ONLINE PORNOGRAPHY: CLOSING THE DOOR ON

PERVASIVE SMUT

HEARING
BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

MAY 6, 2004

Serial No. 10890

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON

93980PDF

2004

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 204020001

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 5011

Sfmt 5011

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
W.J. BILLY TAUZIN, Louisiana
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
Ranking Member
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER COX, California
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BART GORDON, Tennessee
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
GENE GREEN, Texas
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri
CHARLES W. CHIP PICKERING,
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
Mississippi, Vice Chairman
DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
LOIS CAPPS, California
STEVE BUYER, Indiana
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
TOM ALLEN, Maine
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JIM DAVIS, Florida
MARY BONO, California
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
HILDA L. SOLIS, California
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
C.L. BUTCH OTTER, Idaho
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director
JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel
REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE

ON

COMMERCE, TRADE,

AND

CONSUMER PROTECTION

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman

FRED UPTON, Michigan
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
Ranking Member
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Vice Chairman
PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
GENE GREEN, Texas
MARY BONO, California
KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
JIM DAVIS, Florida
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
C.L. BUTCH OTTER, Idaho
(Ex Officio)
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
JOE BARTON, Texas,
(Ex Officio)

(II)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 6011

Sfmt 0486

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

CONTENTS
Page

Testimony of:
Allen, Ernie, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children ............................................................
Beales, J. Howard, III, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, U.S.
Federal Trade Commission ..........................................................................
Catlett, Charles E., Senior Fellow, Computation Institute, Argonne National Laboratory ..........................................................................................
Dunkel, Norbert W., Director of Housing and Residence Education, University of Florida ...........................................................................................
Koontz, Linda, Director for Management Issues, U.S. General Accounting
Office ..............................................................................................................
Lafferty, Martin C., Chief Executive Officer, Distributed Computing Industry Association .........................................................................................
Lourdeau, Keith, Deputy Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Cyber Division ......................................................................................
Nance, Penny Young, President, Kids First Coalition ..................................
(III)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 0486

Sfmt 0486

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

53
12
42
47
23
60
18
57

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 0486

Sfmt 0486

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

ONLINE PORNOGRAPHY: CLOSING THE DOOR

ON PERVASIVE SMUT
THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Stearns, Whitfield, Shimkus,
Shadegg, Bass, Pitts, Terry, Ferguson, Issa, Otter, Sullivan, Barton
(ex officio), Schakowsky, McCarthy, and Strickland.
Also present: Representative John.
Staff present: Chris Leahy, majority counsel; David Cavicke, majority counsel, Shannon Jacquot, majority counsel; Brian
McCullough, majority professional staff; Will Carty, lecislative
Clerk; Gregg Rothschild, minority counsel; and Ashley Groesbeck,
staff assistant.
Mr. STEARNS. Good morning, everybody. I think well start our
hearing.
Im pleased to welcome all of you to the committee, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection hearing
on online pornography. My colleagues online pornography, both
legal and illegal, is a growing problem for legitimate Internet users
and in particular, for the most vulnerable among our nation, the
children. The explosion growth of online pornography material including the most revolting child pornography continues to be a
major issue for all of us.
According to a 2003 report done by the General Accounting Office, there were over 400,000 commercial pornography websites at
that time. A subsequent private survey estimated that the number
of commercial pornography websites grew from 88,000 in 2000 to
1.6 million today. Now this rapid growth of online pornography on
the web becomes even more disturbing when we learn that outright
deception and fraud are frequently the means used to dupe legitimate Internet users into exposure, especially when those users are
children.
Web pornographers are increasingly using online deception and
trickery to lure visitors to their websites. Domain names are being
manipulated to appear benign and mousetrap their victims. Spam
and fraudulent advertising are being employed to lure
unsuspecting visitors, and many of them are children, to obscene
(1)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

2
material. And now distributed computing technology like file sharing software applications known as peer-to-peer or P2P software
are quickly becoming a favorite medium, particularly to lure our
children from the perceived, safety of the family living room out
into the dangers of this Internet wilderness.
Especially popular with the most tech savvy, our kids, P2P networks are similar in concept to web browsers, but rather than enabling users to communicate and share information through a central server or website, P2P allows network users access to each others computers hard drives to share files. While this is an ingenious
and a legitimate technology, the chilling fact is that pornographers
are now using these P2P applications to target children and young
adults with pornographic materials by distributing files with deceptive names that disguise a pornographic file, by labeling it with an
entity popular with children or young adults such as an example
would be Cinderella or Britney Spears.
According to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who
will be testifying before us today, from 2001 to 2002 there was a
fourfold increase in pornographic material being distributed
through P2P networks. This finding, coupled with the fact that
many P2P users are children and young adults, makes the risk of
inadvertent exposure of pornographic material to children a very
significant issue.
As several of our witnesses today will explain, it is very important to recognize that distributed computing technology that enables P2P software is legitimate and frankly a neutral technology
with tremendous potential to do good. But it also spawned exciting
new applications and it also spawns exciting new applications for
legitimate activity. For example, it can enable the establishment of
online communities, complete online communities, enhance grid
computing and in short, make the market of ideas and information
more accessible and obviously more affordable to all Americans.
The power of P2P networks has already led to some outstanding
success in the sciences and in mathematics. Id like to commend my
colleague, Mr. Pitts from Pennsylvania, for his leadership in helping cast some light on the very real problems of P2P technology
and what it poses, including the ways in which it can facilitate the
illegal and disgusting behavior of those that prey upon our children.
I would also like to especially welcome Mr. Norb Dunkel and Mr.
Rob Bird who were kind enough to travel from the University of
Florida to testify before us today. I am honored to represent the
University of Florida, an institution that is innovative on many levels. And particularly, the University of Florida has taken a novel
approach to dealing with this misuse of peer-to-peer technology by
instituting a system called Integrated Computer Application for
Recognizing User Services or ICARUS. ICARUS has successfully
harnessed technology to restrict illegal file sharing while preserving P2P for legitimate academic and social activity over the
University of Floridas network.
And finally, my colleagues, I look forward to further exploring
ways we can ensure the doors to the Internet wilderness remain
locked for the sake of our children, unless extreme care is exercised
and proper safeguards are in place.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

3
There is clearly no open door policy in cyberspace. As we have
seen open doors can also allow infestation by malicious computer
viruses, secret spyware downloads, as we learned last week, and
now the distribution of online pornography, particularly child pornography.
And as we will learn from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
and the Federal Trade Commission, apart from our parental responsibility to carefully supervise our childrens Internet activities,
theres also need for vigilant and aggressive enforcement measures
and prosecution for those who seek to victimize and exploit our
children.
I welcome the witnesses today and I look forward to the testimony.
With that, Im very pleased to recognize Ranking Member
Schakowsky.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding
this hearing on children being able to access pornography on the
Internet by using peer-to-peer or P2P networking. Im particularly
glad this morning to see that there are a number of young people.
I want to point out there are some empty seats for people to sit
down, so if you ever wonder whether or not anything we do here
in this capital directly affects your lives, this is a good example of
one of them that does.
Like you, Mr. Chairman, Im very concerned about protecting
children from the violation and abuse of child pornography and
when the Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act and the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act were on the House floor in the
last Congress, I voted for them. I believe that these bills would go
a long way to safeguard our children from pornography. And Im
also concerned about childrens exposure to pornography, in general. I believe that parents should be able to guard against their
children stumbling across it on the Internet, but in ways that do
not violate the first amendment.
As the testimony demonstrates, the user of P2P traffic and child
pornography continues to grow. And it is certainly appropriate for
the subcommittee to investigate and address this problem. However, peer-to-peer networking is not the main source for child pornography. As the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children CyberTipline found in 2003, there were 840 reports of P2P
being the source of child pornography out of 62,369 tips received;
websites with the source of 45,035 of the reports.
Since 1998, P2P has been the source for only 1 percent of online
child pornography. P2P systems and the distributed competing
technologies behind it do not much more than serve asdo much
more than serve as access to pornography. Some uses are interesting and innovative like using it for environmental and biomedical research as Dr. Catlett from the University of Chicago and
Argonne Lab explains in his testimony. Other uses are seriously
distressing like the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted materials and the spreading of spyware and viruses. When discussing
P2P, we cannot ignore these uses. Im glad that we have a number
of witnesses here today who will go over these points as well.
P2P is a lot like other issues weve had to deal with in our subcommittee as with the data base bill and spyware, we have to find

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

4
ways to balance concerns. With P2P, we must make sure that artists are compensated for their work and that copyrights are not infringed upon. At the same time we should examine the possibility
of P2P as a legitimate way for artists to distribute and market
their work when they cannot get play on the stations owned by
mega conglomerates.
We also have to look at how to protect our children without making the regulations of a potentially useful technology so onerous
that we could lose an innovative system. Although I dont know, I
dont have a suggestion at the moment where this balance will fall,
Im very glad that were here today beginning a discussion on how
best to approach the problems that inevitably surface with evolving
technologies.
Thank you.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady and we have the chairman
of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton, the gentleman from Texas.
Chairman BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Stearns, and thank you for
hosting this hearing. I want to commend you and Congressman
Pitts for your efforts in this area. Its an important and timely topic
as new technologies offer quicker and easier channels for distributing pornographic images over the Internet. Those involved in delivering pornography through deceptive means have used many
mechanisms to facilitate their scams. This committee, along with
the Committee on the Judiciary has worked very hard to prevent
the viewing of pornographic content by unwitting e-mail users by
developing brown paper wrapper provisions in the CAN-SPAM Act.
I understand those provisions are going to be taking effect later
this summer. I expect that enforcement will receive significant attention by both the FTC and the FBI.
What is less well known is the use of peer-to-peer networks in
distributing pornography. Children, as large numbers of users of
peer-to-peer networks are at significant risk of inadvertent exposure to pornographic images. Some of the pornographic content is
disguised as files that look like popular files that children might
access. The GAO has reported that searches on key words that
might be used by children or young adults have produced a high
number of pornographic images, specifically searches retrieved 56
percent pornography. Less than half produced legitimate content
sought by children and most disturbing of all, a small, but not insignificant percentage even contained child pornography.
These results highlight three issues that are significant regarding pornography over peer-to-peer networks. Before I close, I want
to comment that I believe that the pornography problem over the
peer-to-peer network is a problem of illegal behavior related to content, not necessarily the technology itself. Distributed computing is
more than just peer-to-peer file sharing of music and other pop culture type files. Its an exciting area with scientific benefits and
medical benefits that will accrue to our countrys benefit for many
years to come.
I look forward to hearing about the other positive uses of distributed computing and hope that this committee can weigh the benefits of distributed computing as we look at ways to solve the peerto-peer sharing of pornographic files to children.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

5
I again want to thank Congressman Pitts for his attention to this
issue and I want to commend Chairman Stearns for your willingness to hold a hearing on this important issue and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the chairman and now the author of a bill
dealing with this subject from which were having the hearing, Mr.
Pitts is recognized.
Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this important hearing on the dangers to our children from peer-to-peer file
sharing software. Before I start, Id like to insert into the record
a letter.
Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, so ordered.
[The letter follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
May 4, 2004
The Honorable TIMOTHY J. MURIS, Chairman
The Honorable MOZELLE W. THOMPSON, Commissioner
The Honorable ORSON SWINDLE, Commissioner
The Honorable THOMAS B. LEARY, Commissioner
The Honorable PAMELA JONES HARBOUR, Commissioner
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20580
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS:
We write to request that the Federal Trade Commission (the Commission) determine whether various provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the Act)
are being violated by the designers, publishers, distributors and operators of certain
iterations of software commonly known as peer-to-peer file-sharing software.
These parties have distributed this software widely and for freefrequently to unsupervised children. In fact, nearly half of the users of this software may be children. This software not only enables children and others to make free infringing
copies of copyrighted music, movies, software and games for their own use, but also
may unwittingly turn each user into an illegal re-distribution center for both copyrighted works and child pornography.
Recently, a federal court found that certain publishers and distributors of
filesharing software may have intentionally structured their businesses to avoid
secondary liability for copyright infringement, while benefiting financially from the
illicit draw of their wares. If this is true, then those distributing P2P software to
consumers and children may be failing to disclose profound risks associated with
foreseen, widespread uses of their products. If so, then the Commission should consider the appropriate steps it may take to protect our citizens and children from potentially unfair and deceptive trade practices that mislead and endanger.
This software inarguably poses dangers even when it is used as intended in ways
that were foreseeable and have become common practice. Many children use this
software to download popular songs: They risk significant civil penalties for copyright infringement and criminal convictions for re-distributing infringing works to
pirates around the world. Many adults use this software to download adult pornography for their own private viewing: They may risk criminal convictions for distributing this pornography to minors. Something is horribly wrong when millions use
a product in ways that are illegal, dangerous to them, and dangerous to others.
We stress that risks like them are not inherent in the use of computers, the Internet, or even most software that can transfer files between peer computers. Instead, they appear to arise when particular file-sharing software is distributed with
default settings and other attributes that seem designed to facilitate widespread, ongoing copyright piracy and trafficking in pornography. Two features of such designs
seem to generate these unusual risks.
First such software enables what might be called dark-alley file-sharing:
Through a combination of unenforced use limitations and licenses, pseudo-anonymity, and automatic program features that operate without the users intervention or knowledge, this type of software creates shadowy dark alleys in cyberspace.
In those dark alleys, you can get thingsthough you arent sure what they really
arefrom strangers who cannot be later identified or held accountable.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

