illegal immigration issues facing the southern border states. I assumed that a strong law enforcement contingent protected the Country: I was wrong.
When I moved to Arizona in the 1980s I was surprised to learn that police policies restricted an officers’ ability to assist in thwarting criminal illegal aliens. Officers could notify Federal enforcement officers only when an arrest was for a serious felony, but in most other cases there was no immigration enforcement whatsoever. Police could assist the Feds fighting illegal drugs, illegal alcohol, illegal weapons and counterfeit currency – but not illegal immigration.
During my Arizona law enforcement work I have watched the revolving-door border non-protection mechanism of the Federal government sometimes result in aliens deported to Mexico one-day and returning across the barely-regulated border a few days later.
In the 90′s I supervised a police undercover unit specializing in recovering stolen property. During that time there were many incidents involving criminal illegal aliens trafficking property and narcotics.
More recently, I supervised investigations of Internet predators and I am aware of many incidents involving criminal illegal aliens committing sex crimes against minors. Several years ago 13-year-old Christina Long of Danbury, Connecticut was murdered by an illegal from Brazil whom she met on the Internet (Ohio Jobs, no date). Dozens of other troubling examples exist involving illegals committing various sex crimes against US citizens (Shilling, January 09, 2007).
As a supervisor in a Police Vice Unit I learned of many incidents involving prostitutes here illegally from other countries. One recent newsworthy case involved a prostitution business and money laundering operation in Washington and California involving illegals (Auburn Reporter April 26, 2010).
The underground but highly organized process of illegal entry to the U.S. sometimes involves “coyotes,” criminals who facilitate the illegal transportation of foreigners. Coyotes accept payments from aspiring immigrants trying to cross the border and transport them across. Upon arrival the coyotes sometimes hold their illegal human cargo hostage and then demand more money from relatives. The unlawful transportation process is highly evolved. A recent Arizona raid dismantled an organized shuttle service that was bringing illegals from Mexico to Arizona (McCombs, April 15, 2010). In another recent incident three children who were being smuggled from El Salvador and destined for Washington DC were rescued in Arizona after the parents reported that the smugglers were demanding additional ransom (Barron, May 11, 2010).
Illegals are often secreted at “drop-houses.” Drop-houses are usually rental homes in suburban neighborhoods where people are off-loaded from unmarked passenger vans under cover of darkness and quietly secreted in the quiet dwelling. In recent months police in Arizona have responded to dozens of calls about drop-houses. Police sometimes arrive at these locations only to witness a dozen or more people fleeing on foot in different directions. Sometimes those who remain are frightened men, women and children who may have been deprived of food and water by their captors (Gibson, April 13, 2010).
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 reawakened many Americans’ consciousness regarding lackluster border enforcement. Since then, efforts to strengthen border defenses have improved but are still imperfect (AP April 27, 2010).
A recent political flash-point killing involved Arizona rancher Robert Krentz who was shot on his own property near the southern border town of Douglas, Arizona (Robbins, April 12, 2010). The murder is unsolved but unidentified illegals are suspected. Besides the long list of good American citizens who have tragically lost their lives to criminal acts committed by illegal aliens (Ohio Jobs, no date), the following is a sad list of some of my law enforcement colleagues who have died as the result of criminal acts committed by illegals (Crime Victims, no date):
Officer Nick Erfle, Phoenix, AZ
Officer Shane Figueroa, Phoenix, AZ
Officer Marc Atkinson, Phoenix, AZ
Officer Kenneth Collins, Phoenix, AZ
Officer Jeffery Stone, Lebanon, TN
Officer Henry Canales, Houston, TX
Officer Gary Gryder, Houston, TX
Officer Rodney Johnson, Houston, TX
Office Brian Jackson, Dallas, TX
Officer Vincent Owen D’Anna , Flint, MI
Officer Andrew Widman, Fort Myers, FL
Officer Daniel Golden, Huntsville, AL
Officer Hugo Arango,Doraville, GA
Officer Tony Zappetalla, Oceanside, CA
Officer Gregory Bailey, CA
Officer Roy Wade Jr. Long Beach, CA
Officer Abe Yap, Long Beach, CA
Border Patrol Agent James Paul Epling, CA
Senior Border Patrol Agent Luis Aguilar, Yuma, AZ
Border Patrol Agent Robert Wimer Rosas Jr., Campo, CA
Border Patrol Inspector Theodore L. Newton Jr. Oak Grove, CA
Border Patrol Inspector George F. Azrak, Oak Grove, CA
Officer Robert Bryant, Denver, CO
Officer Will Seuis, Oakland , CA
Officer Michael Gordon, Chicago, IL
Deputy David March, Los Angeles County, CA
Trooper Bret Clodfelter, OR
Officer Sheila Herring, Detroit, MI
In 2003, Phoenix Police Officer Robert Sitek was shot and wounded by an illegal who had previously been deported but had returned the US to continue a criminal career (ImmigrationsHumanCost.org, no date). Officer Sitek survived the shooting. In April, 2010 Deputy Louie Puroll of the Pinal County Arizona Sheriffs Department was shot by illegals who were trafficking drugs across the border (Christie, May 1, 2010). Deputy Puroll survived. Many other law enforcement officers have been assaulted and injured by criminal illegal aliens.
