Deep Run High School, Henrico County – OAG Taskforce Meeting
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
______________________________________________________
The Task Force met at Deep Run High School in Henrico County for its second meeting. The school provided its Media Center (library) for this meeting.
Task Force members were seated in the center of the room at U-shaped tables while guests and members of the press and public sat or stood in peripheral areas of the room.
At 10:00 a.m., the meeting was called to order by Deputy Attorney General Richard B. Campbell who served as moderator. Principal Aaron Spence then welcomed the Task Force to the school. Delegate Bill Janis, representative of Henrico County also welcomed the group. Following this, members of the Task Force introduced themselves.
Attorney General Bob McDonnell then recognized the 5 new members of the Task Force and spoke about the important work emanating from the efforts of all gathered at the table.
Sergeant Davenport of the Richmond Police Department then spoke about his true-life experience with a sexual predator who attempted to entice his nephew. Giving insight into the varied methods used by such individuals, the sergeant explained how the predator began making contact with the nephew by saying he was an old neighbor who lived behind him some years ago and would like to rekindle the relationship. Fortunately, the boy informed his uncle and appropriate action was taken to apprehend the predator who has since been convicted.
At 10:45 a.m., a time period for public comment was allotted at which time several people in attendance made brief comments, including Betty Wade Coyle of Prevent Child Abuse, Hampton Roads who spoke of teen bullying on the Internet; statistics of who the possessors of child pornography tend to be (white males older than 25 years, unmarried); statistics on ages of victims of child pornography (83% ages 6-12, 39% 3-5); and the fact that children who live with predators are treated differently than those who are victimized by strangers.
A member of the public spoke of his concerns with the laptops in use by students in Henrico County and his perceived lack of parental supervision.
Ann Slough, parent of one of the Task Force members, spoke of her concerns with I-book safety in the schools, asserting that parents have no knowledge of what students may be using the laptops for. She advised that new filters are now being tested in some middle schools to address this problem.
Deputy Campbell of the Attorney General’s office made note of the inconsistent sentences meted out in courts throughout the Commonwealth.
Les Lauziere, Criminal Investigator and Glenn Aldridge, agent with the United States Postal Inspectors Service gave presentations to the group. Investigator Lauziere explained that the school system has closed ports, thereby not permitting students to explore the Internet freely. Lauziere gave the predator’s perspective as to what one might look for in finding likely victims for exploitation. Aldridge explained that during searches, law enforcement must also search for mail and packages as this is one of the methods used by predators to woo a potential victim.
John Ryan, Chris Bubb and Jules Polonetsky of AOL then gave a presentation from the business perspective. They explained the safeguards AOL has put in place for monitoring web activity such as reporting to parents of inappropriate excursions by child; age-appropriate websites within their system; parental controls such as online timers; monitoring of their chat boards at all times; and their “Notify AOL” button to report abuse. The group was informed that 42 USC § 13032 mandates ISPs report to NCMEC any child porn activity. AOL uses auto technology to screen for child pornography, matching suspect files to digital fingerprints of child pornography in their library. If there is a match, it is automatically referred to NCMEC.
At 12:15 p.m., the group broke for lunch and into the three predetermined working groups: law enforcement; technology partners; and parents and educators.
Col. Steve Flaherty, Superintendent, Virginia State Police |
Lindsey Aron, NCMEC for Michelle Collins |
Elizabeth Banker, Associate General Counsel Yahoo! |
Stan Moorefield |
Bob Stolle, Executive Director Greater Richmond Technology Council |
Kim White, Commonwealth’s Attorney, Halifax |
Shirley Payne for James Hilton, VP/CIO UVA |
John Brownlee, United States Attorney |
Sally Boese, Va. Assn. of Indep. Schools |
Anne Gavin, State Government Affairs Regional Manager, Microsoft Corporation |
Honorable Robert Hurt, Member, House of Delegates |
Honorable Mark D. Obenshain, Member, Senate of Virginia, Harrisonburg |
Honorable Ryan T. McDougle, Senate of Virginia |
Senator Janet Howell |
Charles D. Curran Chief Counsel, Policy & Regulatory, America Online |
John Ryan, Vice President and Chief Counsel, America Online/Time-Warner |
John Jung, Asst. CA, Richmond for Mike Herring |
Dr. Billy K. Cannaday, Jr., Superintendent of Public Instruction |
Elizabeth A. Bresee, Vice President, Capital One |
Rick Lally, President, Hampton Roads Technology Council |
Joel Wiginton, Vice President & Senior Counsel, Gov’t Affairs, Sony |
Robert E. Gwaltney, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, FBI Richmond |
Bobbie Kilberg, President & CEO No. Va. Tech. Council |
Liz Eraker, Policy Analyst, Google |
Mr. John Titus, Principal, James River High School |
Jeff Deem, Brian Russell and Larry Jones for Chief Monroe, City of Richmond |
Wade Kizer, Commonwealth’s Attorney, Henrico County for Eileen Addison |
Rick Lane, Myspace.com |
Ray Lamura, President VCTA |
Virginia James, teacher |
Carter Slough, student |
Tommy Quigley, student |
Rosemary Trible, concerned citizen |
David Foster., Arlington School Board |
Steve Kussman for Donna Rice-Hughes, Enough is Enough |
Law Enforcement Working Group
Staff Attorney – Gene Fishel and Les Lauziere and Jan Myer of OAG staff
Present:
The first issue addressed by the group was the subject of cache files as had been discussed at the previous meeting and how to delineate unintended downloading of illegal materials and intentional; i.e. intent vs. storage and saving.