6
Unsurprisingly, these dark alleys tend to become havens for piracy, pornography
and computer viruses.
Second, such software enables so-called viral redistribution: By default, users of
the software make all files downloaded available for redistribution to other users.
This viral redistribution can thwart enforcement of the rights of artists because
one infringing copy of a popular work can quickly multiply over a network. Viral
redistribution works by turning more consumers of content into international distributors of content. As a result, people seeking content to use at home can inadvertently incur all the complex and unfamiliar risks of managing an international content-distribution operation.
We cannot detail all of the risks to consumers that arise when dark-alley filesharing combines with viral redistribution. We summarize only some of these
risks, which may be grouped into three broad categories: pornography, piracy and
data security.
Pornography and Child Pornography: Recent research suggests that pornography downloading has joined music piracy as a leading use of much dark-alley filesharing software. Much of this pornography is disturbing and potentially obscene.
It may depict hardcore sex, sadism, masochism, violence, bestiality, or rape. The
prevalence and nature of this pornography endangers users of this software in at
least three ways.
First, filesharing is based on searchable lists, which may contain deceiving file
names, with the result that the program delivers graphic pornography even to children searching for innocent content. Unenforced end-user licenses frequently let the
worst pornography link itself to innocent subjects. For example, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) reported to Congress that searches on innocuous keywords
likely to be used by juveniles retrieved images including adult pornography (34%),
cartoon pornography (14%), child pornography (1%) and child erotica (7%). Searching some networks for terms like Olsen twins and Harry Potter will return files
whose very names describe sex crimes. Pokemon cartoons, music, and movies are
designed to attract young childrenyet one search for Pokemon returned files purporting to depict the rape of Pokemons child-stars.
Some file-sharing software promotes keyword filters as a means to protect filesharing children from pornography. Butkeyword filters can only prevent children
from searching for pornographynot from exposure to the pornography responsive
even to innocuous searches. For example, when one such Family Filter was engaged, a search for the term horse returned images of graphic bestiality. Such can
also be easily disabled, even by children, In any event, unaccountable pornographers
can circumvent these filters by mislabeling pornographic files with misleading
filenames and metadata.
Second, file-sharing can expose unwitting children or adults to profoundly disturbing child pornography that is illegal to possess, view, or redistribute. Pedophiles
use filesharing to distribute illegal child pornography. Searches of popular
filesharing networks have returned files with names like 13-year-old lolita raped
and crying. Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota told the Senate Committee on the Judiciary that one popular network distributed the videotaped rape
of a toddler in diapers. GAO has confirmed that some of this illegal child pornography is mislabeled so it will appear in response to innocuous searches.
Third, viral redistribution of any pornography can endanger not only children,
but also adults who want to view adult pornography. For example, imagine a college
student, who uses file-sharing software as intended to download for private use a
violent adult pornographic image. Automatically, however, the P2P program itself
makes the image accessible for downloading by every other user of the file-sharing
software, including children or users who live in different areas of the country with
different community standards. As a result, this student may redistribute violent
pornography to children and othersand risk criminal prosecution under state or
federal criminal laws governing pornography distribution. Both Congress and the
Department of Justice have advised prosecutors to target obscenity prosecutions toward pornography distributorsparticularly those who distribute to minors.
Unfortunately, this is no hypothetical. It is happening now. Otherwise law-abiding
adults who may only have meant to view pornography privately areintentionally,
negligently or unknowinglybecoming pornography distributors who distribute
worldwide, to children and adults. We doubt that most such adults realize how
viral redistribution of any pornography endangers both adults and children.
Copyright Infringement: File-sharing can also expose children and consumers to
severe penalties for copyright infringement. The enduring prevalence of this piracy
strongly suggests that some who profit from it have failed to educate their users
about the many dangers of infringing copyrights.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

7
Testimony and news reports show that some users of file-sharing softwareparticularly childrendo not yet realize that downloading popular music or movies for
free is usually unlawful. Many users may not realize that downloading or redistributing infringing works can be a federal crime, and may not know the severity of
the penalties for copyright infringement. These users cannot be adequately educated
by vague warnings to obey the law: Review of the Copyright Act will not disclose
which files may be illegal to download, the prevalence of infringing works on a network, or the risks of letting a clever designer limit his own risks of liability by using
your home computer to house network search indices much like those that exposed
the original Napster to staggering secondary liability for infringement.
Data Security: Most dark-alley file-sharing software can redistribute any kind
of file, including audio, images, documents and video. Such software can thus compromise the safety of any data stored on the hard drive of a personal computer. People now use their computers to store highly sensitive data, including personal finances, tax returns, photographs, correspondence, business documents, and emails.
Much of this dataif broadcast to millions of other Internet userscould facilitate
identity theft.
Resarch by computer scientists Nathaniel Good and Aaron Kreckelberg has revealed that (1) thousands of people seem to have inadvertently shared profoundly
personal data over filesharing networks, and (2) malicious users are accessing files
that seem to contain sensitive data like credit card numbers. Other research conducted by the Committee on Government Affairs of the House of Representatives
reveals that thousands are sharing data files that probably contain detailed records
of their personal finances, including account numbers, credit card numbers, and individual financial transactions. Indeed, last year, PC Magizine reported that
downloading the inadvertently shared personal data of others had become the latest
filesharing fad.
In addition to inadvertently sharing sensitive personal, business, or government
data, users may also compromise their security and risk identity theft by
downloading files that contain malicious viruses, Trojan-horse programs or
backdoors. New research by the security company TruSecure has revealed that
about 60% of the nearly 5000 executable files downloaded with popular filesharing
software contained such viruses, Trojan-Horse programs or backdoors. Some were
concealed in games popular among children. PC Magazine also recently reported
that one of the most recent widespread infections, the MyDoom [virus] seems to
have started on KaZaA, the popular peer-to-peer filesharing service. PC Magazine
also reported potential problems with the antivirus program Kazaa that may have
rendered it largely useless during the MyDoom outbreak.
Finally, too much dark-alley file-sharing software helps its creators profit from piracy and pornography by installing so-called adware or spyware programs. These
programs can compromise the privacy of every person who uses a given computer
even if they never use filesharing software or consent to its installation. We commend
the Commission for opening an investigation of this issue.
In sum, the dangers of file-sharing software are real, and consumers need to be
protected. The Act directs the Commission to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices that affect commerce. 15 U.S.C.A. 45(a)(1). If the designers, publishers, and distributors of file-sharing have not adequately warned users
about the risk of using their software, and are intentionally distributing the software in a manner that increases risks to end-users, then they have endangered
their customersand our children. These entitiesmany of whom profit primarily
through adverting or sales of premiumversionsfrom illicit uses of their softwaremust effectively educate even their youngest users about the dangers of their
software.
We request that the Commission investigate these issues during its upcoming
hearings. We further request that the Commission report back on (1) the results of
its investigation, (2) how it intends to redress any problems disclosed under existing
law, and (3) whether existing law provides adequate authority to redress any and
all problems disclosed. We also request that the Commission commence and pros-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

8
ecute any enforcement actions justified by any potential violations of the Act disclosed.
Sincerely,
PATRICK LEAHY
United States Senator
ORRIN G. HATCH
United States Senator
BARBARA BOXER
United States Senator
TED STEVENS
United States Senator
GORDON SMITH
United States Senator

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. There are millions of people using peerto-peer software at any given time. Approximately 40 percent of the
users are children. Our children download peer-to-peer software in
hopes that they can get their hands on free music or movies, but
Im not here to talk about copyrights or what artists or musicians
are entitled to. Thats an important and necessary discussion to
have. But Im afraid it has become a smokescreen for a very real
danger facing our children in the use of peer-to-peer software. Kids
log on to Kazaa or LimeWire looking music. Instead, when they
search for songs by their favorite music group or pictures of their
favorite baseball player, they get porn, a lot of it illegal child pornography.
A search for files relating to childrens characters such as Elmo
or Snow White, therefore yields an alarming amount of pornography. One has to ask why are these files misnamed? An adult
looking for pornography isnt going to search for Elmo. Maybe he
would if hes a pedophile and its code talk for illegal material. Perhaps our friends at Kazaa would like to let us know if that is happening. Children are the only possible target of this false labeling.
I have a printout here, some printouts and they represent the results of searches done on Kazaa on these topics and the results are
shocking. These searches were done using the adult filter that
Kazaa offers. If members want to see it for themselves, Ill let you
see this. If a child accidentally downloads a file containing child
pornography, the pedophile distributing it has instant access to the
child. He can easily communicate with the child over the Internet,
drawing the child into his web. And thats exactly what they want.
Pedophiles often lure children into viewing pornography to encourage their victims to engage in sex. This is the way pedophiles operate in the real and cyber world.
As evidence of this trend, Suffolk County, New York last year arrested 12 individuals in a sting operation. They used Kazaa to distribute their child pornography. The confiscated files that were distributed showed children being raped. One had an audio with a
child screaming stop, Daddy, stop.
Now some proponents of peer-to-peer say that in proportion to
the Internet at large the amount of pornography on peer-to-peer
networks is meager. I agree that pornography is rampant on the
Internet, but this finger pointing is a pretty bad way to pass the
buck. If you go to the most popular search engine, Google, and type
in the same words, you dont get child porn. You get what you ask
for. You type in Cinderella or Pokeyman, Snow White, baseball,

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

9
you get information on Cinderella, Pokeyman, Snow White and
baseball.
Even if pornography comes up in these searches, its far down
the list. And parents can rely on filters to block much of that material from ever appearing on a computer screen. This is not the case
with peer-to-peer software. If you enter these terms in your peerto-peer search window, the results are primarily pornographic material. Any time you have millions of children having easy access
to such horrible material, I dont care if you claim someone else has
more, if your product facilitates or encourages illegal activity, if
your product allows predators, pornographers, pedophiles to prey
on children and leads to the abuse of just one child, while you
stand idly by, you have no excuse.
This is not about the recording industry. Its about the peer-topeer industry. Peer-to-peer distributors should be held accountable
for the smut that they actively put into the hands of our children.
They should be expected to allow parents to protect their children,
not ridicule their efforts to do so.
Now well hear today about peer-to-peer softwares filters and
parents passwords. They dont work. They do not protect children
from receiving pornography. This is because they are key word filters that only prevent children from searching for pornography.
Just look at these printouts, these searches are proof. They were
done with the adult filter on and the results are shocking because
pornographers rename their files to sound innocent. The filters are
ineffective.
Further, parents think that they have existing Internet filters
that protect their children, but they dont work on peer-to-peer software either. Netnanny doesnt work. CyberPatrol doesnt work. And
peer-to-peer filters dont work. In fact, not only are they ineffective,
theyre easy to circumvent. Any 13-year-old can turn them off. We
need to protect the millions of children using peer-to-peer software
and that is why last year my colleague, Chris John, and I introduced H.R. 2885, Protecting Children from Peer-to-Peer Pornography Act. This bill raises awareness of the dangers of peer-to-peer
software. It calls on the FTC to hold peer-to-peer distributors accountable for the smut that they actively put into the hands of our
children and peer-to-peer networks may not want to stop this because it means less users or less material or less revenue.
Our bill would empower parents by giving them the tools they
need to cutoff the flow of harmful information into their homes and
it would aid the development of technology to block peer-to-peer installation. This is a threat that harms our kids. Its time to do
something about it.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing. I look forward
to hearing the testimony of the witnesses.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague and if you dont mind I think
you could circulate that to the members so that they have an opportunity to see it. And the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry.
Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Im anxious to hear from
our witnesses today. This is an important issue and Ill just give
you a story. Over the weekend, last week my son who is 9 years
old is becoming darn proficient in exploration of the Internet with
my supervision, said that he wanted to download some music. He