The illegal immigration issue must be addressed and border security must be tightened. The new Arizona law, SB1070, attempts to loosen the restraints on a police officers’ ability to assist in fighting illegal immigration. It does not authorize racial profiling. It does not authorize Constitution-trampling and it does not appear to be an apocalyptic reawakening of the Hitler regime. Naysayers should read the legislation closely before believing the misinformed hype (Arizona State Legislature, 2010).
Officers who enforce the laws must meet standards of reasonableness towards developing probable cause for arrest when enforcing the new laws. These are the same standards used in every other kind of investigation done by law enforcement. Enforcement will be scrutinized by supervisors, prosecutors judges and juries before anyone is ever adjudicated for a crime under the new laws. I recommend that the justice system be allowed to proceed before the new laws are preemptively abolished by misinformed critics.
References
Arizona State Legislature. (2010). SB1070 Immigration; law enforcement; safe neighborhoods. (web page). Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=1070&image.x=6&image.y=7
Associated Press. (April 27, 2010). Senators call for scraping ‘virtual fence”. Las Vegas Sun (web page) .Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/27/senators-call-for-scraping-virtual-fence/
Auburn Reporter. (April 26, 2010). Two arrested in multi-state prostitution, money laundering scheme. Auburn Reporter (web page). Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/aub/news/92108544.html
Barron, A.E. (May 11, 2010). ICE agents rescue 3 kids held hostage by smugglers in Phoenix. AZ Family.com (web page). Retrieved May 12, 2010 from http://www.azfamily.com/news/ICE-agents-rescue-3-kids-held-hostage-by-smugglers-in-Phoenix-93477129.html
Christie, B. (May 1, 2010). 17 caught in search for Arizona deputy’s attackers. Associated Press. (web page). Retrieved May 1, 2010 from http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gGgzImP2k9_40Sl_i3l7IX2Cn7bgD9FE7BUG0
Crime Victims of Illegal Aliens. (no date). Immigrations Human Cost. Web page. Retrieved April 27, 2009 from http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html
Gibson, D. (April 13, 2010). Another drop house found in Phoenix. Examiner.com (web page). Retrieved April 26, 2010 from http://www.examiner.com/x-35821-Immigration-Reform-Examiner~y2010m4d13-Another-drop-house-found-in-Phoenix
ImmigrationsHumanCost.org. (no date). (web page). http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html
McCombs, B. (April 15, 2010). Border shuttles in Tucson raided in AZ immigration sweep. Arizona Daily Star (web page). Retrieved April 26, 2010 from http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_6d121a36-48b1-11df-ac5b-001cc4c002e0.html
Ohio Jobs and Justice PAC. (no date). web page.
