Home

About Bob McDonnell

About the Office

News Room

Frequently Asked Questions

Key Issues

Sex Offenders & Registry

Family Internet Safety

Consumer Assistance

Legal & Legislative Reference

programs & Resources

Contact Us

Other Links

Subscribe for Email Updates

Sitemap

   

Youth Internet Safety Task Force

Minutes of First Meeting -- July 14, 2006

• Members Present
• Law Enforcement Working Group
• Parents/Educators Working Group
• NCMEC - OAG Taskforce Meeting
• Summary
• Participants
• Technology Partners Working Group

_______________________________________________

          The Task Force met at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in Alexandria, Virginia for its inaugural meeting.  The National Center provided the facilities and amenities as its contribution to the Task Force’s efforts.

          Task Force members were seated in the front of the room at a U-shaped table while guests and members of the press and public sat in the audience.

          At 10:00 a.m., the meeting was called to order by Deputy Attorney General Richard B. Campbell who served as moderator for the morning session of the meeting.  Several speakers took to the podium to promulgate their organization’s interest in serving on the Task Force.  Among the speakers were Ernie Allen, President, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, John Ryan of AOL, Dr. Gary Reynolds for Sheriff Brown of Bedford County (Operation Blue Ridge Thunder), Donna Rice Hughes of Enough is Enough, two concerned parents who related their child’s story of deception and danger by means of Internet chat with one who turned out to be a trusted teacher, and others.

          Attorney General Bob McDonnell then laid out the mission of the Task Force, charging them with bringing to the table their personal and professional experience and expertise, with the goal of coming away from the meetings with an agenda for improving Internet experiences for young people, noting there are 50,000 predators trolling the Internet at any time.

          At 10:45 a.m., a time period for public comment was allotted at which time several people in attendance made brief comments.

          At 11:15 a.m., two Virginia State Police special agents from the Northern Virginia Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force gave a presentation which included one of the agents going live online into a chat room under the guise of a 14-year-old female.  Within minutes, the pseudo-teen was engaged in a conversation with an allegedly 28-year-old male who immediately inquired if she had a webcam.  Although she (the officer) repeatedly replied negatively, the writer persisted in asking if she would like him to send her his “picture.”  Ultimately, he sent his photo and an offer to see him on his webcam but the agent did not open the attachment.

          Michelle Collins, Director of the Exploited Child Unit at NCMEC then gave a presentation containing disturbing data collected by her organization about the thousands of reports made to her organization weekly. 

          At 11:15 a.m., Lisa Hicks-Thomas of the Computer Crime Unit of the Office of the Attorney General briefly spoke about the role of her Unit and its experiences in prosecuting child exploitation/child pornography cases throughout the Commonwealth.

          At 12:15 p.m., the group broke for lunch and into the three pre-determined working groups:  law enforcement; technology partners; and parents and educators.

Back to Top

Back to Top

Law Enforcement Working Group
Staff Attorney – Gene Fishel

• Honorable Robert Hurt, Member, House of Delegates, Martinsville, Pittsylvania and Henry (leader)
• Honorable Mark D. Obenshain, Member, Senate of Virginia, Harrisonburg
• Ken Melson, First Assistant United States Attorney, EDVA
• William Gould, Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney
• Dr. Gary Reynolds, Special Assistant for Sheriff Brown (Bedford)
• Randy Sengel, Commonwealth’s Attorney, Alexandria
• Col. W. Steve Flaherty, Superintendent of the Virginia State Police
• Brian Russell; Sean Adams; Jeff Deem
• Robert E. Gwaltney, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, FBI
• John Ryan, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, America Online/Time-Warner
• Michelle Collins, Director of the Exploited Child Unit, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

The first issue addressed by the group was how to best deal with the fact that sentencing guidelines are non-existent in Virginia for child exploitation cases.

Delegate Robert Hurt, assisted by Assistant Attorney General Gene Fishel, kicked off the meeting of this group by distributing a list of questions the group might use to generate discussion of pertinent issues related to the law enforcement component of youth internet safety.  Attorney General McDonnell sat in for most of this group’s meeting. 

A portion of the discussion included the perceived lack of cognizance by the judiciary as to the scope of the problem regarding child pornography and ways to address this deficit.  John Ryan of AOL suggested NCMEC as an excellent forum and location for training of law enforcement/judiciary.  Michelle Collins expressed doubt that such an event would be well‑attended by judges.  She stated that child enticement/child pornography is the same old crime not a computer crime – only that the computer is a new tool for the perpetration of an old crime.  

Gary Reynolds of Bedford Sheriff’s office then suggested that the training be taken to the judges.  He propounded that 20 years ago VASAP program was instituted with much success in an effort to crack down on drunk driving.  He also observed that Blue Ridge Thunder enjoys a 100% success rate for convictions as plea bargains avoid bringing children to trial as witnesses. 

The group also discussed state v. federal sentencing guidelines and the greater severity of the federal sentences.  In federal law, one video equals 75 still images, each carrying a 1-5 year sentence.  The group requested an outline of federal guidelines for its next meeting from the U.S. attorneys in the group.

Rural prosecutions were discussed and speculated that the low number is likely due to a failure to prosecute rather than a lack of defendants.

Delegate Hurt discussed use of a firearm in the commission of a felony as a potential model for prosecuting online child pornography – use of a computer in the possession, distribution, etc. of child pornography.

Mention was made that the United States Supreme Court has decided there is no right to view child pornography. 