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

10
wanted some Aerosmith songs. That in and of itself made me rather proud of him. Not Britney Spears, Aerosmith, thats my boy. So
I said all right, lets go on and were going to do this right. And
so went to Real Music. We paid for the four Aerosmith songs that
I knew didnt have sexually explicit language in them which even
Aerosmith makes some sexual references in their songs so we had
a few, Sweet Emotion, Dream On, not Love in an Elevator. But we
did it the right way. I wanted to make sure he did it the right way
by paying for this music. By the way, for the four songs he had to
sweep the patio and earn it. But the value of that these artists and
record companies have invested and their rights to this music
should be protected.
But also, I wanted to make sure that he wasnt on other sites
like Kazaa because even at 9 years of age his friends know what
Kazaa is and have gone on Kazaa. And when I see what Mr. Pitts,
my colleague from Pennsylvania has introduced here, about how
easy it would be for a 9-year-old boy to access hard core pornography, in trying to do something as simple as download a song for
free.
When I talk to high school classes, and just like the ranking
member from Chicago mentioned, that we have a lot of youth here
and this is one of the areas that we show Congress actually can
effect, I ask high school students when I speak to their class, how
many of them download music? Inevitably about 80 percent of the
class, no matter where I am in Omaha or my District, 80 percent
of the class will raise their hand. Then I ask for those raising their
hands, how many have paid for that music? Probably two or three
hands out of that entire class will remain up which means this is
what our high school students are seeing on a daily basis.
And most of them are probably savvy enough to choose the music
versus the some rather explicit nature of the title here for the pornography. But what also concerns me is not only the volume of
what our students are being exposed to, but also just in the very
fact that they disguise this and you dont have a way like on some
of the legitimate music, when you buy it, you can click on it and
theyll give you a 30 second demo so you know what youre buying
before you click on it. Here, you have to click on it and download
it before you know. So if theyve disguised it as a Britney Spears
song, you dont know that until you open up the file after its been
downloaded. Those are some of the dangers that were here to explore.
So I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, you holding this because this is
an important protection of our children in the cyber age.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague. The gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Ferguson.
Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
this hearing on a matter thats of great concern to families like
mine and families as weve heard across this country. The scourge
of online pornography has allowed sexual predators bent on luring
our children into their perverse world to enter our homes through
our computers and the open doors of an Internet connection.
A March 2003 GAO study found over 400,000 commercial pornography sites on the Internet and more recent estimates have found
that the number is increasing exponentially. But even more dis-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

11
turbing than the sheer volume of Internet pornography outlets are
the increasingly bold and pervasive practices by sexual predators
who attempt to lure children onto their dangerous websites and
weve heard some examples of that already this morning.
As a father of three young kids, we have our fourth due this
summer. Im concerned. Our kids dont use the Internet yet, but
they will. Theyll have to if theyre to operate in our world today.
Im concerned about our childrens ability to use the Internet without being targeted by people who have malicious intent. I mean I
have AOL. Anybody who has AOL knows that you get e-mails, unsolicited e-mails, you get spam e-mails every day with unbelievable
titles and subjects and trying to lure you to these various sites.
I really look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
whats currently being done, but really more importantly about
what can be done, what needs to be done in the future and what
we can do to protect our children from this kind of menace.
I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I know we have some very distinguished panelists here today,
some of whom we know and we appreciate their work outside of
this committee room, but certainly appreciate them being here
today to share some of their experiences with us and what we can
be doing in the Congress to protect our children across this country.
Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleagues. The gentleman from New
Hampshire, Mr. Bass.
Mr. BASS. No opening statement.
Mr. STEARNS. No opening statement. The gentleman from Idaho,
Mr. Otter.
Mr. OTTER. I will submit my statement.
Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, so ordered.
[Additional statement submitted for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF

HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

CONGRESS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this timely hearing. Over the past several
weeks, this subcommittee has delved into several concerning issues indirectly related to the constantly developing technology available on the Internet. Todays
hearing will provide us with an excellent opportunity to examine what steps have
been and should be taken to limit the availability of pornographic material via the
Internet.
I would also like to thank the distinguished panelists who have joined us today.
The ladies and gentlemen who have agreed to appear today are top experts in their
fields. I look forward to their testimony and first-hand insight to help this subcommittee shape a better understanding of what role Congress may be able to play
in eliminating the spread of pornography via peer-to-peer file sharing programs.
In the preceding weeks, this subcommittee has acquired an in-depth understanding of the invasive and intrusive ways our families and businesses can be affected by the Internet. The deceptive and misleading tactics pornographic websites
employ to attract unwitting visitors to their sites cannot be tolerated, particularly
when they seek to victimize children. Congress has acted to make the pornographic
exploitation of children illegal, but the ever-increasing technology of the Internet
makes the enforcement of these laws exceptionally difficult.
I look forward today to uncovering what steps are being taken to regulate the dispersal of pornography via peer-to-peer applications. Similar to the issues this subcommittee has addressed in previous weeks, we must find a way to balance the
valid, useful functions of peer-to-peer networking with the need to regulate the illegal and inappropriate uses of this technological infrastructure. I am certain that the

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

12
experts joining us today will impart valuable insight on how Congress may be able
to properly legislate in an effort to better protect Americas youth.
Thank you chairman and I yield back the balance of my time.
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF HON. JOHN SULLIVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

CONGRESS

Thank you Chairman for holding this hearing. This is a most important topic.
Pedophiles and Internet obscenity addicts are swapping thousands of hardcore images of sexual abuse of women and children in a new form of computer obscenity
that police believe is feeding a demand for more real-time victims of abuse.
Children are abused. Millions of children worldwide are abused sexually, and then
exploited further by having images and videos of the abuse sold online. This is
abuse of the most detestable kind. Both obscenity and child pornography are illegal,
and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Women are exploited. Worldwide, women are trafficked across borders for use in
this material. They are brought to the U.S. and other countries to be used in prostitution and for online obscenity, with proceeds lining the pockets of criminals and
no hope in sight for their release from what is bondage, or modern slavery.
This is the very definition of evil.
Obscenity is illegal under federal law. Title 18 of the U.S. Code clearly states that
obscenity is illegal. Further, the Supreme Court delineated in the landmark Miller
vs. California ruling that obscenity is both definable and illegal under federal law.
But resources available to police to tackle peer-to-peer obscenity and child porn
are limited and though they are catching some offenders, it may take months or
even years to track down the location of some victims. In such cases, officers monitoring the images can only watch as the women and children grow older and continue to be abused.
Americans continue to believe that the Federal laws against Internet obscenity
should be vigorously enforced, according to results of a recent poll conducted by
Wirthlin Worldwide for Morality in Media. 72% of Americans from all political perspectives strongly agreed that obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced.
I have introduced H. Con. Res 298, a resolution stating the sense of the Congress
that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced throughout the United
States. It is important that the House go on the record against this hideous abuse,
as the Senate has already done. I will continue to work with my colleagues to see
that the abuse of women and children through pornography and obscenity, ENDS.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEARNS. I think weve finished with our opening statements

and well go to our first panel of witnesses. We have Mr. Howard
Beales, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, the U.S. Federal
Trade Commission, welcome. Weve had you quite a number of
times recently. We appreciate your attending. Mr. Keith Lourdeau,
Deputy Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Cyber
Division, welcome. And Ms. Linda Koontz, Director for Information
Management Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office.
And Mr. Beales, well start with you with your opening statement. Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF J. HOWARD BEALES III, DIRECTOR, BUREAU
OF CONSUMER PROTECTION, U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; KEITH L. LOURDEAU, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CYBER DIVISION;
AND LINDA D. KOONTZ, DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT
ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Mr. BEALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, its always a pleasure to

be here. And thank you for providing the FTC with this opportunity to submit testimony. My written testimony represents the
views of the Federal Trade Commission and my comments orally
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or any individual Commissioner.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

13
Im here today to discuss the Commissions law enforcement efforts combatting Internet fraud and to discuss examples of Internet
fraud cases where the fraud involves tricking consumers into viewing online pornography. Although the Internet has empowered consumers with instant access to a breadth of information about products and services that would have been unimaginable 20 years ago,
fraud artists have proven adept at exploiting this new technology
for their own gain. They are the ultimate early adopters of new
technology and theyve seized on the Internet as a ready vehicle to
find victims for their scams.
To combat these new frauds, the FTC has brought over 300
Internet-related enforcement actions. A number of these actions
were against alleged purveyors of online pornography. For example, the Commission sued John Zuccarini who registered some
6,000 domain names that were misspellings of popular websites for
mousetrapping consumers. In a ploy designed to capture teenaged
and younger Internet users, Zuccarini registered, for example, 15
variations of the popular childrens cartoonsite, cartoon
network.com. For example, if you typed in cartoon netwok instead
of network, you ended at one of his sites. He also registered 41
variations in the name of teen pop star Britney Spears. Surfers
who looked for a site, but misspelled the web address were taken
to Zuccarinis sites. Once there, he took control of their Internet
browsers and forced the consumers to views explicit advertisements
for pornographic websites, as well as websites advertising gambling
and psychic services. The obstruction was so severe in this case
that consumers were often forced to choose between taking up the
20 minutes to close all the windows that opened or restarting their
computer and losing their pre-mousetrap work.
Mr. Zuccarini faced both our civil lawsuit as well as criminal
prosecution by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New
York. The U.S. Attorney charged Zuccarini with violations of the
Truth in Domain Names Act which is part of the Amber Alert law
Congress enacted last spring. Mr. Zuccarini pled guilty to 49 counts
of violating the act and the one count concerning the possession of
child pornography. In February 2004, the Court sentenced Mr.
Zuccarini to 30 months in prison. In addition, the Commission obtained a permanent injunction barring Zuccarini from engaging in
mousetrapping and imposing a $1.8 million judgment.
Similarly, unsolicited commercial e-mail, or spam, is a nuisance,
but is also a ready source of fraud, including fraudulent methods
that expose children to pornography. In a recent case against a
spammer, the Commission alleged that the defendant sent e-mail
messages claiming that the consumer had won a free Sony
PlayStation 2 or other prize through a promotion that was purportedly sponsored by Yahoo. It was another ploy that was particularly
attractive to children. Instead, in five mouse clicks you ended up
on a pornographic website connected to a 900 number and being
charged $4 a minute. The Commission obtained a Court order to
end this practice.
As the name of the CAN-SPAM Act implies addressing the
abuses inflicted on the American public by purveyors of pornography was one of Congress primary purposes in passing the legislation.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

14
The Act directed the FTC to adopt a rule requiring a mark or notice to be included in spam containing sexually oriented material.
The purpose of the notice is to inform recipients and to make it
easier to filter out messages that recipients do not wish to receive.
Our final rule requires that the phrase sexually explicit: to be
included in spam that includes either visual images or written descriptions of sexually explicit conduct. The rule requires this phrase
both in the subject line and in the electronic equivalent of a brown
paper wrapper in the body of the message. This brown paper wrapper must be viewed before the user if it encounters any other information or images.
The rules effective date is May 19 of this year, so starting then
failure to include the warning will result in fines for violating the
FTC AcT or Federal criminal prosecution.
As documented by reports from the General Accounting Office
and the House Committee on Government Reform, another source
of pornographic content online is peer-to-peer file sharing software.
P2P file sharing software enables users to exchange files with other
users. The FTC has engaged in educational efforts to assist consumers in protecting themselves from the risk of harm when
theyre downloading and using this technology.
To warn consumers, and particularly parents, about the risk that
P2P software can pose, in July 2003, the FTC issued a consumer
alert. In this alert, the Commission warned consumers that file
sharing software may be used to exchange pornography as well as
games, videos and music that may be inappropriate for children.
The FTC also alerted consumers to the security risks of improperly
configuring P2P file sharing software including the risk that sensitive personal files inadvertently may be disclosed.
We will continue to take action against fraud artists who use
technology to trap consumers into viewing sexually explicit content.
In just a few weeks, the CAN-SPAM rulemaking requiring clear
notice to consumers will take effect and those who use e-mail to
send such content had better take notice themselves.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of J. Howard Beales III follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HOWARD BEALES, DIRECTOR, BUREAU
PROTECTION, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

OF

CONSUMER

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Howard Beales, Director of

the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission (Commission or
FTC).1 I appreciate this opportunity to provide the Commissions views on peerto-peer file-sharing and protecting consumers online. This testimony, among other
things, addresses the Commissions law enforcement actions against fraud artists
whose deceptive or unfair practices involve exposing consumers, including children,2
to unwanted pornography on the Internet.3 The testimony also recognizes that some
peer-to-peer file sharing services, as opposed to other content providers that operate
their own networks, may not provide sufficient opportunities for labeling or other
1 The written statement presents the views of the Federal Trade Commission. Oral statements
and responses to questions reflect my views and not necessarily those of the Commission or any
individual Commissioner.
2 As the Committee is aware, the Commission also enforces the Childrens Online Privacy Protection Rule, which requires Web sites, primarily those directed to children, to obtain parental
consent before collecting personal information from children under the age of 13. Our enforcement and education efforts under this Rule are not addressed in the testimony.
3 The Commission has brought cases involving unfair or deceptive acts or practices related to
the dissemination of online pornography to adults. See, e.g., FTC v. Brian D. Westby (FTC File
No. 032 3030; Case No. 03 C 2540; ND IL; filed Apr. 15, 2003; released Apr. 17, 2003).