Retrieved April 27, 2010 from http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp
Robbins T. (April 12, 2010). Arizona ranchers caught up in Mexican drug violence. National Public Radio (web page). Retrieved April 26, 2010 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125844450&ps=cprs
Shilling, C. (January 09, 2007). Sex-offender stings get thousands of illegals: Experts stil concerned U.S. children. WorldNetDailey.com (web page). Retrieved April 26, 2010 from http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=39607
Wooldridge, F. (April 22, 2010). States rights: Arizona deals with illegal alien immigration. NewsWithViews.com Web site. Retrieved April 26, 2010 from http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty563.htm
Dr. Frank Kardasz is a sworn law enforcement officer in Arizona. His opinions do not reflect the official position of any government agency.
Permalink
02.14.10
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 13:05 by Administrator
AZ ICAC Offender Apprehension Project:
Joint Effort Nets 12 Suspects: Citizen Internet Safety Training to Follow
Background
Over the past decade, the ubiquitous proliferation of computers connected to the Internet led to a skyrocketing number of Internet crimes against children. In the year 2008, the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force recorded the following:
• 4,318 incidents involving unlawful images of the sexual exploitation of minors.
• 394 incidents of Internet crimes against children reported from the NCMEC Cybertip hotline.
• 228 cases of the Internet facilitated luring of minors for sexual exploitation.
• 27 reported incidents of Internet related child prostitution.
During eight days in December 2008, Arizona ICAC undercover investigators found that in one narrow avenue of the Internet, 8,170 unlawful images were traced to various locations in Arizona involving 77 different cities throughout the state.
Offender Apprehension Project
In the three months between December 2008 and February 2009, a joint task force of Arizona and Federal investigators conducted a series of proactive cybercrime enforcement operations targeting Internet criminals committing sex crimes against children; including the trafficking of unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. The project was followed by an education effort geared towards Internet crime prevention and awareness.
Law Enforcement Agencies
Investigators affiliated with 13 law enforcement agencies partnered with the Arizona ICAC Task Force in a cooperative effort during this operation. Agencies participating included (alphabetically):
• Arizona Attorney General’s Office (education and training)
• Chandler PD – (investigation and enforcement)
• F.B.I. – (investigation and enforcement)
• Gilbert PD – (investigation and enforcement)
• I.C.E. – (investigation and enforcement)
• Maricopa County Attorney’s Office – (prosecution)
• Mesa PD – (investigation and enforcement)
• Phoenix PD – (investigation and enforcement)
• Scottsdale PD – (investigation and enforcement)
• Tempe PD – (investigation and enforcement)
• U. S. Postal Inspection Service – (investigations)
The Investigators’ Work
Trained investigators endured witnessing disturbing cyber images and videos depicting brutal sexual torture of actual children. They use sophisticated computer investigative techniques combined with undercover tactics to identify offenders. They conducted surveillance operations, requested subpoenas, and wrote and executed dozens of search warrants. They seized thousands of items of computer evidence. Detectives and special agents conducted computer forensics examinations to identify contraband images. They interrogated offenders and interviewed witnesses. They conducted exhaustive searches of dwellings and wrote voluminous reports on their activities.
The proactive investigators agreed to participate in this undercover operation in addition to their regular duties that involve responding to citizens’ complaints of Internet crimes against children. Although the investigations required hundreds of work hours, very little overtime was used. Through their proactive efforts investigators and special agents sought justice for thousands of children who could not call 911. Their fine efforts are greatly appreciated. Next, they will work closely with prosecutors to prepare for trials.
Cases pursued by local agencies under Arizona State Law have been submitted to the local County Attorney’s Office – in most cases this involved the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. Cases pursued by federal agencies under the US Code have been submitted to US Attorney’s Office for the Arizona District. The justice system considers all suspects innocent until proven guilty in court.
The Offenders
All of the following suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law:
These suspects were arrested and charged with violating Arizona State laws regarding the sexual exploitation of minors (child pornography).