Question four (Under current Virginia law, there are no provisions allowing for forfeiture of computer and other equipment used by defendants in cases of online solicitation of children. Should the statutes be amended to allow for such forfeiture and how should the statute be drafted?) was then discussed addressing the issue of forfeiture of computers, etc. and proposing legislation to allow forfeiture in matters of online solicitation and possession of child pornography.
Next, sentencing guidelines were discussed. It was noted that there are no suspended sentences in the federal system. It was suggested that language in state statues be drafted to force courts to impose sentences as required by statute. Further, in state law, there is no provision for designating receipt of child pornography a crime
As assigned during the previous meeting, the Attorney General’s Office drafted language for state minimum sentencing guidelines for possession, receipt, distribution as well as doubling the penalty for defendants with prior convictions.
For the next meeting, the United States Attorney will provide the federal definition for proof of prior conviction so that the group can compare to existing state law.
The general feeling among the group was that the crime of production of child pornography should contain a mandatory minimum sentence of at least five years. AAG Fishel is to draft such statutory language for the next meeting.
Question six, the issue of solicitation, was then discussed. Current law cross‑references solicitation to indecent liberties. The group discussed the benefit of raising the age limit to 14 years of age or higher. Leslie Aron of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children informed the group that online solicitation occurs mostly with 13-15 year-olds. There was much discussion of the possibility of a disgruntled parent pursuing charges against a daughter’s boyfriend simply on the basis of an age difference. Currently, there must be a four-year difference (senior) between the solicitor and the underage victim.
The discussion turned to the possibility of a collaborative effort by the Attorney General’s Office and State Police to pursue sex offender registrants in violation of the terms of their parole. The General Assembly has recently authorized 45 new positions in order to monitor the sex offender registry.
Discussion then turned to the lack of available computer forensics personnel statewide. Jeff Deem of Richmond Police Department suggested the possibility of creating a regional forensic lab where all state agencies could share resources, manpower, etc. Col. Flaherty advised this is why state police is a participant in numerous task forces – in order share resources that each individually lacks.
Les Lauziere brought up the issue of granting administrative subpoena power to the Attorney General's Office involving the issuance of subpoenas to ISPs for subscriber records. Such a power would greatly expedite the process and assist in criminal investigations. AAG Fishel is to research the statutory grant of such power under the federal code for discussion at the next meeting.
The group discussed the federal referral statute, as raised in AOL’s John Ryan’s presentation, wherein Internet providers refer child pornography matter to authorities. Leslie Aron stated NCMEC receives 1,000-3,000 referrals per week. She stated there is little time to go “undercover” to seek out predators as their organization is occupied with responding to these thousands of cybertips. John Ryan asked how businesses can assist in providing resources to law enforcement. He advised the group that there exists an international organization of ISPs who work together for just such purposes.
Technology Working Group
Staff Attorney – Rusty McGuire with Olivia Coleman OAG staff
Present:
Assistant Attorney General Rusty McGuire began the meeting by asking for volunteers to present on Data Retention or alternatives at the next meeting of the working group. The Internet Service Provider’s Association volunteered to make the presentation. The group asked for specific needs of law enforcement and the Attorney General directed the formation of a working group that will hold a conference call before the presentation at the next meeting.
The first issue addressed by the group was the best ways the business/technology community can assist law enforcement in identifying online criminals.
The group voted unanimously to recommend federal legislation to authorize wire interception in cases involving the sexual exploitation of children. The group further recommended that once the federal law is in place, that Virginia update the interception law to authorize interception in cases involving sexual exploitation of children.
The group discussed authorizing prosecutors and law enforcement the ability to issue administrative subpoenas similar to the authority granted to the federal law enforcement. It was suggested this law should be narrowly tailored. Rusty agreed to draft a statute to be voted on at a later meeting.