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

15
controls that parents may find useful in protecting their children from objectionable
content.
The Federal Trade Commission is the federal governments principal consumer
protection agency. Congress has directed the Commission, under the FTC Act, to
take law enforcement action against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in almost
all sectors of the economy and to promote vigorous competition in the marketplace.4
With the exception of certain industries and activities, the FTC Act provides the
Commission with broad investigative and enforcement authority over entities engaged in, or whose business affects, commerce.5 The FTC Act also authorizes the
Commission to conduct studies and collect information, and, in the public interest,
to publish reports on the information it obtains.6
Although the Internet has empowered consumers with instant access to a breadth
of information about products and services that would have been unimaginable 20
years ago, fraud artists also have proven adept at exploiting this new technology
for their own gain. They are the ultimate early adopters of new technology. And,
they have seized on the Internet as a ready vehicle to find victims for their scams.
In fact, the Commissions consumer complaint data show that consumers increasingly report the Internet as the initial point of contact for fraud, and that the Internet has now outstripped the telephone as the source of first contact for fraud.
Many of these frauds are simply online variations of familiar, offline scams. To
combat these new frauds, the FTC has brought over 300 Internet-related enforcement actions, including actions against alleged purveyors of online pornography. For
example, the Commission sued John Zuccarini, who registered some 6,000 domain
names that were misspellings of popular Web sites, for mousetrapping consumers.7
In a ploy designed to capture teenaged and younger Internet users, Zuccarini registered 15 variations of the popular childrens cartoon site, www.cartoon
network.com, (e.g., cartoon netwok instead of cartoon network) and 41 variations
on the name of teen pop star, Britney Spears. The Commission alleged in its complaint that surfers who looked for a site, but misspelled its Web address, were taken
to the defendants sites. Once consumers arrived, Zuccarinis Web sites were programmed to take control of their Internet browsers and force the consumers to view
explicit advertisements for pornographic Web sites, as well as Web sites advertising
gambling and psychic services. The obstruction allegedly was so severe in this case
that consumers often were forced to choose between taking up to twenty minutes
to close out all of the Internet windows, or turning off their computers, and losing
all of their pre-mousetrap work.
After being sued, Mr. Zuccarini disappeared. Fortunately, as a result of a cooperative working relationship between the FTC and the United States Attorneys Office
for the Southern District of New York, Mr. Zuccarini was arrested in a south Florida hotel room.8 The U.S. Attorneys Office issued an indictment charging Zuccarini
with violations of the Truth in Domain Names Act.9 He pled guilty to 49 counts of
violating the Act and to one count concerning the possession of child pornography.
In February 2004, the court sentenced Mr. Zuccarini to 30 months in prison. In addition, the Commission obtained a permanent injunction barring Zuccarini from engaging in mousetrapping and imposing a $1.8 million judgment.10
Similarly, unsolicited commercial email, or spam, is a nuisance, but it is also a
ready source of fraud, including the fraudulent means to expose children to pornography. In a recent case against a spammer, the Commission alleged that the defendant sent email messages claiming that consumers had won a free Sony PlayStation
2 or other prize through a promotion purportedly sponsored by Yahoo, Inc., another
4 15

U.S.C. 45.
5 In addition to the FTC Act, the Commission also has responsibility under 46 additional statutes governing specific industries and practices.
6 15 U.S.C. 46(b) and (f). Section 46(f) of the FTC Act provides that the Commission shall
also have the power . . . to make public from time to time such portions of the information obtained by it hereunder as are in the public interest; and to make annual and special reports
to Congress . . .
7 FTC v. John Zuccarini, No. 01-CV-4854 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
8 Benjamin Weiser, Spelling It Dinsey, Children on Web Got XXX, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 4, 2003,
B (Late Edition), at 1. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Zuccarini was surrounded by computer
equipment and cash, all of which was seized by criminal authorities. A United States Postal
Inspector served him with the Final Court Order in the Commissions case.
9 The Truth in Domain Names Act makes it unlawful to knowingly use a misleading domain
name with the intent to attract a minor into viewing a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct on the Internet. See 18 U.S.C. 2252(B)(b). This Act is contained in the new Amber Alert
law enacted in 2003.
10 See www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/05/cupcake.htm.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

16
ploy particularly attractive to children.11 The Commission alleged that the Web site
link contained in the email instead directed consumers first to a Web page that imitated the authentic Yahoo Web page. The imitation Yahoo Web site instructed consumers to download a program that supposedly would allow them to connect tollfree to a Web site where they could enter their name and address to claim their
PlayStation 2. Consumers who followed the instructions were connected to a pornographic Web site through a 900-number, where they incurred charges of up to $3.99
per minute. The Commission obtained orders barring the spammers from sending
any email that misrepresents the identity of the sender or the subject of the email.
The Commission also obtained a settlement with the company that created the
modem software used by the spammers in this scheme which includes the requirement that it pay $25,000 in alleged ill-gotten gains.12
As the name of the CAN-SPAM Act implies (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act), addressing the abuses inflicted on the American public by purveyors of pornography was one of Congress primary purposes in
passing that legislation.
Section 5(d) of the CAN-SPAM Act 13 directed the Federal Trade Commission to
adopt a rule requiring a mark or notice to be included in spam that contains sexually oriented material. The purpose of the notice is to inform recipients that a spam
message contains sexually oriented material and to make it easier to filter out messages that recipients do not wish to receive.
The FTCs final rule prescribes the phrase SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT: as the mark
or notice mandated by the CAN-SPAM Act 14 to be included in spam that includes
either visual images or written descriptions of sexually explicit conduct.15 The final
rule follows the intention of the CAN-SPAM Act to protect email recipients from exposure to unwanted sexual images in spam, by requiring this mark to be included
both in the subject line of any email message that contains sexually oriented material and in the electronic equivalent of a brown paper wrapper in the body of the
message. This brown paper wrapper is what a recipient initially will see when
opening a message containing sexually oriented material. The brown paper wrapper will include the prescribed mark or notice, certain other specified information,
and no other information or images.
The Rules effective date is May 19, 2004, so starting then, senders of spam email
that contains sexually oriented material must include the warning SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT: in the subject line or face fines for violating the FTC Act or federal criminal law.16
As documented by reports from the General Accounting Office and the House
Committee on Government Reform,17 another distribution channel for pornographic
content online is Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing software. P2P file-sharing software
enables individual users to exchange files with other users. The FTC has engaged
in educational efforts to assist consumers in protecting themselves from the risk of
harm when they are downloading and using P2P file-sharing technology.
To warn consumers, including parents, about the risk that P2P software can pose,
including the risk of exposure to online pornography, in July 2003, the FTC issued
11 FTC

v. BTV Industries, No. CV S-03-1306-LRH-RJJ (D. Nev. 2004).

The FTCs complaint against the software company, BTV Industries, and its principals,
Rik Covell and Adam Lewis, alleges that the defendants violated the FTCs 900-Number Rule
by failing to disclose clearly to consumers using their software that they would be connected
to the Internet through a 900-number and would incur charges of up to $3.99 per minute. The
settlement permanently bars the defendants from failing to disclose the cost of accessing any
900-number pay-per-call service, as well as from misrepresenting that consumers have won a
prize, that consumers will be connected to any Web site toll-free, and that any of BTVs products
or services are associated with a third party.
13 15 U.S.C. 7704(d).
14 The Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on January 29, 2004, and accepted comments until February 17, 2004. The Commission received 89
comments, mostly from individual consumers applauding the Commissions proposal and expressing their concern about pornographic email to which they and their children were being
subjected. The final rule also excludes sexually oriented materials from the subject line of a sexually explicit email message.
15 CAN-SPAM defines sexually explicit conduct by reference to the Sexual Exploitation and
Other Abuse of Children Act (Abuse of Children Act), 18 U.S.C. Section 2256, which in turn
defines this phrase to mean actual or simulated(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite
sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.
16 18 U.S.C. Section 2256. The Department of Justice enforces Section 2256.
17 See infra note 27.
12 Id.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

17
a consumer alert entitled, File-Sharing: A Fair Share? Maybe Not. 18 In this alert,
the Commission warned consumers that P2P file-sharing software may be used to
exchange pornography, as well as games, videos, and music that may be inappropriate for children. The FTC also alerted consumers to the security risks of improperly configuring P2P file-sharing software, including the risk that sensitive personal
files inadvertently may be disclosed.19
The Commission also recently examined other implications of P2P file-sharing
software at its workshop entitled Monitoring Software on Your PC: Spyware,
Adware, and Other Software held on April 19, 2004.20 This workshop was designed
to provide us with information about the nature and extent of the problems related
to spyware.21
The testimony at the workshop and the public comments received provide us with
some insight concerning the relationship between P2P file-sharing technology and
the distribution of spyware.22 Workshop participants generally agreed that spyware
often is bundled with free software applications, including P2P file-sharing software.
In addition, participants noted that distributors of the free softwareincluding the
disseminators of P2P file-sharing applicationsmay not adequately disclose the
bundling of spyware with the free software.
Some have suggested restricting the downloading of P2P file-sharing software applications to combat the distribution of spyware. Participants at the workshop, however, emphasized that P2P file-sharing technology itself is neutralbut some participants argued that software applications may create harms for consumers. Accordingly, participants generally expressed the view that government and industry
responses should focus on the spyware software that itself has adverse effects on
consumers.
The Commission will continue to review the information from the workshop and
related comments. Later this year, the FTC will issue a comprehensive report addressing spyware, including the relationship between P2P file-sharing software and
spyware.
The FTC also has studied the effect of P2P file-sharing software in connection
with its long-standing oversight of the marketing of violent entertainment to children. Since September 2000, the Commission has monitored the marketing of violent entertainment products to children by the motion picture, music recording, and
electronic games industries. The FTC has issued four reports setting forth its findings.23
In connection with its ongoing review of these industries, the Commission staff
recently examined four popular P2P file-sharing services to assess what online disclosures, if any, were made regarding the content of individual files shared by users
of these services.24 The four services examined offer consumers the ability to
download free software that enables them to share files, including music downloads,
with other users.25 The files do not reside in a central location, but rather are stored
on the hard drives of the users of the software. None of the P2P file-sharing services
themselves label or otherwise provide notice about the content of any file. Instead,
each user of a particular P2P file-sharing program places files in a shared folder
18 See File-Sharing: A Fair Share? Maybe Not, at www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/share
alrt.htm.
19 In April 2004, the Commission likewise alerted businesses to the potential security risks
of P2P file-sharing programs. The Council of Better Business Bureaus, with the cooperation of
the Commission and the National Cyber Security Alliance, produced and widely distributed a
brochure that provides a checklist of recommendations to help large and small businesses improve their computer security, and specifically alerts businesses to the possible risks associated
with file-sharing programs.
20 69 Fed. Reg. 8538 (Feb. 24, 2004), at www.ftc.gov/os/2004/02/040217spywareworkshop
frn.pdf.
21 For the purposes of the workshop, the FTC staff tentatively described spyware as software
that aids in gathering information about a person or organization without their knowledge and
which may send such information to another entity without the consumers consent, or asserts
control over a computer without the consumers knowledge. 69 Fed. Reg. 8538 (Feb. 24, 2004),
at www.ftc.gov/os/2004/02/040217spywareworkshopfrn.pdf.
22 The FTC received 200 comments about spyware by the time of the workshop, and public
comment on this topic will be accepted until May 21, 2004. Public comments are posted on the
FTCs Web site at www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/spyware/index.htm#comments.
23 See, e.g., Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Review of Self-Regulation and
Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries (Sept.
2000). To date, the Commission has issued three follow-up reportsin April and December of
2001, and in June of 2002.
24 These file-sharing software services reviewed were Kazaa, Morpheus, LimeWire, and
Overnet.
25 Such services may enable users to upload or download copyrighted recordings without first
obtaining permission from the copyright holder.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