Donald Morici, age 79, from Gilbert Arizona – retired appliance repairman
Richard Leathers, age 49, from Phoenix Arizona – an embalmer/mortician
Ronald Good, age 39, from Tempe Arizona – a computer IT specialist
Sean Johnson, age 21, from Tempe Arizona – a college student
Christopher Youngs, age 59, from Quatar – a surveyor
Michael Carter, age 40, from Peoria Arizona – a plumber
Julio Ayala, age 21, from Scottsdale Arizona – a student
Two unnamed juveniles, both age 16 from Mesa and Tempe
Penalties
Unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors are described under Arizona State law in ARS 13-3553. It is a class 2 felony. In Arizona the mandatory minimum penalty for a single image crime is ten years in prison.
The luring and enticement of minors for sexual exploitation is described under Arizona State law in ARS 13-3554. It is a class 3 felony. In Arizona the mandatory minimum penalty for the crime is five years prison.
Training and Education
On March 6, 2009 at 10 a.m. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, in cooperation with all of the agencies involved in the enforcement operation will host an Internet safety meeting for citizens at Orangedale Junior High Prep Academy in Phoenix. The Attorney General has been a statewide leader in bringing the message of Internet safety to children and adults and the meeting is expected to provide important information useful to business owners, parents and minors.
Organizations that can provide more information about Internet crime prevention:
• Arizona Attorney General: www.azag.gov
• Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force: www.azicac.org
• Enough is Enough: www.enough.org
• FBI: www.fbi.gov/innocent.htm
• Get Net Wise: www.getnetwise.org
• ICE: www.ice.gov/pi/childexploitation/index.htm
• ISafe: www.isafe.org
• National Association to Protect Children: www.protect.org
• National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s Netsmartz Program: www.netsmartz.org
• Phoenix PD: www.phoenix.gov/POLICE/net_safe.html
• Scottsdale PD: www.scottsdaleaz.gov/assistance/fac/icac.asp
More Information
Arizona ICAC Task Force
The Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force efforts are partially funded by grants from the US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The ICAC program is a nationwide network of 59 state task forces representing 1,800 local and regionally affiliated agencies engaged in investigations, forensics examinations, prosecutions and community education. We are pleased to know that the recently announced Federal stimulus package provides a much needed $50 million dollar nationwide boost to the program. We hope to see some of those funds in Arizona.
Within Arizona, the ICAC Task Force is affiliated or partnered with 54 law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies statewide. Since 2000, Arizona detectives and special agents have conducted over 8,000 investigations resulting in the incarceration of hundreds of offenders.
Unlawful Images
Images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors are commonly called child pornography. The images and videos are contraband. The images that investigators found were not of babies in bathtubs. Some of the unlawful videos included acts of bestiality between minors and animals including the horrible audio sounds of human suffering. Detailed descriptions of the images will not be fully provided here.
Some people have a lingering ambivalence towards unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. Some offenders say that they think that since the depicted sex act already occurred that possession of the image should not be a crime. This convoluted thinking was eloquently refuted by judges of the Arizona appellate court who said in a 2004 decision:
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State’s interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling.
The victimization of a child continues when that act is memorialized in an image. The materials produced are a permanent record of the children’s participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation. Unfortunately, the victimization of the children involved does not end when the pornographer’s camera is put away.
The legislative judgment…is that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child.
The possession of child pornography drives that industry and…the production of child pornography will decrease if those who possess the product are punished equally with those who produce it.
The law will decrease the production of child pornography if it penalizes those who possess and view the product, thereby decreasing demand.
The possession of child pornography inflames the desires of child molesters, pedophiles and child pornographers. The State has more than a passing interest in forestalling the damage caused by child pornography: preventing harm to children is, without cavil, one of its most important interests.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What undercover tactics were used?
• We cannot release details of our tactics because investigations are still underway using the same undercover techniques. Those details will probably not be available until they come out at trial.
- Are the search warrant affidavits public records?
• The affidavits were sealed by the courts because the investigations using these same techniques are continuing.
- Was this an investigation into chat rooms and social networking sites?
• Many avenues of cyberspace, including but not limited to chat rooms and social networking sites were investigated during this project.
- Was this an investigation into P2P file sharing?
• Many avenues of cyberspace, including but not limited to P2P sources were investigated during this project.
- Where on the Internet were the suspects found?
