Dr. Frank Kardasz (Ed.D.)

Cracking the Offenders’ Online Code

2012-01-22T12:31:00.000-08:00

Dr. Frank Kardasz, January 22, 2012

I am troubled by comments in a New York Times article about Internet safety attributed to an alleged expert on the subject (1). The expert is quoted as saying, "The model we have of the online sexual predator is this lurking man who reaches out on the Internet and grabs a kid. And there is no data that support that." I disagree with the expert - there is data. Please count the thousands of arrests and convictions of Internet predators as disturbing data. Please also count the lifeless bodies of some who have been killed by Internet sexual predators as tragic and chilling data.

Comprehensive empirical "data" is challenging to produce in the field of Internet sex crimes. We know that some teens are victimized but never report due to their shame and the knowledge that their parents will pull their Internet privileges if they confess.

Here is some other data, from my memory:

Two Lives Altered

I recall one sad Arizona case where an undercover officer caught an online predator and later through research found that the suspect victimized two girls previously but neither girl had reported to law enforcement. The offender had also passed STD's to both of them. Not much "data" there except two lives irrevocably altered.

Two Lives Lost

And here are two more tragic items of "supporting data" forever etched in our memories: Christina Long (2) and Kacie Woody (3) - Rest in Peace.

For the statisticians who bean-count datum, please register the number "four".

The Times’ expert is further quoted as saying, "The most deadly misconception about American youth has been the sexual predator panic.” What "most deadly misconception and panic" is she referring to? There is no panic. There is only better reporting and awareness of sexual misconduct than in past decades. There is also a trend towards carefully measured responses to the offenses: at the legislative, enforcement and judicial levels.

Report to Congress

Here is more data – from a 2010 comprehensive threat assessment report to Congress (4). Researchers reported the following:

The Threat Assessment research indicates that the threat to our nation’s children of becoming a victim of child exploitation is a very serious one. For example, investigators and prosecutors report dramatic increases in the number, and violent character, of the sexually abusive images of children being trafficked through the Internet. They also report the disturbing trend of younger children depicted in these images, even including toddlers and infants. Further, offenders have become proficient at enticing children to engage in risky behavior, like agreeing to meet for sexual activity, or even to display themselves engaging in sexual activity through images or webcams. In addition, the offenders have been able to master Internet technologies to better mask their identities.

Cracking the Offenders’ Code

According to the Times article, the quoted expert safely navigated her teenage Cyberspace experiences unmolested. I would like to think that her safety was due in part to the hard working men and women who toiled to keep her safe on the Internet - but I know that enforcers are far outnumbered by predators - so - by the grace of God she went.

From where the Times’ expert sits perhaps she cannot understand what the investigators in the "field" of Cyberspace witness every day. We all wish that the Internet was a big happy play-land where kids could wander about unsupervised - but it is NOT. Parental vigilance and supervision are required.

Notes:

(1) Paul, P. (January 20, 2012). Cracking teenagers’ online codes. New York Times (on-line). Retrieved January 22, 2012 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/fashion/danah-boyd-cracking-teenagers-online-codes.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

(2) Christina Long. http://christina-long.memory-of.com/About.aspx

(3) Kacie Woody. http://kaciewoody.homestead.com/Story.html

(4) U.S. Department of Justice. (August 2010). The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction: A report to Congress. Retrieved January 22, 2010 from http://www.projectsafechildhood.gov/docs/natstrategyreport.pdf

Grooming Tactics of a Convicted Molester

2012-01-13T22:22:00.000-08:00

Information in this article was obtained from inmate Donald Short of the Utah State Prison system in August 1998. Short, not his real name, has admitted to sexual assaults of more than 500 different children during a 35-year period. Female children, ages 6-13, were his primary target.

WARNING from offender Donald Short: This article contains descriptions of various types of grooming tactics once used by a convicted child molester for the purpose of making his intended victims vulnerable for his sexual desires. Samples of his tactics are detailed and it is hoped that this will assist law enforcement to detect and halt the future molestation of other children.

TACTIC: THREATS

I began my career as a child molester, when I was age 8. My older cousin and I forced his 6-year-old sister into the hayloft and our tactic consisted mainly of cutting off her escape route. Once we had her in the hayloft, I pulled up the ladder so she couldn’t get away from us.

TACTIC: GUILT TRIPS

One day after the elementary school let out, I saw a little girl playing by herself on the swings. She had a little dog with her. I asked her if she’d like for me to push her in the swing. After doing this awhile, I sat in a swing beside her and began talking with her. I told her how pretty she was. I deliberately guessed her age as older than she obviously was and acted surprised when she said: “Silly. I’m only five.” I told her she looked older. We talked about pets. When I asked about siblings, she said she had none. At this time I suggested I hold her and we could sing together. As we did, I allowed myself to become excited. After having my way with her, I told her that if she told anyone, I would find her and hurt her doggie.

TACTIC: BEFRIEND WITH KITTENS

Our house bordered an alley that a lot of kids used as a shortcut to the school playground. One day, from my basement, I saw a little girl on her way to the playground. I lured her over by asking is she wanted to see some little kittens. I knew her natural curiosity would prevail and when she came over, I took her into the basement with me. I fondled her and two weeks later I gave her the kitten. This placed the child in a position of feeling indebted to me and also ensured future molestation.

TACTIC: TICKLE GAMES

Seeing several young girls playing in a park, I began talking with them about themselves; how they liked school; their ages and other general topics. I soon had their trust. Then I said to one: “I bet you are ticklish.” When I tickled her, it evolved quickly into a general tickle session. During this activity, I was able to fondle each child both under and above their clothing, without it being noticed. I used this tactic countless times while I was actively molesting children.

TACTIC: PLAYING DUMB

Many times when alone with a selected little girl that I wanted to molest, the following conversation would occur:

Me: “You’re a cute little boy.”

She: “Silly. I’m a little girl.”

Me: “Nah. You’re a boy.”

She: “I’m a little girl.”

Me: “Prove it to me. Let’s see if you look like a boy here.” (I’d point to the genital area of the child’s clothing.)

At this point, invariably the child would innocently expose herself. I would then feign disbelief and ask if I could touch her down there to see for myself. In all the times I used this technique, only one child ever refused to go along. Children want to please adults and the opportunity to show they are smarter, is hard to ignore. I knew this and preyed on it.

TACTIC: I NEED HELP

I parked in a secluded area that I knew little girls walked along on their way to the swimming pool. Getting out of my car, I put up the hood and as the child I had selected approached, I began tinkering around the engine. When the child came alongside the car, I dropped a screwdriver. I asked her if she’d please hand it to me. When she did, I told her I couldn’t reach the item I needed to work on because it was out of my reach. I asked her if she’d help me by holding the tool for me. Of course, she was too small to reach over the fender. I was able to fondle her and when finished, I gave her a ride to the swimming pool and told her what a “good girl” she was, to help a stranger. In events using this approach, I never had t use direct threats against my victim.

TACTIC: LET ME HELP

In this tactic, I choose victims who are by themselves and appear to be in distress and needing help. For example: One summer afternoon while resting in a local park, I heard a child crying. A 3-year-old girl was limping on one foot and crying as she made her way across the park towards a path that went through the trees to a housing development. As she passed me I observed a cockle burr in her heel. I called to her to come over to me and I would help her. I removed the burr from her foot and then had her sit by me. I asked if she was happy now. When she nodded “yes, “ I asked if she would do something to make me happy. After several minutes, I told her how nice she was and quite molesting her.

TACTIC: FAMILY PHOTOGRAPHER

During this time period, I was employed as a traveling family photographer. My company would arrange advance “shoots” for me in various towns and cities. When I arrived, I’d set up my studio in available space; complete with a table where the customers could sit and fill out the necessary forms. When I set up in small towns, I always had that table arranged so that the customers had their backs to me and couldn’t see what I was doing. As they worked on the paperwork, I “got acquainted” with the children. If the child were between ages three through six, I’d ask if she’d like to help me test the camera equipment. I’d lift them up so they could press the test-fire button on my camera. They liked it when the flash would go off. Keeping an eye on the parent, I was able to fondle my victims without anyone being the wiser. I used this tactic countless times. The table setup was a grooming tactic aimed at the parents, whereas the camera test was used on the children.

TACTIC: SWIMMING POOL

I used several grooming tactics whenever I went swimming. One was to situate myself along the edge of the pool in water that was up to my shoulders. In most pools, small children will cling to the edges as they move up and down the sides of the pool. By being where I was, the water was too deep for them to get around without having to let go of the edge. I would “help” them by fondling them as I moved them from one side of me to the other side of the pool edge. By tickling and laughing with the victims, the entire event appeared perfectly normal.

As a child molester, I depended upon absolute secrecy. I never molested a child who called attention to what was going on because I was afraid of getting caugt.

----Donald Short, convicted sex offender

TACTIC: CRUISING

In this tactic, I always looked for children by themselves as they walked to school. I’d drive around and look for a child who was late for school or situations such as being in the rain or on cold, wintry days, etc. Once I found a victim, I’d offer to give them a lift to school, so they wouldn’t be “late”, “get wet” or “catch a cold”. The reasons given were endless and depended on the type of situation. This eventually would lead to my exposing myself and making the child touch me as I touched them.

TACTIC: WOULD YOU LIKE TO…?

Use of this grooming tactic involved my asking my selected victim if they’d like to do any number of various activities – each geared to the specific situation and victim. Those activities were something like “Would you like to see the Chipmunks; go for a ride; learn to skate; have your picture drawn; be pushed in the swing; go to the park; learn to ride a bike; have some fun learning about yourself?” and so on. The list is virtually endless. In most of these situations, I’d take my victim to a secluded area and assault them sexually.

Five Who Escaped

1. I was driving and noticed a little girl en route to school. It was cold weather and when I stopped, I offered her a ride in a warm car. After she got in, I began to put my hand up under her dress. She instantly began to scream loudly: “Help! He’s going to hurt me! He’s not my daddy!” Because other cars were on the same street, I quickly put her out of the car and drove away.

2. I was parked along a route that was frequented by 9-year-old girls on their way to a school for girls. As two girls approached, I called them over to my car and offered them a ride. As one girl began to enter the car, her friend said she’d rather walk. I saw her begin to write down my license plate number. I told the first girl that I was sorry, but I had to leave.

3. At a swimming pool, I was actively fondling the little girls as I “helped” them get around me along the pool edge. One little 5-year-old girl went to the lifeguard and told them what I was doing. Even though I was able to explain my actions to the lifeguard’s satisfaction, I left the pool.

4. In a small park, I lured a young girl into a bushy area next to the children’s play area. As I began to fondle her, she began to scream and yell for help. An adult female came to her rescue and I barely escaped.

5. I was planning to expose myself near a playground to several of the smaller girls and to lure them close enough for fondling. One young girl in the selected group, noticed my always being there only at lunch hour. Unknown to me she told a teacher about that “stranger in a car who is always by the playground.” The next day when I arrived, the police questioned me. The fact that they now knew about me prevented my ever doing anything again in that entire area of town.