The group discussed providing authorized out-of -state law enforcement the ability to issue search warrants and orders on Virginia-based electronic communication providers and Virginian law enforcement to do the same for out‑of‑state communication providers. The group agreed on the concept but was concerned about the drafting of such a statute. Rusty and USIPSA agreed to work together to draft a statute to be voted on at a later meeting.
The second issue discussed was steps to better educate parents, children and customers of the dangers posed by sexual predators and child pornographers on the internet. Numerous tools are currently provided by each of the electronic communication providers. The challenge is how to convey the message to parents. A few solutions were suggested:
- The Attorney General asked the group to create an inventory of available resources to see what is currently being done.
- That we create unique PSA opportunities on television, radio, and Internet and use the schools to help distribute the message.
- That the message also needs to come from young people to their peers.
- PSA competitions for young people, hosting with other organizations to include an Attorney General’s office.
- Creating an Internet Safety Awareness month on the state level similar to the October Internet Security Month at the national level.
Finally, the group discussed what reasonable steps can be taken to ensure that younger children are not accessing websites where they may become targets of predators or identity thieves. Is age verification possible?
The group discussed numerous ideas like using credit cards, social security numbers or technology solution. Each idea had its own attendant challenges. One member pointed out how Microsoft attempted to create verification through the passport program. After a lengthy discussion, group felt a technology solution is not yet available but they will continue to research the matter. It was further suggested that parental education could help resolve this issue.
Parents and Educators Working Group
Staff Attorney – Matthew Nelson with Corrine Vaughan OAG staff
Presentation of new guide by Dr. Cannady: Every school superintendent will be required to certify that there is a program in place and schools will be required to give feedback on the use of the Guide as a resource. This needs to be framed in such a way as to capture the attention of the student and the parent. The Secretary wants feedback to ensure that schools are doing what the General Assembly asked them to do. Each school and school division will try to determine what they need to do to address the concern of their school’s students and parents. It should be a simple program - - Internet Safety 10l Program (Rules and Tools) that tells children and parents what they need to know and do.
Children are only half of the problem - need to reach parents earlier. Not only what they can do, but also to motivate them to do it. Children need to be educated on Internet safety before they reach middle school or high school. Internet may not be the best way to reach parents. Need interactive piece – not just assembly session and talking to children. Perhaps create a smaller chat/discussion group that includes students in the development of a plan. Older kids would be more interested and more willing to assist from the standpoint of how they can keep their younger sisters & brothers (siblings) safe from predators on the internet.
It is often the school guidance counselors who do programs for the kids. While not wanting to add to their burden, they do an excellent job of providing kids with needed information and children are more likely to talk with school resource officer or guidance counselor.
Online predators have no fear of being caught or of repercussions, thus, need to change laws that give real penalties to predators.
Questions #2 – Parental supervision. There are many programs to assist parents and a List of programs available over the internet that offers safety tips and tools will be given to the Task Force. AOL has on-line products available. Need to look at programs like Class Action that comes through the AG’s office. Can they help? What is needed to keep ahead of the online predators? Program could be created and shared between public service programming and private sector programming. A PBS Special could discuss how to have this conversation with young people about the dangers of the internet.
Parents are concerned about who is delivering this message. Industry has to be more involved in helping to fund the resources designed to educate students and parents and reach the broadest audience of those who need to know such as parents who do not know and children and parents who do not think there is a problem. The Technology subcommittee will be asked for assistance/direction in development of online resources.
VA PTA would be more than willing to get information into the hands of teachers, however, a concern is what local funding is available as local school systems are constantly reminded of their unfunded mandates. While the General Assembly has good intentions, schools get overloaded with what they are trying to teach, to include civic responsibility.
Funding Responsibility: We will be talking with schools about how best to do this in a way that is most effective in that school system but will be left up to each school division. We need to be careful to not view this effort as solely a school responsibility. The committee will look into use of grant funds to develop prototype or PSA program developed with assistance from children to help address these issues. It is expected that every school principal across the state, every school superintendent will be involved in addressing this issue.
Need to think about some high volume tools & resources such as a kit that comes from the AG’s Office. Perhaps an internet usage code of conduct that will be agreed upon and that kids will sign and take responsibility for.
Ensure safety information is posted on a viable website that parents, children and teachers can access as this information is growing and changing everyday. The website that is put in place with safety tips must be screened each day to ensure the proper links are available. These websites must first be reviewed to make sure they are worthy of mention and beneficial to schools to have links from school’s website. Because we are talking about the need to protect students by imposing these guidelines, they should be applicable to students wherever they are, private or public schools.
Committee members will not wait until next meeting to start work on initiatives suggested/discussed but will begin immediately to follow up on suggestions made by this committee. This will help the committee to be further along in meeting our objective when we next meet.