• We cannot release that information because investigations are still pending using the same undercover tactics. Those details will not be available until trial.
- Was this an organized ring of people working together?
• At this time the evidence does not indicate that the offenders knew of each others activities.
- What training did the investigators have in order to work on these cases?
• The average investigator assigned to conduct these investigations has received over one hundred hours of specialized training specific to Internet crimes and/or computer forensics coursework.
- Are the images and videos available for viewing pursuant to a public records request?
• No – Images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors are contraband. Even in a courtroom setting, the prosecutors try to protect the gallery, the media and everyone but the judge, jury, defense and prosecution from seeing the images.
- Can citizens go on-line and volunteer to go undercover like they did on Dateline with Perverted
Justice?
• Citizen cyber-vigilantism is not supported by the agencies involved in this enforcement operation. To learn about the reasons why we advise against cyber-vigilantism see: www.kardasz.org/Cybervigilantes.html
- Can the media “ride along” and accompany the cyber crime investigators?
• Because child pornography is contraband, we do not permit anyone except those investigating or prosecuting the offenses to be exposed to the images.
• Media exposure of our undercover investigative tactics will make our jobs more difficult by making offenders aware of the techniques we use.
- What Internet safety tips can you provide to citizens about unlawful images?
• Homeowners: Pay attention to what is occurring on your home computer. Take responsibility for the control of your computer.
• Business owners: Watch what your employees are doing on their work computers. Law enforcement intervention can result in an embarrassing disruption of services to your customers.
• Parents: Monitor your child’s use of cell phone cameras. A troubling number of minors are using cell phone cameras to create felony images depicting the sexual exploitation of themselves and others. The images are then being shared throughout cyberspace and the images will never be retrieved.
- What Internet safety tips can you provide to citizens about luring/enticement?
• Parents: Closely monitor your child’s use of the computer and know who your child is contacting on line. Be aware that some children have multiple on line profiles. They may show one profile to their parents while keeping another secret profile that they use to communicate with friends and strangers.
• Also, while you are protecting your children at home, be aware that some children go to places where free Internet access is provided to communicate with others. Coffee shops, libraries and colleges offer free Internet service where young people may be communicating with predators.
- Were any “hands on” contact victims discovered as the result of these investigations?
• Not yet – We have encouraged the families and friends of the suspects to call us if they wish to report contact offenses. We know that victims are understandable reluctant to come forward for fear of embarrassment and because they do not wish to relive the abuse by subjecting themselves to the criminal justice system. We know from the scientific research conducted on the subject of unlawful images that a significant number of possessors are also contact offenders. We encourage victims to report abuse so that we can bring offenders to justice. Complicating our investigative endeavors is the fact that it is impossible for some of the victims, who are as young as infants, to notify the police. How can you call 911 when you are not yet old enough to count or to use a telephone?
- Are women ever arrested for Internet crimes against children?
• Sometimes, but 99% of the offenders in theses cases are men. During this investigation, no women were arrested.
- Who can we call to get an Internet safety and education program at my school or business?
• The Arizona Attorney General Community Services Program at 602-542-2123. Outside Maricopa County call 1-800-352-8431, or e-mail community services@azag.gov
- Where can I go on-line for more information?
• Arizona Attorney General: www.azag.gov
• Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force: www.azicac.org
• Enough is Enough: www.enough.org
• FBI: www.fbi.gov/innocent.htm
• Get Net Wise: www.getnetwise.org
• ICE: www.ice.gov/pi/childexploitation/index.htm
• ISafe: www.isafe.org
• National Association to Protect Children: www.protect.org
• National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s Netsmartz Program: www.netsmartz.org
• Phoenix PD: www.phoenix.gov/POLICE/net_safe.html
• Scottsdale PD: www.scottsdaleaz.gov/assistance/fac/icac.asp
- What is the number to call to report Internet crimes against children?
• Local crimes can be reported through the telephone 911 service.