Prevention Tactics for Both Children and Adults

· Have the local police conduct a background check on a new person in your area

· Continually warn the children about the dangers of strangers

· Notify police of any inappropriate behavior

· Telling the parents immediately when a stranger tells them: “I have a gift for you”

· Be highly cautious of any male adult who appears to be overly friendly around and with children of any age

· Never accept any gifts from anyone who is not a member of the immediate family

· Play only in areas where a parent or playground supervisor is present

· If a child is hurt, seek help only from a person the child knows

· Scream “fire!” or “stranger!” to draw attention to them

· If they see a stranger who is paying too much attention to them, the child should tell a parent, policeman, teacher or other responsible adult

· Calling out to any nearby adults: “This man is trying to hurt me” or “I’m going to tell the police”

· Never walk down lonely streets, especially if they see someone parked in the loneliest part of the street

· Never stop to listen to a stranger who talks to them from his car

· Never walk alone to school or elsewhere

"Knock and Talk" for contraband images - Suspect created exigent circumstances - Utah

2011-12-22T08:24:00.000-08:00

From the Utah Supreme Court - a ruling favorable to law enforcement regarding "knock and talks" and a seizure related to exigent circumstances created when suspect said he was thinking of destroying his computer. - State v. Maxwell 2011 UT 81

...an exigent circumstance arose out of Maxwell's open acknowledgement that he was thinking of destroying his computer. Second, the exigency was not improperly created by the police, as there was no threat to engage in conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the decision to seize Maxwell's computer was a reasonable method of preventing the destruction of evidence.

JUSTICE LEE, opinion of the Court.

¶1 This case arises from an investigation by the Utah Attorney General's Task Force on Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC). When ICAC agents discovered that child pornography had been downloaded through an IP address belonging to David Maxwell, they went to his home to talk to him about the evidence they had uncovered and about his use of a computer for viewing pornography. The agents eventually asked Maxwell if he would consent to a seizure and search of his computer. Maxwell refused. He also openly adverted to the possibility of destroying his computer. ICAC agents then seized the computer and later secured a warrant to search it. The ensuing search uncovered numerous video and still images of child pornography, and Maxwell was charged with ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor.

¶2 The district court granted Maxwell's motion to suppress the files found on his computer, concluding that there was no exigent circumstance sustaining a warrantless seizure of Maxwell's computer, that any such exigency was improperly created by ICAC agents, and that seizure of the computer was unreasonable in any event because the agents could have ensured the integrity of the computer by less intrusive means. The State appealed. We accepted certification of the case from the court of appeals in light of the important questions it presents regarding the exigent circumstances standard for warrantless seizures.

¶3 We reverse. First, an exigent circumstance arose out of Maxwell's open acknowledgement that he was thinking of destroying his computer. Second, the exigency was not improperly created by the police, as there was no threat to engage in conduct violating the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the decision to seize Maxwell's computer was a reasonable method of preventing the destruction of evidence.

Link to the Court's decision: http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20UTCO%2020111220D21.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

The Cyberspace Child Protection Campaign's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/164010175632/doc/10150438111790633/

Cyberspace Child Protection Campaign on Facebook

2011-12-07T07:58:00.000-08:00

Facebook users, please visit and join us at the Cyberspace Child Protection Campaign on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/164010175632/

Tips and Recommendations for New Law Enforcement Officers

2011-12-07T07:32:00.000-08:00

Three decades in law enforcement taught me several lessons. For my young friends who are about to embark upon a law enforcement career, here are some tips and recommendations.

Higher Standard of Conduct

Welcome to law enforcement. Your oath of office, your legislated power to use force and your power to revoke freedom means that you are now held to a higher standard of conduct than the average citizen. The public has high expectations of you. Do not abuse your privileges.

Someday, if you become a supervisor, the expectations grow higher. Every supervisor is an example who other officers may emulate and look to for guidance. Consequently, when group misconduct occurs, supervisors involved sometimes (not always) take a harder disciplinary whack than subordinates.

Fiduciary Responsibility to the Taxpayers

The world does not owe you a living. Do not take unfair advantage of taxpayer money. Do the work. Answer the calls for service. Follow-up to completion. Although I was never perfect, the best compliment I ever received from a fellow officer occurred when I overheard him describing me to someone saying, "He is a worker!"

Consider the "Headline Test"

Every cop I know who ever lost his job via misconduct immediately wanted the job back and cried a flood of crocodile tears for whatever stupidity caused the career demise. Follow the laws, policies and regulations. There is a sad story of career heartbreak behind many of those maddening policies that you may think are optional. Pretend everything you do is being filmed for the evening news; imagine that your entire family is watching - then act with integrity.

Whistleblowing

Crooked cops are NOT to be protected - they must be reported and exposed. As soon as you keep a dark secret for a fellow officer, you become a lifelong accomplice to the bad act. Tell the whole truth, report what you saw, accept the consequences, “man-up" and make others do likewise.

Internal Affairs, Now Known as Professional Standards

Internal affairs investigators are sometimes unfairly labeled, "buddy f---ers" and called other derogatory names. Sadly, while IA is one of the most important jobs in law enforcement, it is also one of the most disrespected from within. Although some recalcitrant officers accept responsibility for their actions, others do not. Unethical officers will sometimes unfairly criticize the IA investigators while attacking the investigation and blaming their idiocy on everyone except themselves.

The Job is Not Number One

Two or three ex-spouses later you may learn that your thrilling career in law enforcement perhaps was not as important as dedication to your family should have been. Get to know your kids by taking time off to attend their school events, practices and games. Get a sitter and take your spouse out on a date. If you over-invest in your job you will under-invest in those who are most important and you may regret it later.

Protect Your Health

Staying fit and healthy will not only help you later in life, it could also save your life. After winning a life-and-death wrestling choke-out fight with a drugged-up suspect who grabbed my gun I asked him why he did it. He said, "I thought I could get your gun and shoot you, but you are STRONG dude!" I still think about that incident every day in the gym. Learn and practice self defense tactics and get to the gym early and often.

Not an Avenue to Riches

The day you got the job you did NOT become Donald Trump. Do not immediately buy a new house, car, fishing boat, motorcycle, and Rolex. Try saving money and paying for some items with cash instead of credit.

Overtime

Do not abuse the overtime system. Do not work too much overtime or you will find that the discretionary money you once earned to buy cool toys is now mandatory to keep up with your alimony and child support payments.

Keep Educating Yourself

It is fun and cool to learn firearms, pursuit driving, SWAT tactics, and other police-specific tasks but those will not help you to switch careers after you leave the job. Take college classes. Improve your writing and public speaking skills. Take a math class. Learn another language. Get a degree. Then get another degree. A wise old cop once told me, "Get as much paper on yourself as you can." You owe it to yourself to keep learning, particularly in departments where continuing education is employer-subsidized.

The Department is Sometimes Daft

The promotional system may surprise you. Sometimes the best candidates rise to the top thorough a fair promotional system - sometimes NOT. Promotions happen for many reasons - not all of them righteous. Those promoted often believe that they possess ethics and character that is above reproach. They sometimes believe they got the job because they’re great men, and as great men, how can they ever be wrong? The truth is that supervisors are subject to the same human failings as everyone else and promotions may happen for reasons other than merit.

Your Legacy

Your entire career will likely be judged by your single worst act. Few will remember the hundreds of good deeds you did but many will snicker repeatedly about your human weaknesses, quirks, and mistakes. Do the right thing and somebody might remember you in a good way. As Mark Twain said, "Always do right; this will satisfy some and astonish the rest."

Find Other Friends Too

Develop friends who are not in law enforcement. Hanging out with cops 24/7 while talking shop limits your perspective on the rest of the world and can twist you into a cynical old coot.

Someday You Might Make it to Retirement!

Invest early in optional retirement savings plan. You may actually live to retirement and you will need all that money then. It is unlikely that anyone will build a statue in your honor commemorating your fine career. Your reward will be a civil servants retirement.

Kardasz presentation to Iowa Protect our Children Conference - Plenary session - Sept. 2010

2010-09-11T09:48:00.000-07:00

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

Notes of interest from the National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention & Interdiction report to Congress

2010-08-10T05:40:00.000-07:00

I reviewed the National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and found the following notes of interest:

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).
* 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

One Arizona Cops' Perspective on Illegal Immigration

2010-04-27T18:20:00.000-07:00

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. Exa
miner.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. Kardasz presentation to Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG)

2010-02-07T04:49:00.000-08:00

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

Unlawful Images and "Sexting"

2009-11-12T14:23:00.000-08:00

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

89% of Investigators Support Data Exchange Link with ISP's: Lack of Data Hurting Investigations

2009-10-29T19:12:00.000-07:00

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

.

AZ ICAC - Unlawful Image Investigation Reveals Molester

2009-10-29T18:45:00.001-07:00

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

How long should ISP’s preserve data and how quickly should they respond to legal process? Civil liability concerns may influence the debate

2009-10-17T09:41:00.000-07:00

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.

Letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission: Do not reduce penalties for unlawful images

2009-09-30T16:30:00.000-07:00

September 30, 2009

United States Sentencing Commission
Office of Public Affairs
One Columbus Circle NE
Washington, DC. 20002-8002

RE: PLEASE DO NOT SOFTEN PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL IMAGES: JUDGES UNRAVELING THE LEGISLATIVE WILL AGAINST CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

Dear Sentencing Commission,

I solemnly read a news report that began with the following troubling headline: Sentences for Possession of Child Porn May Be Too High, Judges Say (1). The story described a recent meeting of the U.S. Sentencing Commission where judges advocated softening sentences for possessors of child pornography.

Not in attendance and sadly unrepresented at the commission meeting were thousands of anonymous victims of child sexual abuse whose tortured images and videos are being traded as you read this, by pedophiles, sex offenders, and the criminally sexually curious.

As a law enforcement officer, having supervised thousands of investigations into unlawful images over the past ten years, it is disheartening to see some in the judiciary attempting to unravel years of progressive legislation against this disturbing form of child abuse.

Normally I am reticent to contradict judges because I am only a humble policeman, dutifully aware that judge-liness is next to godliness in the justice system but I must herein rebut some of the misinformation from the report for the purpose of informing those in the judiciary who do not deal with this subject on a regular basis. Opinions expressed herein are personal and do not represent the thoughts of any government agency.

According to the report, one judge said that he;

"...doesn't condone possession of child pornography or understand it, but focused on the unfairness of treating one person sitting in his basement receiving videos over the Internet the same as a commercial purveyor of child pornography."

ESCALATING OFFENSES - FROM BASEMENT TO ABOMINATION

Former criminal profiler John Douglas described the relationship between pornographic images and sex offenders. He said, "With most sexually based killers, it is a several-step escalation from the fantasy to the reality, often fueled by pornography, morbid experimentation on animals, and cruelty to peers (2)." Here in Arizona, my colleagues and I saw the beginning of this progression in a recent investigation where an offender admitted that he no longer enjoys lawful adult pornography and that he now must use child pornography to gratify himself.

Sometimes, experts say, the offender emerges from the proverbial basement described by the judge, emboldened by what he has seen and then, like an enthusiastic but twisted movie-goer emulating an on-screen hero, endeavors to re-enact the horrible video somewhere in real life. Dr. Chris Hatcher, Professor of Psychology at the University of California said, "It begins with fantasy, moves to gratification through pornography, then voyeurism, and finally, to contact (3)."