18
on his or her own hard drive and thus can label or designate the file in any manner
he or she chooses. Accordingly, each file, if labeled or otherwise described as having
explicit content, would have been labeled by the individual user.
Each of the P2P file-sharing programs offered some type of filter to exclude unwanted content. Kazaa and LimeWire provided filters that blocked access to materials that contained offensive or otherwise adult-content related words in the description of the file. In addition, all four services gave users the ability to create
their own filters by manually entering all the words that they wanted blocked from
search results. All of these filters, however, operate by only examining language
found in the title or descriptor of the file, rather than the content of the file.26 Moreover, these filters may not be effective when users label files inaccurately, which can
result in the transfer of files with pornographic or other unwanted content.27
CONCLUSION

The FTC thanks the Subcommittee for this opportunity to describe how the Commission has used its authority under of Section 5 of the FTC Act to attack deceptive
and unfair practices in the distribution of online pornography.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. Welcome and your opening

statement.
STATEMENT OF KEITH L. LOURDEAU

Mr. LOURDEAU. Good morning, Chairman Stearns, and other

members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the FBI, I would like
to thank you for this opportunity to address the FBIs role in combatting the exploitation of children from the use of peer-to-peer networks.
The FBIs Innocent Images National Initiative is comprised of
2800 undercover operations. These operations involve FBI Agents
online in an undercover capacity to seek child predators and individuals responsible for production and dissemination and possession of child pornography. This is accomplished by using a variety
of techniques to include purchasing child pornography from commercial websites, creating online personas to chat in predator chat
rooms and co-opting predators e-mail accounts. The Innocent Images has grown exponentially between fiscal year 1996 and 2003
with a 2,050 percent increase in cases opened.
Between fiscal year 1996 and 2003, Innocent Images has recorded over 10,510 cases opened. Recently peer-to-peer networks
were identified as a growing problem in dissemination of child pornography. A GAO report published in September of 2003 indicated
a fourfold increase in reports complaining of child pornography in
peer-to-peer networks. In 2001, the FBI received 156 complaints
about child pornography in peer-to-peer networks. By 2002, the
number of complaints had risen to 757.
This increase may be attributable among other things, the popularity of peer-to-peer networks, as well as the overall increase of
child pornography available on the Internet. These programs are
free and are easy to install. In May of 2003, Sharman Networks,
26 For example, music recordings that have been designated with a parental advisory by a recording company would be blocked by the filter only if a word in the title or descriptor of the
file happened to be offensive. A recording company may have decided to apply the Parental Advisory Label to a particular recording for any number of reasons other than the presence of offensive words in the title.
27 See, e.g., File-Sharing Programs: Peer-to-Peer Networks Provide Ready Access to Child Pornography, General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives (Feb. 2003); and Childrens
Access to Pornography Through Internet File-Sharing Programs, prepared for Rep. Henry A.
Waxman and Rep. Steve Largent by Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division, Committee
on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives (July 27, 2001).

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

19
a developer of a very popular file sharing program reported that
their software had been downloaded more than 230 million times.
This software and other file sharing programs like it allow users
to share files with anyone on the network. This creates an environment of relative anonymity among users. However, this anonymity
is also perceived. Users are not truly anonymous. Using peer-topeer software users computers connect directly to one another to
share files without going through a central server.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Lourdeau, just push the microphone a little
closer to you. There are some real nuances that youre saying we
want to make sure we get. Go ahead, thanks.
Mr. LOURDEAU. Nevertheless, each time a computer accesses the
Internet it is associated with an Internet protocol or IP address.
Therefore, despite the fact that a peer-to-peer connection is not facilitated by a central server, users can still be identified in real
time by the IP addresses associated with their computers. IP addresses are the only way to definitely identify a particular user on
a peer-to-peer network. In this environment, users of peer-to-peer
often believe they are anonymous. There is some degree of truth in
this assertion as peers in the networks are anonymous to each
other. That being said, they are not anonymous to law enforcement.
Through the use of covert investigative techniques, administrative
subpoenas, Agents can determine which individual users possess
and distribute child pornography over these networks. Utilizing
search warrants, interviews and computer forensic tools, Agents
can strengthen their cases and these individuals are eventually indicted and prosecuted.
During the initial phases of several peer-to-peer investigations,
Agents have determined peer-to-peer networks are one of many
Internet havens for the open distribution of child pornography. Several of the individuals using peer-to-peer networks to distribute
child pornography, openly describe content of the material they
share as illegal. This further contributes to the feeling of anonymity in these networks and leads users to become even more brazen
in their conduct.
To combat this, the FBI has created an investigative protocol for
peer-to-peer investigations to begin aggressively apprehending offenders. After developing peer-to-peer investigative protocol, the
Department of Justices Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section,
a number of cases were initiated to determine the techniques viability. Detailed discussion of these cases could possibly jeopardize
on-going investigations, however, Id like to assure the subcommittee that the FBI is aggressively pursuing the trade of child
pornography on peer-to-peer networks.
In these investigations, Agents have found child pornography to
be readily available using most basic of search terms. Often child
pornography was easily available when innocuous search terms
were used such as Britney Spears, or the word young. The FBI recently started a new initiative with Americas Most Wanted where
photographs of unidentified subjects involving child pornography
are aired on the program. John Doe arrest warrants are obtained
and the unknown subjects when located are arrested for their
crimes. The FBI has received outstanding support from the public
in this initiative.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

20
The FBI, along with our law enforcement and private industry
partners, continue to combat the crime problem of child pornography over the Internet. We have and continue to target websites
which host child pornography, Internet news groups, file servers
and subjects who utilize peer-to-peer file sharing programs who exchange child pornography.
In closing, the FBI looks forward to working with other law enforcement agencies, private industry and the Department of Justice
in continuing to combat this major crime problem. The protection
of our children requires the combined efforts of all sectors of our
society.
I would like to thank Chairman Stearns and the committee for
the privilege to be here before you and Ill answer any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Keith L. Lourdeau follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH L. LOURDEAU, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
INNOCENT IMAGES NATIONAL INITIATIVE

The Innocent Images National Initiative (IINI), a component of FBIs Cyber

Crimes Program, is an intelligence driven, proactive, multi-agency investigative initiative to combat the proliferation of child pornography/child sexual exploitation
(CP/CSE) facilitated by an online computer. The IINI provides centralized coordination and analysis of case information that by its very nature is national and international in scope, requiring unprecedented coordination with state, local, and international governments, and among FBI field offices and Legal Attaches.
Today computer telecommunications have become one of the most prevalent techniques used by pedophiles to share illegal photographic images of minors and to lure
children into illicit sexual relationships. The Internet has dramatically increased the
access of the preferential sex offenders to the population they seek to victimize and
provides them greater access to a community of people who validate their sexual
preferences.
The mission of the IINI is to reduce the vulnerability of children to acts of sexual
exploitation and abuse which are facilitated through the use of computers; to identify and rescue witting and unwitting child victims; to investigate and prosecute sexual predators who use the Internet and other online services to sexually exploit children for personal or financial gain; and to strengthen the capabilities of federal,
state, local, and international law enforcement through training programs and investigative assistance.
THE HISTORY OF THE INNOCENT IMAGES NATIONAL INITIATIVE:

While investigating the disappearance of a juvenile in May 1993, FBI Special

Agents and Prince Georges County, Maryland, Police detectives identified two suspects who had sexually exploited numerous juveniles over a 25-year period. Investigation into these activities determined that adults were routinely utilizing computers to transmit sexually explicit images to minors, and in some instances to lure
minors into engaging in illicit sexual activity. Further investigation and discussions
with experts, both within the FBI and in the private sector, revealed that the utilization of computer telecommunications was rapidly becoming one of the most prevalent techniques by which some sex offenders shared pornographic images of minors
and identified and recruited children into sexually illicit relationships. In 1995,
based on information developed during this investigation, the Innocent Images National Initiative was started to address the illicit activities conducted by users of
commercial and private online services and the Internet.
The IINI is managed by the Innocent Images Unit within the FBIs Cyber Division at FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC. Innocent Images field supervisors and
investigative personnel work closely with the Innocent Images Unit regarding all
IINI investigative, administrative, policy, and training matters. The IINI provides
a coordinated FBI response to this nationwide crime problem by collating and analyzing information obtained from all available sources.
Today the FBIs Innocent Images National Initiative focuses on:

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

21
Online organizations, enterprises, and communities that exploit children for profit
or personal gain.
Individuals who travel, or indicate a willingness to travel, for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with a minor.
Producers of child pornography.
Major distributors of child pornography, such as those who appear to have transmitted a large volume of child pornography via an online computer on several
occasions to several other people.
Possessors of child pornography.
The FBI and the Department of Justice review all files and select the most egregious subjects for prosecution. In addition, the IINI works to identify child victims
and obtain appropriate services/assistance for them and to establish a law enforcement presence on the Internet that will act as a deterrent to those who seek to sexually exploit children.
THE GROWTH OF THE INNOCENT IMAGES NATIONAL INITIATIVE:

Over the last several years, the FBI, local and state law enforcement, and the
public has developed an increased awareness of the CP/CSE crime problem and
more incidents of online CP/CSE are being identified for investigation than ever before. In fact, currently more personnel resources are expended towards violations
worked under the IINI than any other program within the FBIs Cyber Division. Between fiscal years 1996 and 2003, there was a 2050% increase in the number of IINI
cases opened (113 to 2430) throughout the FBI. It is anticipated that the number
of cases opened and the resources utilized to address the crime problem will continue to rise.
The increase in Innocent Images investigations demonstrated the need for a
mechanism to track subject transactions and to correlate the seemingly unrelated
activities of thousands of subjects in a cyberspace environment. As a result, the Innocent Images case management system was developed and has proven to be an effective system to archive and retrieve the information necessary to identify and target priority subjects. All relevant data obtained during an undercover session is
loaded into the Innocent Images case management system where it is updated, reviewed, and analyzed on a daily basis to identify priority subjects.
INNOCENT IMAGES NATIONAL INITIATIVE INVESTIGATIONS:

IINI undercover operations are being conducted in several FBI field offices by task
forces that combine the resources of the FBI with other federal, state and local law
enforcement agencies. Each of the FBIs 56 field offices has worked investigations
developed by the IINI. International investigations are coordinated through the
FBIs Legal Attache program, which coordinates investigations with the appropriate
foreign law enforcement. IINI investigations are also coordinated with Internet
Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Forces, which are funded by the Department
of Justice. Furthermore, IINI training is provided to all law enforcement involved
in these investigations, including federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement
agencies.
During the early stages of Innocent Images, a substantial amount of time was
spent conducting investigations on commercial online service providers that provide
numerous easily accessible chat rooms in which teenagers and pre-teens can meet
and converse with each other. By using chat rooms, children can chat for hours with
unknown individuals, often without the knowledge or approval of their parents. Investigation revealed that computer-sex offenders utilized the chat rooms to contact
children as a child does not know whether he or she is chatting with a 14-year-old
or a 40-year-old. Chat rooms offer the advantage of immediate communication
around the world and provide the pedophile with an anonymous means of identifying and recruiting children into sexually illicit relationships.
Innocent Images has expanded to include investigations involving all areas of the
Internet and online services including:
Internet websites that post child pornography
Internet News Groups
Internet Relay Chat (IRC) Channels
File Servers (FServes)
Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs)
Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file-sharing programs
FBI Agents and task force officers go online undercover into predicated locations
utilizing fictitious screen names and engaging in real-time chat or E-mail conversations with subjects to obtain evidence of criminal activity. Investigation of specific
online locations can be initiated through:

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

22

A citizen complaint
A complaint by an online service provider
A referral from a law enforcement agency
The name of the online location (such as a chat room) can suggest illicit activity
The FBI has taken the necessary steps to ensure that the Innocent Images National Initiative remains viable and productive through the use of new technology
and sophisticated investigative techniques, coordination of the national investigative
strategy and a national liaison initiative with a significant number of commercial
and independent online service providers. The Innocent Images National Initiative
has been highly successful. It has proven to be a logical, efficient and effective method to identify and investigate individuals who are using the Internet for the sole
purpose of sexually exploiting children.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) operates a
CyberTipline at www.cybertipline.com that allows parents and children to report
child pornography and other incidents of sexual exploitation of children by submitting an online form. The NCMEC also maintains a 24-hour hotline of 1-800-THELOST and a website at www.missingkids.com.
Complaints received by the NCMEC that indicate a violation of federal law are
referred to the FBI for appropriate action. A FBI Supervisory Special Agent and
four Investigative Analysts (IA) are assigned full-time at the NCMEC to assist with
these complaints. The IAs review and analyze information received by the NCMECs
CyberTipline. The IAs conduct research and analysis in order to identify individuals
suspected of any of the following: possession, manufacture and/or distribution of
child pornography; online enticement of children for sexual acts; child sexual tourism; and/or other sexual exploitation of children. The IAs utilize various Internet
tools and Administrative Subpoenas in their efforts to identify individuals who prey
on children. Once a potential suspect has been identified, the IAs compile an investigative packet that includes the applicable CyberTipline reports, subpoena results,
public records search results, the illegal images associated with the suspect, and a
myriad of other information that is forwarded to the appropriate FBI field office.
INNOCENT IMAGES STATISTICAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Between fiscal years 1996-2004 (2nd Quarter), the Innocent Images National Initiative has recorded the following statistical accomplishments:
Number
Number
Number
Number

of
of
of
of

Cases Opened ..............................................................................................................................................

Informations/Indictments .............................................................................................................................
Arrests/Locates/Summons ............................................................................................................................
Convictions/Pretrial Diversions ....................................................................................................................

11,855
3,358
3,682
3,316

The FBIs Innocent Images National Initiative is comprised of twenty-eight

Under-Cover Operations. These operations involve FBI Agents on-line in an undercover capacity to seek child predators and individuals responsible for the production,
dissemination, and possession of child pornography. This is accomplished by using
a variety of techniques, to include purchasing child pornography from commercial
web sites, creating on-line personas to chat in predicated chat rooms, and co-opting
predators e-mail accounts. Innocent Images has grown exponentially between fiscal
year 1996 and 2003 with a 2050% increase in cases opened (113 to 2430). Between
fiscal year 1996 and 2003, Innocent Images has recorded over 10,510 cases opened.
Recently, Peer-to-Peer networks were identified as a growing problem in the dissemination of child pornography. A GAO report published in September of 2003 indicated a four-fold increase in reports complaining of child pornography in Peer-toPeer networks. In 2001, the FBI received 156 complaints about child pornography
in Peer-to-Peer networks. By 2002, the number of complaints had risen to 757. This
increase may be attributable to, among other things, the popularity of Peer-to-Peer
networks, as well as the overall increase in child pornography available on the
Intenet. These programs are free and are easy to install. In May of 2003, Sharman
Networks, the developer of a very popular file sharing program, reported that their
software had been downloaded more than 230 million times. This software and
other file sharing programs like it, allow users to share files with anyone on the
network. This creates an environment of relative anonymity amongst users however,
this anonymity is only perceived, users are not truly anonymous.
Using Peer-to-Peer software, users computers connect directly to one another to
share files, without going through a central server. Nevertheless, each time a computer accesses the Internet, it is associated with an internet protocol, or IP address. Therefore, despite the fact that a Peer-to-Peer connection is not facilitated by
a central server, users can still be identified in real time by the IP addresses associated with their computers.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

23
IP addresses are the only way to definitively identify a particular user on a Peerto-Peer network. In this environment, users of Peer-to-Peer often believe they are
anonymous. There is some degree of truth in this assertion as peers in these networks are anonymous to each other. That being said, they are NOT anonymous to
law enforcement. Through the use of covert investigative techniques and administrative subpoenas, Agents can determine which individual users possess and distribute child pornography over these networks. Utilizing search warrants, interviews, and computer forensic tools, Agents can strengthen their cases and these individuals are eventually indicted and prosecuted.
Agents have determined Peer-to Peer networks are one of many Internet havens
for the open distribution of child pornography. Several of the individuals using Peerto-Peer networks to distribute child pornography openly describe the content of the
material they share as illegal. This further contributes to the feeling of anonymity
in these networks and leads users to become even more brazen in their conduct.
To combat this, the FBI has created an investigative protocol for Peer-to-Peer investigations to begin aggressively apprehending offenders. After developing a Peerto-Peer investigative protocol with the Department of Justices Child Exploitation
and Obscenity Section , a number of cases were initiated to determine the techniques viability. Detailed discussion of these cases could possible jeopardize ongoing
investigations, however, I would like to assure this subcommittee that the FBI is
aggressively pursuing the trading of child pornography on Peer-to-Peer networks.
In these investigations, Agents have found child pornography to be readily available using the most basic of search terms. Often, child pornography was easily
available when innocuous search terms were used, such as Brittney Spears or the
word young.
Additionally, the FBI is exploring the possibility of working with Peer-to-Peer
software clients to allow them to more effectively warn users against the possession,
distribution, or production of child pornography. These industry members may also
be interested in placing icons or a pop-up link from their home page regarding subjects wanted by the FBI for exploitation of children by use of the Internet.
While these efforts may not prevent someone from downloading the material in
question, it will put the user on notice that they are, more than likely, violating the
law. These efforts will also assist investigations as it will eliminate the ability of
the subject to claim ignorance of the law.
In closing, the FBI looks forward to working with other Law Enforcement agencies, private industry, and the Department of Justice in continuing to combat this
major crime problem. The protection of our children requires the combined efforts
of all sectors of our society. I would like to thank Chairman Stearns and the committee for the privilege to appear before you and for your interest in this major
crime problem.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you.

Ms. Koontz?
STATEMENT OF LINDA D. KOONTZ

Ms. KOONTZ. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank

you for inviting us to discuss our work on the availability of pornography on peer-to-peer networks. As its been discussed, pornography, including child pornography, has become increasingly available as it has migrated from magazines, photographs and videos to
the worldwide web. As you know, a great strength of the Internet
is that it provides a wide range of search and retrieval technologies
that make finding information fast and easy. However, this capability also makes it easy to access, disseminate and trade pornographic images and videos.
Today, I would like to discuss work we conducted last year at the
request of the House Committee on Government Reform. Our results were summarized in a February 2003 report. This work focused on the availability of child pornography on peer-to-peer networks and on the risk of inadvertent exposure of juvenile users of
peer-to-peer networks to pornography including child pornography.
In this work, we found that child pornography, as well as other
types of pornography, is widely available and accessible through

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

24
peer-to-peer networks. We used Kazaa, a popular peer-to-peer file
sharing program to search for image files using 12 key words that
were known to be associated with child pornography on the Internet. Of over 1200 items identified in our search, about 42 percent
of the file names were associated with child pornography images
and about 34 percent with adult pornography images.
In another Kazaa search, we worked with Customs
CyberSmuggling Center to use three key words to search for and
download child pornography image files. This search identified 341
image files of which about 44 percent were classified as child pornography and 29 percent as adult pornography.
More disturbing, we found that there is a significant risk that juvenile users can be inadvertently exposed to pornography including
child pornography. In searches on three innocuous key words likely
to be used by juveniles, we obtained images that included a high
proportion of pornography. Almost half of the 177 retrieved images
were classified as pornography, including a small amount of child
pornography.
Mr. Chairman, Internet file sharing programs continue to be popular and while there are no hard statistics, it is thought that a
large proportion of these users are juveniles. These programs provide easy access to pornography, including child pornography. Further, our work shows that the networks put even the youngest
users at significant risk of being inadvertently exposed to pornography. In light of these factors, it will be important for law enforcement to continue to devote effort to peer-to-peer networks and for
policymakers to continue to highlight this issue to parents and to
the public and to lead the debate on possible strategies for dealing
with it.
That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Linda D. Koontz follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA D. KOONTZ, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for inviting us to
discuss our work on the availability of child pornography on peer-to-peer networks.
In recent years, child pornography has become increasingly available as it has migrated from magazines, photographs, and videos to the World Wide Web. As you
know, a great strength of the Internet is that it includes a wide range of search
and retrieval technologies that make finding information fast and easy. However,
this capability also makes it easy to access, disseminate, and trade pornographic images and videos, including child pornography. As a result, child pornography has become accessible through Web sites, chat rooms, newsgroups, and the increasingly
popular peer-to-peer technology, a form of networking that allows direct communication between computer users so that they can access and share each others files
(including images, video, and software).
My testimony today is based on our report on the availability of child pornography
on peer-to-peer networks.1 As requested, I will summarize the results of our work
to determine
the ease of access to child pornography on peer-to-peer networks;
the risk of inadvertent exposure of juvenile users of peer-to-peer networks to pornography, including child pornography; and
the extent of federal law enforcement resources available for combating child pornography on peer-to-peer networks.
1 U.S. General Accounting Office, File-Sharing Programs: Peer-to-Peer Networks Provide Ready
Access to Child Pornography, GAO-03-351 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 20, 2003).

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

25
We also include an attachment that briefly discusses how peer-to-peer file sharing
works.
It is easy to access and download child pornography over peer-to-peer networks.
We used KaZaA, a popular peer-to-peer file-sharing program,2 to search for image
files, using 12 keywords known to be associated with child pornography on the
Internet.3 Of 1,286 items identified in our search, about 42 percent were associated
with child pornography images. The remaining items included 34 percent classified
as adult pornography and 24 percent as nonpornographic. In another KaZaA search,
the Customs CyberSmuggling Center used three keywords to search for and
download child pornography image files. This search identified 341 image files, of
which about 44 percent were classified as child pornography and 29 percent as adult
pornography. The remaining images were classified as child erotica 4 (13 percent) or
other (nonpornographic) images (14 percent). These results are consistent with observations of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which has
stated that peer-to-peer technology is increasingly popular for the dissemination of
child pornography. Since 2001, when the center began to track reports of child pornography on peer-to-peer networks, such reports have increased more than fivefoldfrom 156 in 2001 to 840 in 2003.
When searching and downloading images on peer-to-peer networks, juvenile users
can be inadvertently exposed to pornography, including child pornography. In
searches on innocuous keywords likely to be used by juveniles, we obtained images
that included a high proportion of pornography: in our searches, the retrieved images included adult pornography (34 percent), cartoon pornography 5 (14 percent),
and child pornography (1 percent); another 7 percent of the images were classified
as child erotica.
We could not quantify the extent of federal law enforcement resources available
for combating child pornography on peer-to-peer networks. Law enforcement agencies that work to combat child exploitation and child pornography do not track their
resource use according to specific Internet technologies. However, law enforcement
officials told us that, as they receive more tips concerning child pornography on
peer-to-peer networks, they are focusing more resources in this area.
Child pornography is prohibited by federal statutes, which provide for civil and
criminal penalties for its production, advertising, possession, receipt, distribution,
and sale.6 Defined by statute as the visual depiction of a minora person under 18
years of ageengaged in sexually explicit conduct,7 child pornography is unprotected by the First Amendment,8 as it is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse
of children.
In the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996,9 Congress sought to prohibit
images that are or appear to be of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct
or are advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner
that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of
a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. In 2002, the Supreme Court struck
down this legislative attempt to ban virtual child pornography 10 in Ashcroft v. The
Free Speech Coalition, ruling that the expansion of the act to material that did not
involve and thus harm actual children in its creation is an unconstitutional violation
of free speech rights. According to government officials, this ruling may increase the
difficulty of prosecuting those who produce and possess child pornography. Defendants may claim that pornographic images are of virtual children, thus requiring
2 Other popular peer-to-peer applications include Gnutella, BearShare, LimeWire, and Morpheus.
3 The U.S. Customs CyberSmuggling Center assisted us in this work. Because child pornography cannot be accessed legally other than by law enforcement agencies, we relied on Customs
to download and analyze image files. We performed analyses based on titles and file names only.
4 Erotic images of children that do not depict sexually explicit conduct.
5 Images of cartoon characters depicting sexually explicit conduct.
6 See chapter 110 of Title 18, United States Code.
7 See 18 U.S.C. 2256(8).
8 See New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982).
9 Section 121, P.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-26.
10 According to the Justice Department, rapidly advancing technology has raised the possibility of creating images of child pornography without the use of a real child (virtual child pornography). Totally virtual creations would be both time-intensive and, for now, prohibitively
costly to produce. However, the technology has led to a ready defense (the virtual porn defense) against prosecution under laws that are limited to sexually explicit depictions of actual
minors. Because the technology exists today to alter images to disguise the identity of the real
child or make the image seem computer-generated, producers and distributors of child pornography may try to alter depictions of actual children in slight ways to make them appear to be
virtual (as well as unidentifiable), thereby attempting to defeat prosecution. Making such alterations is much easier and cheaper than building an entirely computer-generated image.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