• The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children operates the Cybertip line where crimes can be reported on-line. The web site is: www.cybertipline.com
Permalink
02.07.10
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 12:49 by Administrator
On February 4, 2010, I provided a presentation to an Online Safety and Technology Working Group panel at the Commerce Department in Washington DC. The subject was the contentious topic of data retention. I included thoughts and opinions from law enforcement investigators who work Internet crimes against children, some good – some bad.
Parts of my presentation to the panel were not well-received by some of the Internet Service Providers in the room. At one point I praised their good work, but when I criticized some of their failings one lawyer (from AOL) shouted, “Objection!” as if we were in court, and the committee chair-lawyer (from News Corporation/MySpace) – the apparent judge – sustained the objection and asked me to delete the offending PowerPoint slides. The kangaroo OSTWG court was not pleased with some of my work.
In a preemptive attempt to discredit the work, one media-member of the group was already misquoting the information and taking it out of context in an article the day before I gave the lecture.
I guess they do not want Congress to hear all sides of the arguments.
Below is a link to my un-redacted presentation, including the offending slides.
Here are the slides:
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3XfthhGWg7RYmY3YWQ2NTItYWIzZi00NGI1LWJhNjktOWQ3ZjFkNWEwMGI1&hl=en
Here is the text:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B3XfthhGWg7RYWY5MzRjZTktYTMzYS00Y2ViLWFhYTItMjMzZjkyMzg3N2Rl&hl=en
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Here is another analogy describing the reporting system whereby Internet service providers respond – or sometimes do not respond – with customer subscriber information to investigators hunting Internet predators:
“When the ISP-law enforcement information response system works efficiently and we arrest an offender it feels like Snoopy and the good-guys beating the evil Red Baron. On bad days, when nothing comes through from the ISP, it is as if our own allies accidentally knocked out the radar station with friendly-fire and we cannot locate the enemy.“
- Dr. Frank Kardasz
Permalink
11.12.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 22:23 by Administrator
Remarks of Dr. Frank Kardasz
November 12, 2009
To the Arizona Family Council meeting – Phoenix
Thanks for inviting me to speak today about the threat of pornography to our children. I would like to first talk about a prominent Arizona case involving child pornography, then briefly about the sad phenomena of “sexting” and end with a couple safety tips and educational references.
CASE STUDY
In 2003, an Arizona man was convicted on 20 counts of possession of child pornography and sentenced to 200 years prison. He appealed the sentence and lost. In affirming the conviction the Arizona Court of Appeals said several important things about unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors:
- Child pornography is a form of child abuse. The materials produced are a permanent record of the children’s participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation.
- The state’s interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling.
- …the victimization of a child continues when that act is memorialized in an image. The victimization does not end when the pornographer’s camera is put away.
- The legislative judgment…is that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child.
- …the possession of child pornography drives that industry and…the production of child pornography will decrease if those who possess the product are punished equally with those who produce it.
- …the possession of child pornography inflames the desires of child molesters, pedophiles and child pornographers. The State has more than a passing interest in forestalling the damage caused by child pornography: preventing harm to children is one of its most important interests.
- Defendant downloaded images from the Internet, and every time he visited a website, he demonstrated to the producers and sellers of child pornography that there was a demand for their product. His demand served to drive the industry.
- Defendant maintains also that, because his possession of the pornographic images was passive and because he did not use threats or violence in the commission of his crimes, his sentence is grossly disproportionate. The court said that this logic is abstruse.
As a law enforcement officer I share the courts opinion about unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors and I am guided by the courts judgements. The aforementioned case occurred several years ago but everything the court said still applies to the adult offenders we see today.
SEXTING
Now – today – in 2009, we have a new unlawful images threat. That threat comes from something that has come to be known as sexting.
As you know, modern cell phones often come equipped with cameras that can be legitimately used to capture images. Young people use their cell phone cameras to snap pictures of friends, families and special occasions. Images taken with cell phone cameras can be shared between users who can quickly send images to wider groups of friends. There have even been cases of crimes being solved by images retrieved from cell phones.