IMAGE-FUELED OFFENDERS' CASE STUDIES

After one child pornography-fueled murder, software developer Michael Brier admitted that viewing child pornography made him long for the sex acts that led to him kidnapping, murdering and dismembering ten year old Holly Jones in Toronto in 2003. Brier is now in prison and little Holly is gone forever (4). Serial killer Arthur Gary Bishop was similarly fueled by child pornography. The child pornography addict killed five boys in Utah before being caught and executed in 1988 (5).

OFFENDERS RISK ASSESSMENT

Pursuant to my work with the Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force I am beginning to understand the crimes and the offenders. My training and experience suggests that a significant number of possessors of unlawful images are also undiscovered "hands-on" contact offenders. Formal academic research indicates that there may be a correlation between those who possess child pornography and those who are also “hands-on” contact offenders. A surprising study of federal prisoners indicated that 85% of those in custody for possession of unlawful images were also “hands-on” molesters whose contact offenses had never been discovered (6).

In landmark research (7), psychiatrists Bourke and Hernandez compared two groups of child pornography offenders participating in a voluntary prison treatment program. The goal was to determine whether the possessors were collectors of child pornography at little risk of engaging in hands-on sexual offenses, or if they were contact sex offenders whose criminal sexual behavior involving children went undetected. The research found that Internet offenders were significantly more likely than not to have sexually abused a child via a hands-on act. The findings were apparently so shocking to the prison rehabilitation project that the Federal Bureau of Prisons tried to prevent the release of the surprising study.

Doctors Bourke and Hernandez concluded their report by saying:

• In fact, if it had not been for their online criminality, these offenders may not otherwise have come to the attention of law enforcement.

• Upon being discovered, these offenders tend to minimize their behavior. They may attribute their search for child pornography to "curiosity" or similar benign motivation. They may "accept responsibility" only for those behaviors that are already known to law enforcement, but hide any contact sexual crimes to avoid prosecution for these offenses, or to avoid the shame and humiliation that would result from revealing their deviance to family, friends, and community.

• Only later do the majority of sex offenders who enter treatment acknowledge that they were not, as they initially claimed, merely interested in sexual images involving children; they were (and are) sexually aroused by children.

• Further...it appears that the manifestations of their deviant sexual arousal was not limited to fantasy. Rather, when an opportunity arose (either incidentally or as a result of planned, predatory efforts), many offenders molested or raped children, and engaged in a variety of other sexually deviant behaviors.

• Results of the study suggest...that many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters, and that their use of child pornography is indicative of their paraphilic orientation.

IMAGES - VIDEO WITH SOUND

Unlawful images are an unusual type of evidence because the images themselves are contraband and cannot be released for public viewing. Images are the only form of contraband introduced to the human brain through the sense of sight. When described in text the dispassionate details of unlawful images use sanitized statutory legalese to explain the sex acts. The pedantic written accounts of the images and videos can never fully explain the abominations suffered by the victims nor can a written description reproduce the shocking sounds of sexual violence.

EMPATHY, SYMPATHY AND VICTIM REALITY - CHILDREN ARE CITIZENS AND HUMANS

Existing tough penalties against unlawful images were earned at the expense of tiny human victims whose voices are heard on secretive videos trafficked and traded by criminal pedophiles and other sexual deviants. Some of us in law enforcement have seen the violations and heard the victims' cries. They plead, "No! No!" while being penetrated by men and sometimes animals. Some of the infant victims are so young that they cannot yet formulate words, only scream in pain. I could further describe the exact details of the abuses but I know that I would lose this reading audience. These are not "baby-in-the-bathtub" images.

If, as you read this, you find descriptions of sexual abuse emotionally troubling it means that you are probably normal. Now consider those who view images of child abuse and find them sexually gratifying. Those who possess or purvey child pornography are criminally abnormal.

Those who would soften the penalties against unlawful images dishonor the young victims of horrific sex crimes. Victims who cannot appear at sentencing commission hearings. Children who become political afterthoughts because they do not make financial contributions to political campaigns and who do not vote. Babies who cannot organize and hire influential lobbyists to represent them before legislators. Minors who are the mute and powerless constituents of well-intentioned elected officials who are often unwittingly blind to their victimization.

MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC PSYCHE

Sex crimes against children are sometimes so horrible that the news media is unable to fully describe the incidents. The public psyche abhors reporting of sex crimes against children. Television and print reporters only discuss the sanitized version of events. News producers cannot permit too much time spent describing the crimes because audiences will switch channels in disgust. Hollywood does not focus on the subject because no audience can stomach it.

OFFENDERS, THE PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

In the book Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (8) former investigator Ken Lanning discussed crimes against children. He said that most people wish to disassociate themselves mentally from thoughts of abuse involving children. Law-enforcement investigators must deal with the fact that the identification, investigation, and prosecution of child molesters may not be welcomed by their communities—especially if the molester is a prominent person. Individuals may protest, and community organizations may rally to the support of the offender and even attack the victims. City officials may apply pressure to halt or cover up the investigation. Many law-enforcement supervisors, prosecutors, judges, and juries cannot or do not want to deal with the details of deviant sexual behavior. They will do almost anything to avoid these cases.

OFFENDERS: PUBLIC DR. JEKYLL AND PRIVATE MR. HYDE

Pre-sentence reports to the court about the offenders in these cases are sometimes a joke. I know from training and experience that some offenders are adept at creating public personas’ as trustworthy and demure individuals while privately they are sexually deviant predators, waiting for an opportunity to strike. They may present to the court as socially awkward simpletons. Once caught they often feign religious transformations and plead for mercy from the court while privately mocking the justice system as the re-offend.

Offenders sometimes practice techniques enabling them to thwart polygraph and penile plesthysmograph tests. Dubious "12-step" pornography addiction treatment programs have sprung up because the psychological community has no proven method of rehabilitating some sex offenders. As the Latin proverb states: Pardus maculas non deponit - a leopard does not change his spots.

In court, offenders are seldom charged with each and every terrible image or video in their voluminous illegal collections and most plead to reduced charges based on just a few images. Consequently judges never fully review all of the evidence.

POLICING THE IMAGES

Crimes against children are the most reviled types of investigations for most law enforcement officers. While respectful of the need to bring offenders to justice many officers say, “I could never work those kinds of crimes.” Although it is highly rewarding to capture the offenders, the true details about the sexual victimization of minors is so psychologically distressing that few cops can emotionally tolerate being deeply involved in the investigations. Viewing the images and videos is troubling. The victims of unlawful images include those who must view the images in the course of their law enforcement duties (9).

PROSECUTION

Pressured by defense arguments that defendants are really good and solid citizens prosecutors can be worn down by the psychologically brutal nature of the crimes and the tiring nature of the system and may offer progressively weaker pleas to offenders. One concern is that over time, those diluted pleas will become the standardized norm, and the legislative imperative of mandatory sentencing will eventually be abandoned.

In Arizona, the penalties on the books are some of the toughest in the country. Despite the history of these strict penalties being upheld at the appellate level, some prosecutors are offering lighter pleas to "attempt" possession of unlawful images thus negating the mandatory sentencing provisions intended by legislators. The "attempt" charge avoids the mandatory sentencing provisions of Arizona law and gives the court wide discretion to drastically lessen the period of incarceration.

JUDICIARY

It must be difficult for judges to fully apprehend the gravity of these crimes. In plea-bargained cases, judges seldom review the troubling images or videos so they never have a full appreciation of the entirety of the case. Having supervised hundreds of arrests and subsequent pleas involving unlawful images, my investigators and I know of only a handful of sentences involving a judge who took the time or had the fortitude to view the disturbing images or videos.

The commission report mentioned one judge who lumped child pornography sentences in with gun and drug crimes and characterized the sentences for each of those crimes as being too harsh. Such "apples vs. oranges" comparisons of crimes are predictable from the overworked ringmasters of an assembly-line process that has become America's criminal justice system. Uninitiated courtroom observers might compare sentencing day in some courtrooms with a fast-food restaurant order process. I sometimes imagine the defense attorney shouting, "Hold the prison, extra probation and can you super-size that release please, your honor!"

Judges are often offended when laws come to them with mandatory penalties. Apparently voters and legislators are tired of the legal loopholes and sentencing reductions that keep letting criminals out of jail to re-offend. This naturally offends those judges whose egos convince them to believe that only they know, better than anyone else, how criminals should be penalized.

Despite progressively tougher legislative actions to properly criminalize and punish possessors of unlawful images, some judges wish to improperly create sentencing law from the bench while attempting to undo the enacted will of legislation.

Perhaps some overworked judges must suffer from compassion fatigue, a gradual lessening of empathy and sympathy over time, the result of the taxing nature of showing compassion for someone who is suffering in a situation that is continuous and irresolvable. If that is the case, I hope that judges remember that the unlawful images situation is resolvable. The resolution is incarceration of offenders.

NOT DISPARATE SENTENCING

The report of the commission meeting also described the following tired and misleading statement that I have grown to abhor:

"In some cases, a person who has watched one video gets a maximum sentence that may be higher than someone sentenced for raping a child repeatedly over many years."

The statement is misleading hogwash for two reasons. First, no offender who is charged with unlawful images has ever watched only one video. The offender may be charged with only one count of the many crimes he committed, but offenders typically watch dozens, often hundreds of different videos, hundreds of times, over weeks, months or years while simultaneously sexually gratifying themselves. Secondly, when a person who rapes a child receives a short period of incarceration it is often because contact offenses are much tougher to prove due to the uncommunicative nature of the young victim. Sometimes the light sentence is offered by the prosecution as a plea bargain so that the child does not have re-live the horror by testifying in open court. It is misleading to try to compare child pornography offenders to rapists.

BERGER CASE STUDY

In 2003, former Arizona high school teacher Morton Berger was convicted on 20 counts of possession of child pornography and sentenced to 200 years prison. Berger chose not to accept a plea to lesser charges. He went to trial and lost. He appealed the sentence based on arguments of equal protection under the law and cruel and unusual punishment. In December 2004, the conviction was affirmed by two of the three judges of the Arizona Court of Appeals (10).

Mirroring language found in previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Arizona Judges Susan Ehrlich and Philip Hall dismissed Berger's appeal with arguments including:

• 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.

• ...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.

• …we cannot fault the State for attempting to stamp out this vice at all levels in the distribution chain.

• Berger 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. Berger's demand served to drive the industry; there need not have been a direct monetary exchange.

• Berger 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. This logic is abstruse. As was described by this court in Hazlett, 205 Ariz. at 527 p. 11, 73 P. 3d at 1262, and as is evident from the violent pornographic images in this case,

• 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.

CONCLUSION

The justice system could do more at every level to address the growing problem of unlawful images. Law enforcement agencies devote minimal personnel to investigate the crimes. Overworked investigators have thousands of cases and only a handful of staff. Harried prosecutors with overwhelming caseloads must arrange plea deals to avoid time-consuming trials while allowing offenders to plead to fewer charges or lesser offenses. Strained judges misunderstand the crimes and mischaracterize the offenders. Knowing that prisons are overcrowded, it becomes easy for judges to convince themselves that someone who possessed pictures cannot possibly be as bad as someone who committed robbery or rape. Such comparisons are unfair and disregard the serious nature of unlawful images.