26
the government to establish that the children shown in these digital images are
real. Recently, Congress enacted the PROTECT Act,11 which attempts to address the
constitutional issues raised in The Free Speech Coalition decision.12
THE INERNET HAS EMERGED AS THE PRINCIPAL TOOL FOR EXCHAMGING CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY

Historically, pornography, including child pornography, tended to be found mainly

in photographs, magazines, and videos.13 With the advent of the Internet, however,
both the volume and the nature of available child pornography have changed significantly. The rapid expansion of the Internet and its technologies, the increased availability of broadband Internet services, advances in digital imaging technologies, and
the availability of powerful digital graphic programs have led to a proliferation of
child pornography on the Internet.
According to experts, pornographers have traditionally exploitedand sometimes
pioneeredemerging communication technologiesfrom the dial-in bulletin board
systems of the 1970s to the World Wide Webto access, trade, and distribute pornography, including child pornography.14 Today, child pornography is available
through virtually every Internet technology (see table 1).

Table 1: Internet Technologies Providing Access to Child Pornography

Technology

Characteristics

World Wide Web .....................................

Web sites provide on-line access to text and multimedia materials identified and
accessed through the uniform resource locator (URL).
A distributed electronic bulletin system, Usenet offers over 80,000 newsgroups,
with many newsgroups dedicated to sharing of digital images.
Internet applications operating over peer-to-peer networks enable direct communication between users. Used largely for sharina of diaital music, images, and
video, peer-to-peer applications include BearSharig, Gndtella, LimeWire, and
KaZaA. KaZaA is the most popular, with over 3 million KaZaA users sharing
files at any time.
E-mail allows the transmission of messages over a network or the Internet. Users
can send E-mail to a single recipient or broadcast it to multiple users. E-mail
supports the delivery of attached files, including image files.
Instant messaging is not a dial-up system like the telephone; it requires that
both parties be on line at the same time. AOLs Instant Messenger and
Microsofts MSN Messenger and Internet Relay Chat are the major instant messaging services. Users may exchange files, including image files.
Chat technologies allow computer conferencing using the keyboard over the Internet between two or more people.

Usenet ....................................................
Peer-to-peer file-sharing programs .......

E-mail ....................................................

Instant messaging .................................

Chat and Internet Relay Chat ...............

Source: GAO

Among the principal channels for the distribution of child pornography are commercial Web sites, Usenet newsgroups, and peer-to-peer networks.15
Web sites. According to recent estimates, there are about 400,000 commercial pornography Web sites worldwide,16 with some of the sites selling pornographic images
of children. The child pornography trade on the Internet is not only profitable, it
has a worldwide reach: recently a child pornography ring was uncovered that included a Texas-based firm providing credit card billing and password access services
for one Russian and two Indonesian child pornography Web sites. According to the
11 Public

Law No. 108-21 (Apr. 30, 2003).

Rep. No. 108-2, at 13 (2003).
Carr, Theme Paper on Child Pornography for the 2nd World Congress on Commercial
Sexual Exploitation of Children, NCH Childrens Charities, Children & Technology Unit (Yokohama,
2001).
(http://www.ecpat.net/eng/Ecpatinter/projects/monitoring/wc2/yokohama
themechildpornography.pdf)
14 Frederick E. Allen, When Sex Drives Technological Innovation and Why It Has to, American Heritage Magazine, vol. 51, no. 5 (September 2000), p. 19. (http://www.planned
parenthood.org/education/updatearch.html) Allen notes that pornographers have driven the development of some of the Internet technologies, including the development of systems used to
verify on-line financial transactions and that of digital watermarking technology to prevent the
unauthorized use of on-line images.
15 According to Department of Justice officials, other forums and technologies are used to disseminate pornography on the Internet. These include Web portal communities such as Yahoo!
Groups and MSN Groups, as well as file servers operating on Internet Relay Chat channels.
16 Dick Thornburgh and Herbert S. Lin, editors, Youth, Pornography, and The Internet, National Academy Press (Washington, D.C.: 2002). (http://www.nap.edu/html/youthinternet/)
12 S.

13 John

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

27
U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the ring grossed as much as $1.4 million in just 1
month selling child pornography to paying customers.
Usenet. Usenet newsgroups also provide access to pornography, with several of the
image-oriented newsgroups being focused on child erotica and child pornography.
These newsgroups are frequently used by commercial pornographers who post free
images to advertise adult and child pornography available for a fee from their Web
sites.
Peer-to-peer networks. Although peer-to-peer file-sharing programs are largely
known for the extensive sharing of copyrighted digital music,17 they are emerging
as a conduit for the sharing of pornographic images and videos, including child pornography. In a recent study by congressional staff,18 a single search for the term
porn using a file-sharing program yielded over 25,000 files. In another study, focused on the availability of pornographic video files on peer-to-peer sharing networks, a sample of 507 pornographic video files retrieved with a file-sharing program included about 3.7 percent child pornography videos.19
Table 2 shows the key national organizations and agencies that are currently involved in efforts to combat child pornography on peer-to-peer networks.

Table 2: Organizations and Agencies Involved with Peer-to-Peer Child Pornography Efforts
Agency

Unit

Focus

Nonprofit
National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children.

Exploited Child Unit ......................

Works with the Customs Service, Postal Service, and the

FBI to analyze and investigate child pornography
leads.

Federal Bureau of Investigation a

Proactively investigates crimes against children. Operates a national Innocent Images Initiative to combat Internet-related sexual exploitation of children.
Is a specialized group of attorneys who, among other
things, prosecute those who possess, manufacture, or
distribute child pornography. Its High Tech Investigative Unit actively conducts on-line investigations to
identify distributors of obscenity and child pornography.
Conducts international child pornography investigations
as part of its mission to investigate international
criminal activity conducted on or facilitated by the
Internet.
Provides forensic and technical assistance in matters
involving missing and sexually exploited children.

Federal entities
Department of Justice ........

Criminal Division, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section.

Department of Homeland
Security.

U.S. Customs Service

CyberSmuggling Center a,b.

Department of the Treasury

U.S. Secret Service a .....................

Source: GAO.
a Agency has staff assigned to NCMEG.
b At the time of our review, the Customs Service was under the Department of the Treasury. Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, it
became part of the new Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), a federally
funded nonprofit organization, serves as a national resource center for information
related to crimes against children. Its mission is to find missing children and prevent child victimization. The centers Exploited Child Unit operates the
CyberTipline, which receives child pornography tips provided by the public; its
CyberTipline II also receives tips from Internet service providers. The Exploited
Child Unit investigates and processes tips to determine if the images in question
constitute a violation of child pornography laws. The CyberTipline provides investigative leads to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Customs, the Postal
Inspection Service, and state and local law enforcement agencies. The FBI and the
U.S. Customs also investigate leads from Internet service providers via the Ex17 According to the Yankee Group, a technology research and consulting firm, Internet users
aged 14 and older downloaded 5.16 billion audio files in the United States via unlicensed filesharing services in 2001.
18 Minority Staff, Childrens Access to Pornography through Internet File-Sharing Programs,
Special Investigations Division, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives (July 27, 2001). (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs/pdflinves/pdflpornoglrep.pdf)
19 Michael D. Mehta, Don Best, and Nancy Poon, Peer-to-Peer Sharing on the Internet: An
Analysis of How Gnutella Networks Are Used to Distribute Pornographic Material, Canadian
Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 1, no. 1 (January 2002). (http://cjlt.dal.ca/vol1lno1/articles/
01l01lMeBePolgnutella.pdf)

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

28
ploited Child Units CyberTipline II. The FBI, Customs Service, Postal Inspection
Service, and Secret Service have staff assigned directly to NCMEC as analysts.20
Two organizations in the Department of Justice have responsibilities regarding
child pornography: the FBI and the Justice Criminal Divisions Child Exploitation
and Obscenity Section (CEOS).21
The FBI investigates various crimes against children, including federal child pornography crimes involving interstate or foreign commerce. It deals with violations
of child pornography laws related to the production of child pornography; selling or
buying children for use in child pornography; and the transportation, shipment, or
distribution of child pornography by any means, including by computer.
CEOS prosecutes child sex offenses and trafficking in women and children for sexual exploitation. Its mission includes prosecution of individuals who possess, manufacture, produce, or distribute child pornography; use the Internet to lure children
to engage in prohibited sexual conduct; or traffic in women and children interstate
or internationally to engage in sexually explicit conduct.
Two other organizations have responsibilities regarding child pornography: the
Customs Service (now part of the Department of Homeland Security) and the Secret
Service in the Department of the Treasury.
The Customs Service targets illegal importation and trafficking in child pornography and is the countrys front line of defense in combating child pornography distributed through various channels, including the Internet. Customs is involved in
cases with international links, focusing on pornography that enters the United
States from foreign countries. The Customs CyberSmuggling Center has the lead in
the investigation of international and domestic criminal activities conducted on or
facilitated by the Internet, including the sharing and distribution of child pornography on peer-to-peer networks. Customs maintains a reporting link with NCMEC,
and it acts on tips received via the CyberTipline from callers reporting instances of
child pornography on Web sites, Usenet newsgroups, chat rooms, or the computers
of users of peer-to-peer networks. The center also investigates leads from Internet
service providers via the Exploited Child Units CyberTipline II.
The U.S. Secret Service does not investigate child pornography cases on peer-topeer networks; however, it does provide forensic and technical support to NCMEC,
as well as to state and local agencies involved in cases of missing and exploited children.
PEER-TO-PEER APPLICATIONS PROVIDE EASY ACCESS TO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

Child pornography is easily shared and accessed through peer-to-peer file-sharing

programs. Our analysis of 1,286 titles and file names identified through KaZaA
searches on 12 keywords 22 showed that 543 (about 42 percent) of the images had
titles and file names associated with child pornography images.23 Of the remaining
files, 34 percent were classified as adult pornography, and 24 percent as nonpornographic (see fig. 1). No files were downloaded for this analysis.
The ease of access to child pornography files was further documented by retrieval
and analysis of image files, performed on our behalf by the Customs
CyberSmuggling Center. Using 3 of the 12 keywords that we used to document the
availability of child pornography files, a CyberSmuggling Center analyst used
KaZaA to search, identify, and download 305 files, including files containing multiple images and duplicates. The analyst was able to download 341 images from the
305 files identified through the KaZaA search.
The CyberSmuggling Center analysis of the 341 downloaded images showed that
149 (about 44 percent) of the downloaded images contained child pornography (see
fig. 2). The center classified the remaining images as child erotica (13 percent),
adult pornography (29 percent), or nonpornographic (14 percent).
These results are consistent with the observations of NCMEC, which has stated
that peer-to-peer technology is increasingly popular for the dissemination of child
pornography. However, it is not the most prominent source for child pornography.
20 According

to the Secret Service, its staff assigned to NCMEC also includes an agent.
21 Two additional Justice agencies are involved in combating child pornography: the U.S. Attorneys Offices and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices can prosecute federal child exploitation-related cases; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention funds the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program, which encourages multijurisdictional and multiagency responses to crimes against children involving the Internet.
22 The 12 keywords were provided by the Cybersmuggling Center as examples known to be
associated with child pornography on the Internet.
23 We categorized a file as child pornography if one keyword indicating a minor and one word
with a sexual connotation occurred in either the title or file name. Files with sexual connotation
in title or name but without age indicators were classified as adult pornography.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

29
As shown in table 3, since 1998, most of the child pornography referred by the public to the CyberTipline was found on Internet Web sites. Since 1998, the center has
received over 139,000 reports of child pornography, of which 76 percent concerned
Web sites, and only 1 percent concerned peer-to-peer networks. Web site referrals
have grown from about 1,400 in 1998 to over 45,000 in 2003or about a thirty-twofold increase. NCMEC did not track peer-to-peer referrals until 2001. Between 2001
and 2003, peer-to-peer referrals increased more than fivefold, from 156 to 840, reflecting the increased popularity of file-sharing programs.