Unfortunately, cameras are also sometimes used to capture images of nudism or sexual exploitation. Often the images are part of the “sexting” process. Sexting is the act of sending sexual text or sexual images from one electronic device to another, often for the purpose of grooming another person towards a sex act. Adult sexual predators often groom intended victims by sexting. Immature grade schoolers also trade images and those images are quickly traded to others in the child’s school causing humiliation and grief for all involved. Sometimes the images are felony pictures of child pornography.
An increasing number of complaints are being received by law enforcement involving illegal images trafficked via cell phone. It is unlikely that we will be locking up grade school kids for child pornography, however we are investigating many of the cases and submitting them to the county attorneys for their analysis towards prosecution.
In the one case of sexting where we have received a response from the county attorneys office, the matter was deemed “de minimus” which means trivial and not worthy of judicial scrutiny. The case was seen to have no reasonable likelihood of conviction and the predicted cost of prosecution outweighed the benefit of prosecution to the victim and/or society. That response does not solve the problem for the sexting victim or family. The response tells you that the criminal justice system cannot solve the sexting problem either. I am hoping that someone can develop some kind of diversion program for young people who involve themselves with unlawful images while sexting.
With the justice system waffling on sexting, it becomes incumbent upon parents to police the activities of their children.
ADVICE ABOUT “SEXTING” PREVENTION
Here is my advice to parents:
- Parents, please monitor your child’s use of a cell phone camera.
- Talk to your children about the problem and the long-term implications.
- Remember that once an image is released to others or into cyberspace, it is irretrievable.
- Pictures can be shared and duplicated across cyberspace and the images might not ever be erased.
- Consider purchasing cheaper “pay as you go” phones that are manufactured without cameras.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Here are four helpful organizations for more educational information.
- Netsmartz – http://www.netsmartz.org/index.aspx
- ISafe – http://www.isafe.org/
- GetNetWise – http://www.getnetwise.org/
- Enough is Enough – http://www.enough.org/
TO REPORT INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
- Report Internet crimes against children to your local police or to the
- NCMEC Cybertipline at: https://secure.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/CybertipServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US
Permalink
10.30.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 02:12 by Administrator
The link below leads to the survey results from information recently provided by investigators of Internet crimes. The survey explored data-retention times, investigations damaged by the failure to retain data and suggestions for improving the system and relationships with ISP’s.
Copy and paste the hyperlink below into your browser and give it a minute to load. There are 46 slides. Slides 4-9 are the executive summary that is also reproduced below.
Link to the survey results:
http://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AY35igHT2KB9ZGdyNHhmeDdfMjQwam5qM21rZjI&hl=en
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Some interesting results from the survey include the following:
- 100 investigators surveyed estimated that they submit between 239 – 1900 items of legal process per month to various ISP’s.
Impact of failure to retain data on investigations
– 61% had investigations detrimentally effected because data was not retained.
– 47% had to end an investigation because data was not retained.
How long should subscriber data be retained?
– 31% believed subscriber information should be retained for 3 years.
– 28% believed subscriber information should be retained for 5 years.
How long should content data be retained?
– 44% believed content information should be retained for 1 year.
– 19% believed content information should be retained for 3 years.
Possible Solution
89% of investigators agreed that a nationwide computer network should be established for the purpose of linking ISP’s with law enforcement agencies so that they may exchange legal process requests and responses to legal process. Authorized users would communicate through encrypted virtual private networks in order to maintain the security of the data.
Investigators suggested the following improvements by ISP’s
– Longer retention times
– Provide information more quickly
– Provide user guides
– Have a site that permits electronic submission of process
– Have a law enforcement direct line
.
Permalink
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 01:45 by Administrator
In January 2005, Yahoo discovered unlawful images on their computer servers and reported the images to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
The information was directed to the Arizona ICAC Task Force leading to a search warrant and the arrest of 44 year old Donald Lee Cook, an unmarried security guard. Cook, who used the screen name Ilove_littlekittys, made admissions to the images and also named a child seen in the images as a family friend. Further investigation revealed that Cook had repeatedly molested the child and that he had recorded the unlawful acts.
After four years of legal maneuvering, in October 2009 Cook was found guilty in Maricopa County Superior Court and sentenced to 136 years in prison.