The issue of entrapment was raised by Lieutenant Brian Russell compared to drug cases in which there must be proof of predisposition to use.  Controlled delivery of child pornography being different from controlled delivery of drugs.  John Ryan noted that the dissemination of child pornography was the re-victimization of the child.

Debate ensued regarding web cams.  Does viewing an act of molestation via web cam constitute possession of child porn?  Is broadcast creation of child porn?  Is specific legislation needed to address this area?  Are voyeurs guilty of conspiracy?  Asst. AG Fishel noted that case law dictates that cached files do not constitute possession.  Ms. Collins suggested web cam companies might install a “report abuse” button which would then capture the screen image. 

Sen. Obenshain raised the issue of use of library computers to view child porn.  Del. Hurt suggested re-visiting the definition of “possession.”

The discussion then turned to statutory seizure and forfeiture which is not included for online solicitation.  Col. Flaherty noted that the general feeling among the group was that forfeiture should be permitted in such cases.

Back to Top

Parents/Educators Working Group

Staff Attorney – Lisa Hicks-Thomas

• Jan Reeves, Legislative aide to Janet D. Howell, Member, Senate of Virginia, Fairfax ;
• John Jung, Asst. CA, Richmond;
• Kenneth Booth and Mary Alice Booth, Concerned parents
• Donna Rice and Steven Kussman, Sr. Executive for Partnerships Enough is Enough;
• William “Biff” Pusey, Concerned Parent
• Dr. Billy K. Cannaday, Jr., State Superintendent of Schools;
• Mrs. Betsy Hunroe, Dir. Of Accreditation, Va. Assn. of Indep. Schools;
• Mr. John Titus, Principal, James River High School;
• James L. Hilton, Vice President and Chief Information Officer, University of Virginia

NCMEC – OAG Taskforce Meeting
Friday, July 14, 2006

Summary

Questions:

• How do we make the Internet a safe place for children?”
• Whose responsibility is it?
• What changes need to be made?
• How do we implement those changes?

Response:

• Solution needs to be the result of a partnership between private sector and public sector.
• Parents need to be educated about the dangers awaiting children on the Internet  -- training for parents.
• Parents need to be more involved and proactive about what their children are doing on the Internet.
• Children need to be a part of the solution.
• Children need to be educated as to how to use the Internet in a manner that protects them from unwanted and unforeseen dangers.  They need to be educated on how to use the technology associated with the Internet.
• Committee needs to look at what other states are doing to address this problem.
• Research should be initiated to determine whether there are ways to create some mechanism/button (with websites such as MySpace) that will bar unintentional/unwanted access to porn sites; something that could automatically send an immediate notification to the appropriate agencies (such as the NCMEC).
• There needs to be some economic incentive for industry to work with us to address and find solutions to this problem and some negative economic impact if they do not.
• Need to change the laws to negatively impact the economic structure of industry who benefit from the use of the Internet by children.
• The same way that commercials (paid for by the industry) helped us to bring about awareness of the dangers of smoking and tobacco, we need to develop commercials that are just as powerful (kids should be in these commercials) and serve to bring about a greater awareness of the dangers of the Internet directed at both parents and children.
• It will be important to make it “Cool” for children to report that they have been approach by someone over the Internet.
• Need to revisit “Acceptable Internet Use” policies for public schools.
• Would addressing the problem, finding and implementing solutions be a state-wide initiative or would it be left up to each locality to develop and implement their own plan.
• If this group is going to be successful, we must rely on the AG’s Office to le us know in which direction we need to go to find and implement solutions to this problem.
• Next meeting will be in September.  Members will receive copy of minutes/notes and will be advised of meeting date and location.

PARTICIPANTS

Back to Top

Technology Partners Working Group

Staff Attorney – Rusty McGuire

• Robert J. Stolle, Executive Director, Greater Richmond Technology Council (leader)
• Honorable Ryan T. McDougle, Member, Senate of Virginia, Hanover
• Michael Freshour, Dep. Commonwealth’s Attorney, Halifax
• Chuck Curran, Director of State Public Policy, America Online/Time-Warner
• Anne Gavin, Government Account Executive, Microsoft Corporation
• Rick Lally, President, Hampton Roads Technology Council
• Elizabeth Bresee, Policy Affairs, Capital One
• Elizabeth Banker, Assistant General Counsel Yahoo
• Bobbie Kilberg, President, Northern Virginia Technology Council
• Joel Wiginton, Vice President for Government Affairs, Sony
• Rick Lane, Myspace.com
• Liz Eraker, Policy Analyst, Google

At this time, several technology partners, including America Online, Yahoo!, Google, Microsoft, Capital One and Myspace.com shared their respective views.  Some of the points raised were:

• What is the most effective regime to get to predators on the web?
• The issue of data retention in both the IM and e-mail context was discussed.
• Need to assimilate and understand what to do with data after it’s collected
• Escalate to Law Enforcement if in Immediate Danger
• Can monitor children’s chats, not police all adults
• Sample Solution to Jurisdictional Problem
• Solution to tracking back individuals
• Internet Protocol Activity - Law Enforcement can Identify at Point of Access – Example:       libraries require sign-in
• AOL already keeps a database containing credit card, bank, post office information, residential address, etc.  Can provide to law enforcement.
•  Needs of State Computer Crime Unit:
•  More forensic examiners

• Statewide problem – Internet Complaints Overwhelming
• Statewide turnaround for Computer Seizure six months or greater
• Presentation of resources and technology at conferences

• Closing:  A list of questions will be followed up electronically