MESSAGE TO JUDGES

Please do not marginalize the young victims of unlawful images and do not minimize the offenses. Let minimum sentences remain in the purview of the legislature.

Finally, Judges, when you look out over the bench and into the court gallery at sentencing time, please imagine the seats filled with child victims quietly requesting justice; then act in accordance with the law.

Thank you for considering this letter.

Dr. Frank Kardasz
PO Box 45048
Phoenix, AZ 85064

http://www.kardasz.org/ICAC.html

cc: L. Marek – The National Law Journal

================================================================

NOTES

(1) Marek, L. (September 10, 2009). Sentences for Possession of Child Porn May Be Too High, Judges Say. The National Law Journal. Retrieved September 26, 2009 from http://www.law.com/newswire/cache/1202433693658.html

(2) Douglas, J. and Olshaker, M. (1995). Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's elite serial crime unit, New York: Pocket Books.

(3) Hatcher, C. (1997, October). Cited in: Armagh, D.A. Safety net for the Internet: Protecting our children. Juvenile Justice Journal (on-line) Volume V, Number 1, May 1998. Retrieved March 15, 2003. From http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjjournal/jjjournal598/net.html

(4) CBS News online. (June 17, 2004). In Depth: Holly Jones Timeline. Retrieved September 23, 2009 from http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/jones_holly/

(5) Montaldo, Charles. (2009). Arthur Gary Bishop. About.com: Crime/Punishment. Retrieved September 26, 2009 from http://crime.about.com/od/murder/p/db_bishop.htm

(6) Hernandez, A. E. (September 26, 2006). Statement of Andres E. Hernandez before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce. U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.projectsafechildhood.gov/HernandezTestimonyCongress.pdf

(7) Bourke, M.L. and Hernandez, A.E. (2009). The 'Butner Study' Redux: A Report of the Incidence of Hands-on Child Victimization by Child Pornography Offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 24:183-191. Published online: December 10, 2008.

(8) Lanning, K.V. (September, 2001). Child molesters: A behavioral analysis. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 4th Ed. p. 86. Retrieved January 15, 2007 from http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

(9) Kardasz, F. (June 8, 2008). The law enforcement victims of unlawful images: Victim impact statement. Retrieved September 26, 2009 from http://www.kardasz.org/victimimpact.html

(10) State of Arizona Division One Court of Appeals. (2004, December 14). Appeal from the Superior court in Maricopa County. 1 CA-CR 03-0243. Retrieved October 20, 2007, from http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/CR/CR030243.pdf

====================================================

Internet Safety

2009-09-27T10:27:00.001-07:00

“Cyberspace can be compared to a big city street. On the bright side of the street are wonderful learning and business opportunities, supported by good and helpful people. On the dark side of the street are criminal sex offenders, fraudsters and identity thieves. The challenge for parents is to monitor and control childrens’ Internet use to keep them out of harm’s way in cyberspace.”

=======================================================================================================

Arizona Legislators: Loophole in Arizona Law Needs Closing to Help Stop Web Cam Sexual Abuse

2009-09-22T16:46:00.000-07:00

In a recent incident, an undercover officer from the Georgia ICAC Task Force posed as a minor on-line and was approached in a chat room by an Arizona man. The Arizona man, believing that the officer was a minor, invited the fictitious minor to view his web cam and then exposed his penis and masturbated to ejaculation. The unemployed Arizona offender later admitted that he spends much of his spare time masturbating to anyone on-line who will view his web camera. This form of sexual misconduct is common on the Internet, where many offenders seek to sexually gratify themselves to an audience of minors.

The Arizona man was arrested and investigators hoped to charge him with the Arizona crime: Furnishing harmful images to minors, a class four felony (ARS 13-3506.01). Unfortunately, a loophole in the law was found when it was determined that according to the statute; the victim must be in the state of Arizona for the crime to be charged.

The loophole means that an offender in Arizona can masturbate on-line to a minor victim in any other state besides Arizona and the crime of furnishing harmful materials to a minor does not apply. The crime can only be charged if the victim is in Arizona.

In the case cited, investigators were able to charge the man with a lesser offense; Attempt public sexual indecency, a class 6 felony, so the investigation was not a total loss.

The loophole in the Arizona law could be easily fixed simply by eliminating the words “in this state” from the law. The fix would permit Arizona law enforcement to also protect minors from other states

EXISTING STATUTE - RECOMMENDATION TO ELIMINATE THE WORDS: IN THIS STATE

13-3506.01. Furnishing harmful items to minors; internet activity; classification; definitions

A. It is unlawful for any person, with knowledge of the character of the item involved, to intentionally or knowingly transmit or send to a minor by means of electronic mail, personal messaging or any other direct internet communication an item that is harmful to minors when the person knows or believes at the time of the transmission that a minor IN THIS STATE will receive the item.

B. This section does not apply to:
1. Posting material on an internet web site, bulletin board or newsgroup.
2. Sending material via a mailing list or listserv that is not administered by the sender. For the purposes of this paragraph, "mailing list" or "listserv" means a method of internet communication where a message is sent to an internet address and then is retransmitted to one or more subscribers to the mailing list or listserv.

C. It is not a defense to a prosecution for a violation of this section that the recipient of the transmission was a peace officer posing as a minor.

D. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.

E. The failure to report a violation of this section is a class 6 felony as prescribed by section 13-3620.

F. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Internet" means the combination of computer facilities and electromagnetic transmission media, and related equipment and software, comprising the interconnected worldwide network of computer networks that employ the transmission control protocol or internet protocol or any successor protocol to transmit information.
2. "Internet web site" means a location where material placed in a computer server-based file archive is publicly accessible, over the internet, using hypertext transfer protocol or any successor protocol.

Dr. Richard B. Weinblatt - Ten Social Networking Tips for Police Officers

2009-08-26T15:24:00.001-07:00

Interesting advice below from Dr. Richard B. Weinblatt concerning things to think about related to your off-duty use of social networking sites.

1) No gun glorification. While this may upset Second Amendment supporters out there, the reality is that a many members of the public do not like to see firearms glorified in pictures of law enforcers. Several officers have lost their jobs after posing with weaponry in a way perceived as offensive or too "warrior oriented." While the depiction of guns in the course of their normal scope and use is not problematic, aiming the gun at the camera triggers problems. Images of officers engaged in their normal course of fire at the gun range have not brought about a backlash. Posing with weaponry, involving either the officer or (worse yet) a civilian, has been problematic for the employee.

2) No alcohol. Officers have also found themselves in the hot seat after posting pictures of themselves partying and drinking alcohol. Many agencies view this to be contrary to a professional image. Of greater concern is that sometimes others identified in the pictures turn out to be minors in possession of alcohol which opens up another can of issues.

3) Watch your comments. Posted comments on social networking sites are being dragged into legal proceedings especially when use of force is involved. Comments that imply the officer enjoys using force on people, especially certain groups of people, are being seized on by criminal defense and civil plaintiffs attorneys to show the officer had a pre disposition to be physical or has a documented bias against their client. Remember that discussion boards and the like are a public written record of your communication. Like reports and radio dispatch conversations, they can be discovered and frame your actions in a context that you may not like. Much like reports, if you don't want it dragged into the legal arena, don't type it online.

4) Avoid bashing the department. Another area that has gotten some officers into trouble - the First Amendment freedom of speech not withstanding - are comments which bash the agency. Depending on how it's framed, it could open you up to administrative charges and possibly civil liability. More and more bloggers and online posters are being held responsible for their critical speech online. Especially if it is later proved that the postings lack a factual basis and are intended to damage the target of the criticism. At the very least, launching such a site or contributing to an existing Web site that bashes the agency does not endear you to the powers that be or position you as a "team player" ripe for promotion.

5) Restrict personal information. Much like we can use Facebook and the like as a tool to find people and research information, so can the bad guys. Be judicious in the posting of information and pictures. For example, some officers will not use pictures of their family members or going even further, of themselves. Others withhold their cell phone number.

6) Picture Choice. Make sure that the pictures that you do choose to post don't have any of the aforementioned problem areas or have nudity. Many officers, including myself, have shirtless bodybuilding or fitness oriented photos online. That is not a problem. The topless woman drinking at the party with you exemplifies what is a problem.

7) Minimize status update complaints. In this year of economic contraction, there are many people waiting in line for your spot in the agency. Administrators know this. This goes back to number four above, but we've all seen the officers that post their status with complaints about the shift, their sergeant, or the job. Some supervisors, after reading such negatively tinged status updates, say, "OK, let so and so find another job if they are so unhappy here." While not every job is going to be great each and every day, gripes should not be aired via status updates. The agency may be perfectly happy to find someone else that would appreciate them.

8) Highlight accomplishments. Many look to Facebook, Linkedin, and the like as electronic resumes. Take advantage of that and use it to highlight your professional accomplishments. Post pictures of you learning some new technique (being careful not to show scores or other information). Post status updates of that advanced training course you take.

9) Manage your privacy settings. While I have my online presence open to the public, many have privacy settings that restrict access to family and friends that you have predetermined. While not foolproof, the settings should keep most interlopers locked out of your pages.

10) When in doubt, leave it out. I have long coached academy students and officers to pretend that I am perched on their shoulder and watching what they are doing. In the same vein, they could have their mother hovering overhead. If you wouldn't want us to see it or if either of us would be displeased with what is being contemplated to go online, it probably is not a good idea to upload it.

Federal Injunction Against Electronic Harassment Law Needed to Help Parents Fight Internet Predators

2009-08-05T22:41:00.000-07:00

Dr. Frank Kardasz, July 31, 2009 (revised August 5, 2009) email: kardasz@kardasz.org

Cybersexting

Cybersexting is now a popular Internet activity. It occurs when two or more users of electronic communication devices send sexually explicit text or images to each other. Cybersexters may communicate via cell phones, computers, IPods and/or video games that connect to the Internet. Depending upon the circumstances, cybersexting in the U.S. is a lawful activity when both participants are consenting adults. When the cybersexter is a predatory adult seeking to target a curious minor, the situation is a parental nightmare.

The Arizona Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force receives many complaints from parents and from the administrators of social networking sites involving minors receiving cybersex communications from strangers via the Internet. In some cases the predatory adult communication comes from someone living in a different state than the young victim. In many cases the police investigation does not produce sufficient evidence to warrant criminal charges. In many past cases the communications were stopped before the situation escalated into a criminal offense. After the police step away, the parent must then find a way to prohibit any future communication between the adult predator and the child.

One obvious solution is to revoke the child’s communication device privileges. But completely eliminating a young persons’ communications device is not always practical. Computers, cell phones, messaging devices and video games have become indelible fixtures in many young lives. E-mail, texting, gaming and cell phones are part of the accepted social communication patterns and educational practices of many modern youth. Internet social communications are incredibly important to some young people. Internet access was so important to one Arizona boy that in 2008, when his father revoked the boy’s computer privileges he shot and killed his dad. Parents need another tool with which they can protect children from Internet predators.

Injunction Against Harassment - Restraining Order

Another tactic for thwarting Internet predators that is often recommended when criminal charges are not possible is the injunction against harassment, also called a restraining order or protective order. Most states have some form of restraining order or injunction that can help prevent a troublesome person from contacting an innocent victim under circumstances where sufficient cause does not exist to pursue a criminal complaint.