The principals in the successful investigation and prosecution included Yahoo, NCMEC, AZ ICAC Task Force, Phoenix PD, Mesa PD, and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.
See also: http://www.azicac.org/content.php?info_id=28&PHPSESSID=8dff902026d53ba267897089f1ffab79
Permalink
10.17.09
Posted in Internet crimes against children at 16:41 by Administrator
Dr. Frank Kardasz, October 17, 2009
Detectives who investigate Internet crimes against children often rely upon information preserved by Internet service providers (ISP’s) to solve crimes. ISP’s provide customer subscriber information that permits investigators to trace the source of unlawful activity. Without information from the ISP’s, an investigative trail can quickly grow cold, leaving the offender to prowl freely in cyberspace. Sometimes the information from the ISP is the only link to the offender. Investigators need accurate and timely historic information from ISP’s so that they can help child victims.
Questions surrounding the struggle for information preservation and reporting include: How long should an ISP retain data and how quickly should they respond to law enforcement? Typically, ISP’s retain data not to appease law enforcement, but for the logical purpose of billing subscribers and servicing customer Internet accounts.
Customer information is tightly held and private; law enforcement may only obtain the information through subpoena, search warrant, or court order.
Data preservation and reporting to law enforcement is bothersome and costly for ISP’s for several reasons. Many terabytes of computer storage space may be required to warehouse the data. The data must be secured so that it is not subject to theft. Dedicated personnel are required to respond to law enforcement subpoenas and search warrants. Legal questions about information release sometimes arise that may require the opinions of corporate lawyers.
ISP’s are not legally mandated to preserve data. Thirty days is the arbitrary voluntary preservation standard set by many ISP’s. For many law enforcement investigations the 30 day standard is unsatisfactory because it does not permit investigators to identify the offenders who can slip away quickly in cyberspace.
Often a Time-Consuming Two-Subpoena Imperfect Process
In many cases the initial investigative process requires two subpoenas, thus delaying identification to weeks or months before a suspect location can be determined. For example, in luring/enticement cases, often the only information reported to law enforcement is the offenders screen name. With only a screen name, the investigation proceeds as follows in non-emergency cases:
1. The investigator determines the provider associated with the screen name. Yahoo, MySpace, and Facebook are typical examples of providers in such cases but there are hundreds providing the services. The investigator subpoenas the provider and then, days or weeks later, receives a response. The first subpoena response provides one important clue; the Internet protocol (IP) address from which the offending screen name communicated.
2. Next, the investigator conducts research on the Internet protocol address to determine which company is responsible for providing the previously identified IP address to the offender. Verizon, Cox and Comcast are typical examples of ISP’s but there are hundreds providing such services.
3. The second subpoena is submitted, this time to the ISP associated with the Internet protocol address identified in number two above. The subpoena requests subscriber information associated with the IP address that came from the results of the first subpoena.
4. After a few days or weeks the ISP responds to the second subpoena with the name and address of the subscriber who was assigned to the IP address where the suspect screen name originated. Finally, 14-60 or more days after the original report, Cyber-detectives can begin to focus on a location and name to further the investigation.
Further problems sometimes result when typographical errors occur at any stage, prosecutors delay subpoena authorization, and/or workloads backup because of insufficient staffing. The slow turn-around time for information and the short 30-day retention periods are problematic for law enforcement. Investigations are sometimes slaves to the long wait for information from ISP’s. Detectives worry that while they wait, the offender may be busy actively molesting children.
Civil Liability Concerns
ISP’s are the unwitting facilitators of Internet crimes against children. Civil liability is now a growing concern for law enforcement in delayed Internet crimes against children investigations (see: http://kardasz.org/blog/2008/09/liability_for_deliberate_indif.html). In time, civil attorneys defending abused children will recognize the complicity of ISP’s in the lethargic investigative process and begin to add ISP’s as co-defendants in civil lawsuits.
Conclusion
For the sake of children, ISP’s should consider long data retention periods and rapid response to legal process. Federal legislation to mandate data preservation and reporting would assist investigators in protecting children in cyberspace.
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