Example Arizona Incidents

Here are some examples of cases reported to the Arizona ICAC Task Force that involved injunctions against harassment: - An Arizona parent reported that his 17 year old daughter was cybersexting on line with a 26 year old Utah man. The girl admitted to her father that she intended to meet the man in the future when the man traveled to Arizona for business and that she intended to have sex with him. A detective contacted the man and he refused to speak with the investigator. The investigation is continuing and the suspect was served in Utah with an Arizona injunction against harassment. (case 7827) - An Arizona parent reported unusual messages between her daughter and a 41 year old Nevada man using a popular social networking site. There was insufficient information to pursue criminal charges. The parent obtained an injunction against harassment for the Nevada man. (case 1621) - An Arizona parent reported that her 16 year old daughter used the Internet to chat with a 49 year old Virginia man. The woman requested information about how to obtain an injunction against harassment to help stop the communications. (case 1231) Many more Arizona cases are listed at the end of this article.

Arizona Law

Investigators sometimes recommend that parents of cybersexting victims obtain injunctions against harassment from an Arizona court (1). Pursuant to the Arizona process for obtaining the injunction the parent goes to a local court and swears to the court order. Typically the injunction orders the respondent (predator) not to have any contact with the complainant (child victim). Once the judge approves the injunction it must then be served on the respondent. The respondent can appear in court to dispute the order but in most Internet predator cases the respondent does not appear and the order is validated. Once the order is validated any violation is the misdemeanor crime of interference with judicial proceeding (2).

Local Injunctions Unenforceable Against Out-of-State Predators

The problem with the Arizona injunction, and other states are in a similar situation, is that when the injunction is served on an out-of-state predator, the offender has little incentive to comply with the order. Predators know that it is highly unlikely that any agency in Arizona would ever extradite a misdemeanant offender from another state for violating an injunction against harassment.

Federal Injunction Would Have Interstate Nexus

A Federal protective order with interstate jurisdiction would resolve the problem of out-of-state violators. A victim in one state could obtain an order and it could be served on the offender in another state. A Federal law would overcome the problems that states have in trying to enforce injunctions across state lines. The existing Federal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 2261A, is not sufficient for Internet cyber-communication cases because it requires that either the victim or suspect travel across state lines and that the victim suffer substantial emotional distress (3).

Draft Language

Below is some draft language, modifiable to incorporate with the US Code, that may be useful to begin a discussion about a Federal injunction against electronic harassment. U.S. Code Title 18 - Injunction Against Electronic Harassment A person may file a petition with the court for an injunction prohibiting electronic harassment. If the person is a minor, the parent, legal guardian or person who has legal custody of the minor shall file the petition unless the court determines otherwise. The petition shall name the parent, guardian or custodian as the plaintiff. If the court issues an injunction, the court may do any of the following: - Enjoin the defendant from acts of harassment via electronic communications. - Restrain the defendant from contacting the plaintiff via electronic communications.

References

(1) Arizona Revised Statutes. (2009). 12-1809. Injunction against harassment; petition; venue; fees; notices; enforcement; definition. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/12/01809.htm

(2) Arizona Revised Statutes. (2009). 13-2810. Interfering with judicial proceedings; classification. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02810.htm

(3) U.S. Code. (2009). 18 U.S.C. 2261A. Stalking. Retrieved July 31, 2009 from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2261A.htm

Selected Arizona ICAC Incidents Involving Injunctions Against Harassment (2004-2009)

An Arizona parent reported unusual Internet communications between her 14 year old daughter and a 21 year old California man. The parent stated that the girl may have lied to the man about her age. The parent wanted the communications to stop. A detective recommended that the parent obtain an injunction against harassment. (1536)

An Arizona woman reported that her 16 year old sister lives in Illinois. The girl exchanged cybersex messages with a 23 year old Mesa Arizona man whom she met in an online game site. The woman wanted to make the communications stop. A detective contacted the suspect and ordered him to stop communicating with the girl and he agreed. The detective recommended to the woman that she follow-up with an injunction against harassment. (1709)

An Arizona parent reported that her 14 year old daughter was enticed by an 18 year old Canadian man who used a popular social networking site. The man stated that he wanted to marry the girl. A detective asked the parent to provide more evidence of illegal activity and also suggested an injunction against harassment. The parent never re-contacted the detective. (2115)

An Arizona grandmother reported that her 16 year old granddaughter was communicating with a 21 year old California man via a popular social networking site. The girl is in the custody of a guardian and is on juvenile probation for prior unlawful acts. The grandmother learned that the girl plans to go to California to visit the suspect. The girl’s guardian was contacted, the girls Internet privileges were revoked and the detective suggested that the grandmother and/or guardian obtain an injunction against harassment. (2358)

An Arizona parent intercepted romantic chat conversations and web page postings to a popular social networking site by his 16 year old daughter. The girl communicated with an 18 year old California man. There was insufficient evidence to pursue an investigation and the detective recommended that the parent obtain an injunction against harassment for the man. (2958)

A popular social networking site reported sexually explicit chat between a 16 year old Louisiana girl and a 52 year old Arizona man. There was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges against the man. The investigator suggested that the Louisiana victim obtain an injunction against harassment for the Arizona suspect. (8012)

A 21 year old Tucson man communicated via the Internet with a 14 year old girl from Surprise, AZ. There was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. The parents obtained an injunction against harassment to help keep the suspect away from the girl. (1433)

An Arizona parent reported that her 16 year old daughter met a 19 year old Arizona man via the Internet. The parent intercepted sexually oriented communications between the man and the girl. The parent did not wish to pursue prosecution and restricted the girl’s Internet use. The parent will seek an injunction against harassment if the contact continues. (1695)

A parent from Yuma, Arizona reported that her 15 year old daughter was chatting with an 18 year old man and that via web cam the man exposed his genitals to her and masturbated. The parent reported the incident to local law enforcement authorities and criminal charges were pursued. Investigators also suggested that the parent follow up with an injunction against harassment. (1899)

A Phoenix parent reported that she intercepted Internet communications between her 17 year old son and a 23 year old man whom the boy met via a web site that is oriented towards homosexual men. The parent learned that the boy and the man spent a weekend together. The boy would not disclose what, if any, sexual contact occurred and criminal charges could not be proven. The parent wished to stop the contact between the two. Detectives suggested an injunction against harassment. (2071)

An Arizona parent intercepted communications between her 17 year old son and a 22 year old man. The two used a popular social networking site to communicate and also exchanged sexually explicit emails. When they met at a Phoenix public library the parent intervened and confronted the man. The 17 year old deleted the sexually explicit emails and there was not sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. A detective recommended that the parent obtain an injunction against harassment. (2420)

The reporting person, a Pima Arizona case manager for disabled persons, reported that a 65 year old Yuma man befriended a mentally impaired 19 year old man. The two exchanged sexually oriented emails. The older man has made attempts to intervene in the life of the disabled man and contacted the victim’s mother suggesting that he be made guardian of the 19 year old. The investigation did not produce sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges. A detective recommended that an injunction against harassment be obtained prohibiting the 65 year old man from contacting the disabled victim. (2549)

An Arizona parent reported a suspicious on-line relationship between her 15 year old daughter and a 21 year old Scottsdale man. The 21 year old was grooming the girl and discussed marriage with her. There was not sufficient evidence of a crime but the parent wants to end the relationship. The detective recommended an injunction against harassment. (2695)

A Phoenix school resource officer reported cyber-bullying and gang activity by students using a popular social networking site. Along with possible criminal charges, detectives recommended that the parents obtain injunctions against harassment. (2783)

An Arizona parent reported that someone hacked into the social networking web page of his 17 year old daughter and sent vulgar messages to her friends. Investigators sought criminal charges and also recommended an injunction against harassment. (2800)

An Arizona parent reported that her 17 year old daughter met an unknown older man in a popular Internet gaming site. The parent learned that her daughter and the man exchanged over 500 messages including offers to marry her when she turns 18. Although there is no indication of sexual talk the parent wants to end the contact and has changed the family phone number and revoked the girls' Internet privileges. Detectives also suggested an injunction against harassment. (2813)

An Arizona parent reported Internet and personal contact between her 15 year old daughter and an El Mirage, Arizona man whom the girl met on-line. The mother intercepted e-mail communications indicating that the man is 19 years old. The mother also obtained the man’s phone number. She called the man and he admitted to knowing that the girl was 15 years old. He agreed to stop communicating with her. The mother then found pictures of the man’s penis on the girls’ computer and later caught the girl and the man together at a movie theatre. A criminal investigation was initiated and the detective also suggested that the mother obtain an injunction against harassment against the man. (2842)

An Arizona parent reported unusual text messages between her 15 year old daughter and a 24 year old married Phoenix man. The man sent suggestive messages but also stated that he could not be alone with the girl, saying that he might make a "mistake". A detective interviewed the man and he admitted knowing that what he was doing was wrong. There was insufficient evidence to prefer criminal charges. The investigator suggested to the parent that she obtain an injunction against harassment. (2862)

An Arizona parent phoned to report that she found "alarming" text messages on her 16 year old daughter’s cell phone. The messages were between the daughter and a 28 year old woman but the parent did not describe the messages in detail. A detective explained possible criminal violations if the messages were sexual in nature and also suggested an injunction against harassment. (2967)

An 18 year old Arizona woman reported that a 23 year old male acquaintance sent her pictures of his penis via email. Insufficient evidence existed to file criminal charges. The woman also reported that the man used a popular social networking site to communicate with her 14 year old sister but there was no information about criminal sexual acts. A detective suggested that the woman pursue criminal charges of harassment and obtain an injunction against harassment for the suspect. (3067)

Arizona Nets Twelve Offenders for Unlawful Images

2009-03-06T09:13:00.000-08:00

AZ ICAC Offender Apprehension Project - Joint Effort Nets 12 Suspects:
Citizen Internet Safety Training to Follow

Dr. Frank Kardasz, March 5, 2009

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 or videos depicting the sexual exploitation of minors.
• 394 incidents of various Internet crimes against children reported by 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 11 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.

Persons Arrested

All of the listed 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
• Robert Moran, age 53, from Scottsdale Arizona - a handyman
• 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.

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
• NCMEC 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 hild 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 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.

- 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
• NCMEC 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 NCMEC operates the Cybertip line. The web site is: www.cybertipline.com

Chiefs, Sheriffs and CALEA - It is time to consider Internet crimes against children

2009-02-12T22:52:00.000-08:00

Dr. Frank Kardasz, February 7, 2009

Most law enforcement agencies have standardized policies and written directives guiding their many areas of operation. Directives and policies govern everything from mundane administrative matters to grave threats to public safety. Polices develop after years of experience and in most cases, continue to evolve as new trends emerge. A troubling exception to the continuous modernization of police directives is in the area of Internet crimes against children. Most law enforcement organizations still fail to recognize the growing problem and do not have written directives that require any response to these grim threats to children and teens.

Internet Crimes Against Children

The luring and enticement of minors via cyberspace is alarming and continues to increase. The Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that 50,000 child predators are online at any time searching for potential victims (1).

Growing exponentially in the past 15 years, the numbers of Internet crimes against children has reached disturbing heights. According to a Congressional report in 2007:
Crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children over the Internet are a growing problem in the U.S. and around the world, due to the ease with which pedophiles and child predators can trade, sell, view, and download images of child pornography from the Internet (ibid).

Arizona, like many other states, is experiencing significant increases in the number of unlawful images being trafficked via the Internet (2). The increase in Internet crimes begs a dedicated and permanent law enforcement response. Most Arizona law enforcement agencies have no written directives mandating any response to Internet crimes against children.

Invisible Victims - Except in Cyberspace

Unlike spectacular crimes and incidents involving crashes, explosions, shootings and widespread newsworthy bloodletting, the evil offenses against children are committed in mostly dark and private places by offenders who often psychologically control for humiliate their victims into lifelong silence. Although the criminal evidence is visible in cyberspace, the crimes are seldom reported to law enforcement officials.

Deceptive Statistics Ignore the Problem

Internet crimes involving child victims are under-reported and official statistics do not properly collect the numbers of crimes. The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) is ineffective in capturing statistics specifically related to such crimes. NIBRS does not have specific categories that capture the numbers of Internet crimes against children (4). The tragic failure to collect data permits statistics-driven administrators to deny and ignore the existence of the problem.

Liability

Failure to investigate Internet crimes against children can result in significant liability for an organization. Several agencies in the state of Washington suffered a substantial financial judgment when a failure to protect children was uncovered (3).

Purposeful Ignorance Driven by Repugnance

Crimes against children are particularly repugnant. Most people, including police, wish to disassociate themselves mentally from thoughts of dreadful abuse involving helpless children. According to former FBI agent Ken Lanning, "Law-enforcement investigators must deal with the fact that the identification, investigation, and prosecution of child molesters may not be welcomed by their communities—especially if the molester is a prominent person. Individuals may protest, and community organizations may rally to the support of the offender and even attack the victims. City officials may apply pressure to halt or cover up the investigation. Many law-enforcement supervisors, prosecutors, judges, and juries cannot or do not want to deal with the details of deviant sexual behavior. They will do almost anything to avoid these cases (5)."

Sex crimes against children are the most reviled types of investigations for law enforcement officers. While respectful of the need to bring sex offenders to justice, many officers say, “I could never work those kinds of crimes.” The true facts about the sexual victimization of minors can be so psychologically distressing that few can emotionally tolerate being deeply involved in the investigations. Little wonder that crimes against children in cyberspace are widely ignored by policy makers.

CALEA

At the forefront of modern policy oversight is the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). The Commission began in 1979 as a professional consortium of law enforcement professionals who, among other duties, require that their member-agencies maintain model policies that are common to responsible departments nationwide. Member-agencies of CALEA must adopt and comply with standardized written directives. Agencies are periodically audited by CALEA assessors to insure compliance with the required rules. Some examples of a few simple CALEA standards include the following directives:

43.1.1 The agency has a written directive for investigating vice, drug, and organized crime activities...
61.3.1 A written directive governs performance of agency activities related to traffic engineering...
42.2.8 The agency has a written directive concerning identity crime and procedures...
61.2.2 A written directive defines agency response to the scene of any collision...

CALEA standards are applicable to member agencies based on the size of the organization. Small agencies are not required to provide as many services as large agencies. Sadly, CALEA has not yet recognized Internet crimes against children as subject worthy of policy attention.

Recommendation

Law enforcement policies and written directives must recognize Internet crimes against children. If traffic enforcement and identity theft are crimes worthy of written directives aren’t children also worthy? As a leadership organization whose guidelines are followed by many member-agencies, CALEA should include written directives that mandate a law enforcement response to the growing problem of Internet crimes against children.

References

(1) U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce. (January 2007). Sexual exploitation of children on the Internet: Bipartisan staff report for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 109th. Congress. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/01032007_Report.pdf

(2) Kardasz, F. (January 3, 2009). Contraband Images in Arizona: Eight days in December 2008. Retrieved February 11, 2009 from http://kardasz.org/blog/2009/01/contraband_images_in_arizona_e.html

(3) Kardasz, F. (September 15, 2008). Liability for Deliberate Indifference and Failure to Investigate = $ 10.5 Million. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://kardasz.org/blog/2008/09/liability_for_deliberate_indif.html

(4) Finkelhor D., and Ormrod, R. (December 2004). Child pornography: Patterns from NIBRS. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/204911.pdf

(5) Lanning, K.V. (September, 2001). Child molesters: A behavioral analysis. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 4th Ed. p. 86. Retrieved February 12, 2009 from http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

GPS Tracking of Internet Sex Offenders - Mapping Wireless Hotspots and Beyond

2009-01-20T12:23:00.000-08:00

Dr. Frank Kardasz, January 20, 2009

Global positioning satellite (GPS) technology is commonly used to track offenders who are on probation or parole. Offenders wear battery powered ankle bracelets equipped with transmitters linked to cellular technology. The ankle bracelet transmitters report the person’s position on a map for the monitoring officer to see. The system helps officers track an offenders whereabouts.

GPS tracking technology has advanced to the extent that mapping markers can pinpoint the offender’s location and also mark surrounding locations that the offender may be prohibited from visiting. Prohibited locations for sex offenders might include grade schools, parks or places where children would logically congregate.

Some offenders' terms of probation or parole include computer restrictions. Computer restrictions often prohibit or restrict the offender from visiting cyberspace. Computer restrictions are difficult for parole and probation officers to enforce. Computers are ubiquitous and found almost everywhere. Complicating matters is the fact that free wireless access is available in many locations.

How can mapping technology assist probation and parole officers charged with monitoring offenders who used computers and cyberspace to violate?

Mapping markers might also be used to identify locations where unrestricted wireless Internet access "hotspots" are provided.

How can wireless hotspots be identified?

A Google search for free wireless hotspots in Phoenix Arizona revealed several hyperlinks including the following: http://ilovefreewifi.com/phoenix/. The site lists dozens of locations that would be attractive places for sex offenders to visit and take advantage of unrestricted wireless Internet access. First on the list was the Phoenix Public Library.
Net Stumbler is a popular freeware program that can be used to identify wireless hotspots. It detects wireless LANs that use the 802.11b, 802.11a and 802.11g WLAN standards. Other products perform similar duties. Alternatives to Net Stumbler include: MacStumbler, iStumbler, KisMAC, Kismet, Windows Vista netsh, Vistumbler, Inssider, and DISA Wireless Discovery Device (Flying Squirrel).

Perhaps the integration of mapping technology with GPS monitoring could identify wireless Internet hotspots and assist those who must monitor the offenders who have computer restrictions. The mapping software that shows the locations of schools might also be used to show the locations of wireless hotspots.

Beyond the mapping of wireless hotspots, what else might be done to monitor cyber sex offenders?

Further future advancements in technology might include ankle bracelets that incorporate radio frequency identifiers that sense those radio frequencies common to wireless Internet channels and report those frequencies to the monitoring system.

Although it may be too restrictive to prohibit an offender from ever entering any area where a free unrestricted wireless radio frequency signal is available, simply collecting and preserving the data may be enough to assist investigators who are tasked with later follow up of ongoing offenses. For example, an investigator who is tracing the source of unlawful Internet trafficked images might be led to a particular Internet protocol address at a particular location. If the location is found to be a free wireless hotspot, it would be nice to know whether or not an ankle-bracelet monitored offender was also at the location during the offense.

Arizona law now includes a section requiring registered sex offenders to provide their e-mail and Internet protocol (IP) addresses to the state. While this is a positive step towards monitoring offenders, registering e-mail and IP addresses is not a foolproof way to track offenders. Further work is needed in the area of tracking and monitoring Internet sex offenders.

Conclusion

Monitoring the offenders who use cyberspace is a challenging task for probation and parole officers. GPS monitoring through ankle bracelets is becoming a popular technology for those who must track offenders.

Businesses that produce and market GPS monitoring systems should consider adding a mapping feature that pinpoints Internet wireless hotspots in order to assist officers who must monitor the activities of cyber offenders. Mapping wireless hotspots might help probation and parole officers know when cyber offenders are near locations where they might reoffend.

Future advancements in technology might include ankle bracelets that incorporate radio frequency identifiers that recognize those frequencies common to wireless Internet channels and report those frequencies to the monitoring system.

Contraband Images in Arizona: Eight days in December 2008

2009-01-15T15:40:00.000-08:00

Dr. Frank Kardasz, January 3, 2009

During the eight day period from December 23 – 30, 2008, Internet traffic was reviewed to determine the characteristics of some of the unlawful images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors that were trafficked in Arizona during the time-period.

The data collection is limited by the fact that the Internet traffic reviewed represents only a very small portion of the Internet and likely under-represents the total amount of unlawful images being trafficked.

Data was collected from a proactive data source and examined. The examination indicated that approximately 8,170 “hits” were traced to sources in Arizona. Each hit represents a single felony incident of sexual exploitation of a minor (child pornography) in probable violation of Arizona Revised Statute 13-3553.

Of the approximately 8,170 hits, 2,252 unique data source locations throughout Arizona were identified representing 77 different cities and towns.

The hits and locations were associated with 1,054 unique unlawful contraband felony images or videos that have been previously identified as depicting the sexual exploitation of minors in violation of ARS 13-3553.

Breakdown of the hits by source city for eight day period from December 23-30, 2008:

Phoenix	2692
Tucson	1084
Mesa	788
Gilbert	450
Scottsdale	371
Chandler	299
Peoria	281
Tempe	237
Glendale	199
Yuma	144
Kingman	106
Flagstaff	104
Avondale	97
Laveen	89
Goodyear	88
Lake Havasu City	81
Sierra Vista	81
Surprise	81
Buckeye	67
Sun City	52
Apache Junction	51
Prescott Valley	46
Globe	43
Sahuarita	43
Cottonwood	37
Bullhead City	34
Litchfield Park	32
Prescott	31
Casa Grande	29
Cave Creek	28
Queen Creek	27
Paradise Valley	25
Fort Huachuca	23
San Luis	22
Safford	20
Golden Valley	19
Humboldt	19
Coolidge	18
Payson	18
Sun City West	16
Sedona	15
Maricopa	11
El Mirage	10
Fort Mohave	10
Tolleson	10
Show Low	8
Window Rock	8
Winslow	8
Parker	6
Chinle	5
Chino Valley	5
Rimrock	5
Youngtown	5
Benson	4
Camp Verde	4
Cashion	4
Red Rock	4
Vail	4
Green Valley	3
Morenci	3
Page	3
Snowflake	3
Thatcher	3
Vernon	3
Wellton	3
Clifton	2
Douglas	2
Eloy	2
Kearny	2
Rio Rico	2
Ajo	1
Arizona City	1
Ash Fork	1
Ehrenberg	1
Gadsden	1
Mammoth	1
Willcox	1

Training the police for cyber-realities: Recommendations for Arizona law revisions

2008-12-30T14:53:00.000-08:00

Dr. Frank Kardasz, December 30, 2008, Revised February 11, 2009

Our Computer Culture

Cyberspace and computers have altered our lives, for better and sometimes for worse. Many people have computers in their homes and offices. School children often have computers in classrooms. Law enforcement officers have computers in the workplace. Police stations have computers for recording incidents and writing reports. Many police cars have computers to aid officers dispatched to calls. Victims and suspects of crimes have computers that are sometimes stolen or sometimes used during cybercrimes.

Cybercrime Explosion

Computers are also quietly used to facilitate sex crimes against minors including luring, enticement and unlawful images depicting exploitation. Most of the crimes against children go unreported because young victims cannot call the police. Part of our growing awareness of the large numbers of Internet crimes comes from thousands of reports of unlawful images through the National Center for Missing and Exploited Childrens' Cybertip line and also from the sad reports of a few victims (1).

Recent undercover investigative efforts to explore cybercrimes against children have resulted in surprising and increasing numbers of incidents in Arizona (2) and worldwide. Internet crimes against children are arguably among the most under-reported and rapidly growing types of crimes. Cybercrimes pose a dangerous threat to young people.

Law Enforcement Training Void

Despite the increases in computer crimes, law enforcement training has not kept pace with the trend. Police training regarding computer crimes is practically nil and not required at the basic academy level. Analogous to the proliferation of automobiles and subsequent development of traffic enforcement a hundred years ago, we now face the proliferation of computers but without the accompanying law enforcement response.

A Congressional report in 2007 said:

Additional resources should be assigned on both the federal and state level to investigate and prosecute
these cases. These resources include federal and state law enforcement agents and prosecutors, forensic
laboratories and law enforcement and prosecutorial training (3).

The slow law enforcement response is exacerbated by a denial and a wishful illusion that the crimes do not exist. Many police officers abhor investigating crimes against children. The emotional toll of acknowledging and investigating sex crimes against children is just too high. A common refrain among otherwise toughened cops is, "I could never work those disgusting kinds of crimes against kids." Changing these beliefs begins with training officers to recognize and investigate the crimes.

Basic Police Training in Arizona

In Arizona, basic police training includes a long list of topics that a fledgling officer must endure (4). State laws and regulations require training consisting of 585 hours of basic police instruction (4). The list includes many important and worthy subjects including firearms, pursuit driving, laws of arrest and defensive tactics.

Noticeably absent from the list of required basic police training topics is any reference to training about Internet crimes against minors. It is now time to formally recognize the growing problem of cybercrimes against children and provide basic training to officers.

Surely the problem of Internet crimes against children is at least equal in importance with traffic enforcement. Traffic law and traffic law enforcement is mentioned many times in the Arizona State requirements for basic police training. Problematic motoring is taught during Functional Area IV - Traffic Control (5). Students must learn about impaired driver cases, traffic citations, traffic collision investigation, traffic collision (practical), traffic direction, and substantive traffic Law. Aren't Internet crimes against children as important as traffic crimes?

Nay-sayers may argue that it is impossible to add more hours to current police academy training. The 585 hour schedule is packed with high-liability topics that each new officer must master. While that may be true, and while it may be difficult to extend the 585 hours to 586 or 587, why not combine or shorten some of the other courses and devote a little less time to them in order to make room for the growing needs of child victims in cyberspace. Could less time be spent on history, summonses, civil process, intoxication, or traffic?

Summary

It is time to act affirmatively to help children in cyberspace by educating the police. In 2008, we are finally passing the cyber-torch to a generation of new police officers who were raised with computers as we simultaneously retire those veterans who once abhorred computers. Arizona law enforcement academies should recognize Internet crimes against children by including training about the crimes within the basic police training curriculum.

Partly because children cannot call 911, Internet crimes against them will be ignored until legislation encourages basic training for law enforcement officers. The encouragement begins with educating officers to properly respond to and investigate the offenses. The suggested law revisions below are an affirmative move towards that goal.

Recommendations

The following three changes to Arizona Revised Statutes Title 41 and Arizona Administrative Code R13-4-103 regarding basic peace officer training would make education about Internet crimes against minors mandatory for new officers.

I. ARS 41-1822 - add paragraph (g)

Revise the Arizona Revised Statute 41-1822 regarding basic police training to include the language below in a new paragraph (g) under subsection 4 and a revised paragraph 5:

4. Prescribe minimum courses of training and minimum standards for training facilities for law enforcement officers. Only this state and political subdivisions of this state may conduct basic peace officer training. Basic peace officer academies may admit individuals who are not peace officer cadets only if a cadet meets the minimum qualifications established by paragraph 3 of this subsection. Training shall include:

(g) INTERNET AND COMPUTER CRIMES AGAINST MINORS

II. ARS 41-1822 - revise paragraph 5

5. Recommend curricula for advanced courses and seminars in law enforcement and intelligence training in universities, colleges and community colleges, in conjunction with the governing body of the educational institution.

SUCH RECOMMENDATIONS WILL INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF
COURSES AND SEMINARS REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF
INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST MINORS.

III. Administrative Regulation R13-4-116 Academy Requirements - add paragraph xi

Revise the Administrative Regulations governing certification of peace officers (R13-4-116). Under functional area V - Crime Scene Management, add the following investigative area to the list of items:

xi. INTERNET AND COMPUTER CRIMES AGAINST MINORS

------------------------------

References

(1) Jaffee, M. (October 18, 2007). Emotional testimony from online predator victim. WZZM13.com. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=82414

(2) Kardasz, F. (March 25, 2008). Contraband images in Arizona: Cities and Internet service providers, February through March 2008. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from http://kardasz.org/blog/2008/04/contraband_images_in_arizona.html

(3) Committee on Energy and Commerce. (January 2007). Sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. Staff report of the 109th Congress. Retrieved February 11, 2009 from http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/01032007_Report.pdf

(4) 2008 Arizona Revised Statutes. Title 41 - State Government. Article 8 Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/41/01822.htm&Title=41&DocType=ARS

For ease of reference, relevant parts of the statute follows:

41-1822. Powers and duties of board; definition
A. With respect to peace officer training and certification, the board shall:
5. Recommend curricula for advanced courses and seminars in law enforcement and intelligence training in universities, colleges and community colleges, in conjunction with the governing body of the educational institution.

(5). Arizona Administrative Code. Title 13. Public Safety. Chapter 4. Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from http://www.azpost.state.az.us/

For ease of reference, relevant parts of the statute follows:

Title13. PUBLIC SAFETY
R13-4-116. Academy Requirements
E. Basic course requirements. The academy administrator shall ensure that the academy uses curricula that meet the requirements of R13-4-114 for the following basic courses of instruction.
1. The 585-hour full-authority peace officer basic training course shall include all of the topics listed in each of the following functional areas:
a. Functional Area I - Introduction to Law Enforcement.
i. Criminal justice systems,
ii. History of law enforcement,
iii. Law enforcement services,
iv. Supervision and management,
v. Ethics and professionalism, and
vi. Stress management.
b. Functional Area II - Law and Legal Matters.
i. Introduction to criminal law;
ii. Laws of arrest;
iii. Search and seizure;
iv. Rules of evidence;
v. Summonses, subpoenas, and warrants;
vi. Civil process;
vii. Administration of criminal justice;
viii. Juvenile law and procedures;
ix. Courtroom demeanor;
x. Constitutional law;
xi. Substantive criminal law, A.R.S. Titles 4, 13, and 36; and
xii. Liability issues.
c. Functional Area III - Patrol Procedures.
i. Patrol and observation (part 1),
ii. Patrol and observation (part 2),
iii. Domestic violence,
iv. Mental illness,
v. Crimes in progress,
vi. Crowd control formations and tactics,
vii. Bomb threats and disaster training,
viii. Intoxication cases,
ix. Communication and police information systems,
x. Hazardous materials,
xi. Bias-motivated crimes,
xii. Fires, and
xiii. Civil Disputes.
d. Functional Area IV - Traffic Control.
i. Impaired driver cases;
ii. Traffic citations;
iii. Traffic collision investigation;
iv. Traffic collision (practical);
v. Traffic direction; and
vi. Substantive Traffic Law, A.R.S. Title 28.
e. Functional Area V - Crime Scene Management.
i. Preliminary investigation and crime scene management,
ii. Crime scene investigation (practical),
iii. Physical evidence procedures,
iv. Interviewing and questioning,
v. Fingerprinting,
vi. Sex crimes investigations,
vii. Death Investigations (including training certified by the Department of Health Services on sudden infant death syndrome),
viii. Organized crime activity,
ix. Investigation of specific crimes, and
x. Narcotics and dangerous drugs.
f. Functional Area VI - Community and Police Relations.
i. Cultural awareness,
ii. Victimology,
iii. Interpersonal communications,
iv. Crime prevention, and
v. Police and the community.
g. Functional Area VII - Records and Reports. Report writing.
h. Functional Area VIII - Police Proficiency Skills.
i. First aid,
ii. Firearms training (including firearms qualification),
iii. Physical conditioning,
iv. High risk stops,
v. Defensive tactics,
vi. Vehicle operations, and
vii. Pursuit operations.

Cyber-assisted suicide prevention law is needed

2008-11-22T16:49:00.000-08:00

By Dr. Frank Kardasz, November 22, 2008

The tragic story of a 19 year old Miami man who committed suicide while others watched via Internet web cameras was not an isolated incident. A nearly identical situation occurred in Phoenix, Arizona several years ago.

Occasionally the police receive information that someone in cyberspace is threatening suicide. Often the information is provided anonymously and with no follow-up information other than the screen name or email address of the suicidal person. Fortunately, while many people on the Internet contemplate suicide as a cry for help, only a few actually complete the sad act.

Law enforcement is unable to investigate all of the many cyberspace suicide threats. Police are hampered not only by the shortage of investigators but also by the lack of a law that gives them jurisdiction. Some states laws require that a criminal act must be under investigation before a subpoena can be issued to trace through the Internet service provider to the computer connected to the Internet. Suicide is not a crime in many places and many people believe that suicide by an adult is a personal choice that should not be legislated. In the case of adults it is difficult for law enforcement officers to prevent a determined person from suicide. Many suicidal persons are convinced by authorities to voluntarily surrender themselves to mental health counseling for treatment.

The situation is different when the person threatening suicide is a minor. Because of immaturity a minor is legally incapable of making an informed decision to end his or her life. For minors, law enforcement has a legitimate interest in preventing the suicide but still sometimes lacks the legal ability to investigate.

Suicide-prevention cyberspace emergency law is needed

In threatened cyber-assisted suicide cases investigators are caught between the mandate to preserve human life and the lack of legislation allowing them to effectively investigate. I recommend the creation of a law that would help the police locate and assist suicidal minors by mandating cooperation from Internet service providers.

Here is some draft language for legislators to consider:

Electronic Communications Emergency Exception Regarding Threatened Suicide Involving Minors

If, while using electronic communications a person identifying himself as a minor threatens suicide, law enforcement may request subscriber information about the person from electronic communications service providers (also known as Internet service providers). The electronic communications service providers will provide subscriber information about the person threatening suicide when law enforcement states that there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the suicidal person is a minor. Internet service providers and electronics communications providers doing business in (name your jurisdiction) are required to comply.

Although the law probably would not have helped in the Miami nor Phoenix cases it may help law enforcement officers in the future when they are confronted with calls from citizens informing them of minors threatening suicide on the Internet.

-----------------------------------------------------

Kin outraged, distraught over teen's cyber suicide

By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, 11/2/09

Miami, Florida – The family of a college student who killed himself live on the Internet say they're horrified his life ended before a virtual audience, and infuriated that viewers of the live webcam or operators of the Web site that hosted it didn't act sooner to save him.

Only after police arrived to find Abraham Biggs dead in his father's bed did the Web feed stop Wednesday — 12 hours after the 19-year-old Broward College student first declared on a Web site that he hated himself and planned to die.

"It didn't have to be," said the victim's sister, Rosalind Bigg. "They got hits, they got viewers, nothing happened for hours." Biggs announced his plans to kill himself over a Web site for bodybuilders, authorities said. He posted a link from there to Justin.tv, a site that allows users to broadcast live videos from their webcams.

A computer user who claimed to have watched said that after swallowing some pills, Biggs went to sleep and appeared to be breathing for a few hours while others cracked jokes.

Some members of his virtual audience encouraged him to do it, others tried to talk him out of it, and some discussed whether he was taking a dose big enough to kill himself, said Wendy Crane, an investigator with the Broward County medical examiner's office.

Some users told investigators they did not take him seriously because he had threatened suicide on the site before. Eventually, someone notified the moderator of the bodybuilding site, who traced Biggs' location and called police, Crane said. The drama unfolded live on Justin.tv, which allows viewers to post comments alongside the video images.

As police entered the room, the audience's reaction was filled with Internet shorthand: "OMFG," one wrote, meaning "Oh, my God." Others, either not knowing what they were seeing, or not caring, wrote "lol," which means "laughing out loud," and "hahahah."

His father, Abraham Biggs Sr., told The Miami Herald he didn't want to watch the video. "We were very good friends," he said. "It's wrong that it was allowed to happen."

An autopsy concluded Biggs died from a combination of opiates and benzodiazepine, which his family said was prescribed for his bipolar disorder.

"Abe, i still wish this was all a joke," a friend wrote on the teenager's MySpace page, which he described himself as a goodhearted guy who would always be available for his pals, no matter what time of day.

In a statement, Justin.tv CEO Michael Seibel said: "We regret that this has occurred and want to respect the privacy of the broadcaster and his family during this time."

It is unclear how many people watched it happen. The Web site would not say how many people were watching the broadcast. The site as a whole had 672,000 unique visitors in October, according to Nielsen.

Biggs was not the first person to commit suicide with a webcam rolling. But the drawn-out drama — and the reaction of those watching — was seen as an extreme example of young people's penchant for sharing intimate details about themselves over the Internet.

Montana Miller, an assistant professor of popular culture at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, said Biggs' very public suicide was not shocking, given the way teenagers chronicle every facet of their lives on sites like Facebook and MySpace.

"If it's not recorded or documented then it doesn't even seem worthwhile," she said. "For today's generation it might seem, `What's the point of doing it if everyone isn't going to see it?'"

She likened Biggs' death to other public ways of committing suicide, like jumping off a bridge.
Crane said she knows of a case in which a Florida man shot himself in the head in front of an online audience, though she didn't know how much viewers saw.

In Britain last year, a man hanged himself while chatting online.

Miami lawyer William Hill said there is probably nothing that could be done legally to those who watched and did not act. As for whether the Web site could be held liable, Hill said there doesn't seem to be much of a case for negligence.

"There could conceivably be some liability if they knew this was happening and they had some ability to intervene and didn't take action," said Hill, who does business litigation and has represented a number of Internet-based clients. But "I think it would be a stretch."

Condolences poured into Biggs' MySpace page, where the mostly unsmiling teen is seen posing in a series of pictures with various young women. On the bodybuilding Web site, Biggs used the screen name CandyJunkie. His Justin.tv alias was "feels_like_ecstacy."

Bigg described her brother as an outgoing person who struck up conversations with Starbucks baristas and enjoyed taking his young nieces to Chuck E. Cheese. He was health-conscious and exercised but was not a bodybuilder, she said.

"This is very, very sudden and unexpected for us," the sister said. "It boggles the mind. We don't understand."

Associated Press Writers Jessica Gresko and Lisa Orkin Emmanuel and the AP News Research Center in New York contributed to this report.

Retrieved November 22, 2008 from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081122/ap_on_re_us/webcam_suicide

Camera equipped cellular phones - Think before you snap-a-pic

2008-11-05T13:45:00.000-08:00

Dr. Frank Kardasz, November 5, 2008, updated January 16, 2009

Modern cell phones often come equipped with cameras that can be 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 easily shared between users who can quickly send images to one another or to wider groups of friends.

Unfortunately, cameras are also sometimes used to snap 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 for the purpose of grooming another person towards a sex act. Sexual predators often groom intended victims by sexting.

An increasing number of complaints are being received by law enforcement involving improper or illegal images taken and trafficked via cell phone. What can be done?

Parents, please monitor your child's use of a cell phone camera.

Young people, please think about the consequences of taking and sharing pictures taken with a cell phone camera.

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 image might not ever be erased.

Please think before you snap-a-pic.

------------------------------------------------------

The following story by Mike Brunker describes an incident in Pennsylvania.

'Sexting’ surprise: Teens face child porn charges
6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell phones

By Mike Brunker, msnbc.com, 01/15/09

In an unusual case arising from the popular practice known as “sexting,” six Pennsylvania high school students are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male classmates via their cell phones.

The female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg, Pa., all 14- or 15-years-old, face charges of manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are 16 and 17, face charges of possession, according to WPXI-TV in Pittsburgh, which published the story on its Web site on Tuesday.

Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October, after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was using it in violation of school rules and found a nude photo of a classmate on it. Police were called in and their investigation led them to other phones containing more photos, it said.

Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first photograph was “a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude."

The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the investigation turned up “no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds … other than the violation of the electronic devices policy.” The statement also said that school officials didn’t learn of the charges against the students until Monday.

In the WPXI story, which included contributions from the Associated Press, Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might consider sending such photos to friends.

"It's very dangerous," he said. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing until it's already done." (Seranko could not be reached for comment on Thursday, and a woman who answered the phone at the Greensburg Police Department said, “Our department is not doing any more interviews on the case.”)

But Patrick Artur, a Philadelphia defense attorney who by his reckoning has handled at least 80 child pornography cases, said the prosecution of minors for photos they took themselves runs counter to the purpose of both state and federal child pornography laws: Preventing the sexual abuse of children by “dirty old men in raincoats.”

“It’s clearly overkill,” he said. “… The letter of the law seems to have been violated, but this is not the type of defendant that the legislature envisioned” in passing the statute. Artur said that because there is no mandatory minimum sentence under Pennsylvania’s child pornography law, unlike the federal statute, the students would not necessarily be incarcerated if they are found guilty. But he noted that convictions would have "serious, serious implications," including forcing them having to register as sexual offenders for at least 10 years. While Artur said the prosecution of a juvenile for allegedly creating and distributing child porn was new to him, a quick review of federal and state statistics showed there have been a handful of similar cases, and several convictions.

While few minors have found themselves in court for e-mailing or posting sexy photos of themselves, there is little doubt that ubiquitous cell phones and easy access to computers have tempted many to push the erotic envelope.

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reported last month that a survey of 1,280 teens and young adults found that 20 percent of the teens said they had sent or posted nude or semi nude photos or videos of themselves. That number was slightly higher for teenage girls — 22 percent — vs. boys — 18 percent.

Retrieved January 16, 2009 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/from/ET/

------------------------------------------------------

The following story by Laura Legre also discusses the situation nationwide.

Students trading nude photos not isolated incident

By Laura Legere. The Times-Tribune.com. 11/12/08

Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania area students caught trading sexually explicit pictures of classmates are part of a growing trend. But unlike many teenage fads, what may have seemed like a harmless act could leave them facing life-altering legal consequences.

Incidents of similar trading of nude images by high school students — either by cell phone, e-mail or social networking Web sites — have been reported in at least 12 other states, including New Jersey, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin, Utah and Georgia.

John Shehan, director of the exploited children division of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said this year alone his organization has received more than 100 reports of child exploitation involving a cell phone. That number includes cases of exploitation by both adults and minors.

In Tunkhannock, police confiscated five cell phones from students between the ages of 11 and 17. One of the phones contained about 100 pictures, according to Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. He said “some of the girls” in the pictures were also taking the photos, which likely showed females between the ages of 14 and 16.

The punishment for teens taking, sending or receiving such photos can often be very adult. In Texas in October, a 13-year-old boy was arrested on child pornography charges after he received a nude picture of an eighth-grade student on his cell phone.

In Utah, a 16-year-old boy was charged with a felony for sending nude photos of himself over a cell phone to female classmates.

In May, a Wisconsin teen who posted nude pictures of a 16-year-old girl on his MySpace page was charged with possession of child pornography, sexual exploitation of a child and defamation.

Pennsylvania students who trade nude images could be charged with sexual abuse of children, unlawful contact with a minor, or criminal use of a communication facility, all of which are felonies punishable by up to seven years in jail.

That point was made repeatedly to the ninth- and 10th-graders gathered in the Abington Heights High School gym Wednesday to hear about the dangers of such behavior. Although there have not been any reported incidents of students trading nude photos in the district, assistant superintendent Thomas Quinn, Ph.D. said, “It certainly would be naive to think it couldn’t happen here.”

Lackawanna County Deputy District Attorney Frank Castellano told the teens that taking, possessing or distributing pictures of people under the age of 18 constitutes child pornography in Pennsylvania, whether or not the person taking the photos or sharing them is a minor. “Please don’t think that you are immune from this type of prosecution or this type of arrest simply because of your age,” he said. “It makes no difference.”

Assistant District Attorney Robert Klein said students who receive nude images should immediately delete them. He emphasized images conveyed by cell phone often end up on the Internet and are spread widely. The legal and social ramifications of such an act can limit a person’s ability to get into college, join the military or get a job for the rest of his or her life, he said.

High School Assistant Principal Michael Beamish put the possible repercussions in even more personal terms, referring to the “tarnish” a pornography charge would have “on your family name.” “Everybody, take a minute and think about what your grandparents would feel if you were in court being prosecuted as a sex offender,” he said.

Nils Frederiksen, spokesman for the state Attorney General’s Office said law enforcement and prosecutors determine the charges to file when teens trade nude photos based on the individual circumstances of each case. But, he cautioned, “If you are sending sexually explicit material to someone under the age of 18, you are facing a potential felony charge.”

Mr. Shehan, of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said prosecutors’ dilemma whether to “prosecute or try and educate or seek counseling” is very difficult, and will become more prevalent as the issue continues to spread. “A lot of damage is done when an image like that is taken and shared and essentially becomes available to the world,” he said. “Teenagers have a different mentality than adults do. A momentary lapse of judgment can have a lifetime of repercussions.”

But Daniel Macallair, executive director of the California-based Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, a nonprofit that advocates alternatives to juvenile incarceration, said the focus on the strictest criminal punishments is not the best way to address the issue. “Labeling some teenager who does something stupid as a lifetime sex offender solves no problems,” he said. “It will create more problems than it will solve.” He encouraged a community-wide response to the incident that involves parents and schools, but not the criminal justice system. “Are you trying to push someone to the margins of society for the rest of their life, is that the goal here?” he said. “And have we really thought this through?”

Retrieved November 17, 2008 from
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/articles/2008/11/12/news/doc491b83902cae9324790271.txt