Table 3: NCMEC CyberTipline Referrals to Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years 1998-2003
Number of tips
Technology

Web sites ......................................................................................

E-mail ...........................................................................................
Peer-to-peer ..................................................................................
Usenet newsgroups & bulletin boards .........................................
Unknown .......................................................................................
Chat rooms ...................................................................................
Instant Messaging ........................................................................
File transfer protocol ....................................................................
Total ..............................................................................................

1998

1999

1,393
117
531
90
155
27
25
2,338

3,830
165
987
258
256
47
26
5,569

2000

2001

2002

2003

10,629
120
731
260
176
50
58
12,024

18,052
1,128
156
990
430
125
80
64
1,025

26,759
6,245
757
993
612
234
53
23
35,676

45,035
12,403
840
1,128
1,692
786
472
13
62,369

Source: Exploited Child Unit, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

JUVENILE USERS OF PEER-TO-PEER APPLICATIONS MAY BE INADVERTENTLY EXPOSED TO

PORNOGRAPHY

Juvenile users of peer-to-peer networks face a significant risk of inadvertent exposure to pornography when searching and downloading images. In a search using innocuous keywords likely to be used by juveniles searching peer-to-peer networks
(such as names of popular singers, actors, and cartoon characters), almost half the
images downloaded were classified as adult or cartoon pornography. Juvenile users
may also be inadvertently exposed to child pornography through such searches, but
the risk of such exposure is smaller than that of exposure to pornography in general.
To document the risk of inadvertent exposure of juvenile users to pornography,
the Customs CyberSmuggling Center performed KaZaA searches using innocuous
keywords likely to be used by juveniles. The centers image searches used three keywords representing the names of a popular female singer, child actors, and a cartoon
character. A center analyst performed the search, retrieval, and analysis of the images. These searches produced 157 files, some of which were duplicates. From these
157 files, the analyst was able to download 177 images.
Figure 3 shows our analysis of the CyberSmuggling Centers classification of the
177 downloaded images. We determined that 61 images contained adult pornography (34 percent), 24 images consisted of cartoon pornography (14 percent), 13 images contained child erotica (7 percent), and 2 images (1 percent) contained child
pornography. The remaining 77 images were classified as nonpornographic.
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE BEGINNING TO FOCUS RESOURCES ON
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKS

Because law enforcement agencies do not track the resources dedicated to specific
technologies used to access and download child pornography on the Internet, we
were unable to quantify the resources devoted to investigations concerning peer-topeer networks. These agencies (including the FBI, CEOS, and Customs) do devote
significant resources to combating child exploitation and child pornography in general. Law enforcement officials told us, however, that as tips concerning child pornography on the peer-to-peer networks increase, they are beginning to focus more
law enforcement resources on this issue. Table 4 shows the levels of funding related
to child pornography issues that the primary organizations reported for fiscal year
2002, as well as a description of their efforts regarding peer-to-peer networks in particular.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

30
Table 4: Respurces Related to Combating Child Pornography on Peer-to-Peer Networks in 2002
Organization

Resourcesa

Efforts regarding peer-to-peer networks

National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children.

$12 million to act as national resource

center and clearinghouse for missing
and exploited children.
$10 million for law enforcement training
$3.3 million for the Exploited Child Unit
and the CyberTipline.
$916,000 allocated to combat child pornography.
$38.2 million and 228 agents and support personnel for Innocent Images
Unit.

NCMEC referred 913 tips concerning peer-to-peer

networks to law enforcement agencies.

Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Justice Criminal Division,

Child Exploitation and
Obscenity Section.

$4.38 million and 28 personnel allocated

to combating child exploitation and
obscenity offenses.

U.S. Customs Service

CyberSmuggling Center.

$15.6 million (over 144,000 hours) allocated to combating child exploitation

and obscenity offenses b.

According to FBI officials, they have efforts under

way to work with some of the peer-to-peer companies to solicit their cooperation in dealing with
the issue of child pornography.
The High Tech Investigative Unit deals with investigating any Internet medium that distributes
child pornography, including peer-to-peer networks.
The center is beginning to actively monitor peer-topeer networks for child pornography, devoting
one half-time investigator to this effort. As of
December 16, 2002, the center had sent 21
peer-to-peer investigative leads to field offices
for follow-up.

Sources: GAO and agencies mentioned.

a Dollar amounts are approximate.
b Customs was unable to separate the staff hours devoted or funds obligated to combating child pornography from those dedicated to
combating child exploitation in general.

An important new resource to facilitate the identification of the victims of child

pornographers is the National Child Victim Identification Program, run by the
CyberSmuggling Center. This resource is a consolidated information system containing seized images that is designed to allow law enforcement officials to quickly
identify and combat the current abuse of children associated with the production of
child pornography. The systems database is being populated with all known and
unique child pornographic images obtained from national and international law enforcement sources and from CyberTipline reports filed with NCMEC. It will initially
hold over 100,000 images collected by federal law enforcement agencies from various
sources, including old child pornography magazines.24 According to Customs officials, this information will help, among other things, to determine whether actual
children were used to produce child pornography images by matching them with images of children from magazines published before modern imaging technology was
invented. Such evidence can be used to counter the assertion that only virtual children appear in certain images.
The system, which became operational in January 2003,25 is housed at the Customs CyberSmuggling Center and can be accessed remotely in read only format
by the FBI, CEOS, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and NCMEC.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, our work shows that child pornography as well as
adult pornography is widely available and accessible on peer-to-peer networks. Even
more disturbing, we found that peer-to-peer searches using seemingly innocent
terms that clearly would be of interest to children produced a high proportion of pornographic material, including child pornography. The increase in reports of child
pornography on peer-to-peer networks suggests that this problem is increasing. As
a result, it will be important for law enforcement agencies to follow through on their
plans to devote more resources to this technology and continue their efforts to develop effective strategies for addressing this problem.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have at this time.
24 According to federal law enforcement agencies, most of the child pornography published before 1970 has been digitized and made widely available on the Internet.
25 One million dollars has already been spent on the system, with an additional $5 million
needed for additional hardware, the expansion of the image database, and access for all involved
agencies. The 10-year lifecycle cost of the system is estimated to be $23 million.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

31
CONTACT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

If you should have any questions about this testimony, please contact me at (202)
512-6240 or by E-mail at koontzl@gao.gov. Key contributors to this testimony were
Barbara S. Collier, Mirko Dolak, James M. Lager, Neelaxi V. Lakhmani, James R.
Sweetman, Jr., and Jessie Thomas.
ATTACHMENT
Peer-to-peer file-sharing programs represent a major change in the way Internet
users find and exchange information. Under the traditional Internet client/server
model, access to information and services is accomplished by interaction between clientsusers who request servicesand serversproviders of services, usually Web
sites or portals. Unlike this traditional model, the peer-to-peer model enables consenting usersor peersto directly interact and share information with each other,
without the intervention of a server. A common characteristic of peer-to-peer programs is that they build virtual networks with their own mechanisms for routing
message traffic.26
The ability of peer-to-peer networks to provide services and connect users directly
has resulted in a large number 27 of powerful applications built around this model.28
These range from the SETI@home network (where users share the computing power
of their computers to search for extraterrestrial life) to the popular KaZaA file-sharing program (used to share music and other files).
As shown in figure 4,29 there are two main models of peer-to-peer networks: (1)
the centralized model, in which a central server or broker directs traffic between
individual registered users, and (2) the decentralized model, based on the
Gnutella 30 network, in which individuals find each other and interact directly.
As shown in figure 4, in the centralized model, a central server/broker maintains
directories of shared files stored on the computers of registered users. When Bob
submits a request for a particular file, the server/broker creates a list of files matching the search request by checking it against its database of files belonging to users
currently connected to the network. The broker then displays that list to Bob, who
can then select the desired file from the list and open a direct link with Alices computer, which currently has the file. The download of the actual file takes place directly from Alice to Bob.
This broker model was used by Napster, the original peer-to-peer network, facilitating mass sharing of material by combining the file names held by thousands of
users into a searchable directory that enabled users to connect with each other and
download MP3 encoded music files. Because much of this material was copyrighted,
Napster as the broker of these exchanges was vulnerable to legal challenges,31
which eventually led to its demise in September 2002.
In contrast to Napster, most current-generation peer-to-peer networks are decentralized. Because they do not depend on the server/broker that was the central feature of the Napster service, these networks are less vulnerable to litigation from
copyright owners, as pointed out by Gartner.32
In the decentralized model, no brokers keep track of users and their files. To
share files using the decentralized model, Ted starts with a networked computer
equipped with a Gnutella file-sharing program such as KaZaA or BearShare. Ted
connects to Carol, Carol to Bob, Bob to Alice, and so on. Once Teds computer has
announced that it is alive to the various members of the peer network, it can
26 Matei Ripenau, Ian Foster, and Adriana Iamnitchi, Mapping the Gnutella Network: Properties of Large Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems and Implication for System Design, IEEE Internet
Computing, vol. 6, no. 1 (January-February 2002). (people.cs.uchicago.edu/matei/PAPERS/ic.pdf)
27 Zeropaid.com, a file-sharing portal, lists 88 different peer-to-peer file-sharing programs
available for download. (http://www.zeropaid.com/php/filesharing.php)
28 Geoffrey Fox and Shrideep Pallickara, Peer-to-Peer Interactions in Web Brokering Systems, Ubiquity, vol. 3, no. 15 (May 28-June 3, 2002) (published by Association of Computer Machinery). (http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/glfoxl2.html)
29 Illustration adapted by Lt. Col. Mark Bontrager from original by Bob Knighten, Peer-toPeer Computing, briefing to Peer-to-Peer Working Groups (August 24, 2000), in Mark D.
Bontrager, Peering into the Future: Peer-to-Peer Technology as a Model for Distributed Joint
Battlespace Intelligence Dissemination and Operational Tasking, Thesis, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama (June 2001).
30 According to LimeWire LLC, the developer of a popular file-sharing program, Gnutella was
originally designed by Nullsoft, a subsidiary of America Online. The development of the
Gnutella protocol was halted by AOL management shortly after the protocol was made available
to the public. Using downloads, programmers reverse-engineered the software and created their
own Gnutella software packages. (http://www.limewire.com/index.jsp/p2p)
31 A&M Records v. Napster, 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
32 Lydia Leong, RIAA vs.Verizon, Implications for ISPs, Gartner (Oct. 24, 2002).

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

32
search the contents of the shared directories of the peer network members. The
search request is sent to all members of the network, starting with Carol; members
will, in turn, send the request to the computers to which they are connected, and
so forth. If one of the computers in the peer network (say, for example, Alices) has
a file that matches the request, it transmits the file information (name, size, type,
etc.) back through all the computers in the pathway towards Ted, where a list of
files matching the search request appears on Teds computer through the file-sharing program. Ted can then open a connection with Alice and download the file directly from Alices computer.33
The file-sharing networks that result from the use of peer-to-peer technology are
both extensive and complex. Figure 5 shows a map, or topology, of a Gnutella network whose connections were mapped by a network visualization tool.34 The map,
created in December 2000, shows 1,026 nodes (computers connected to more than
one computer) and 3,752 edges (computers on the edge of the network connected to
a single computer). This map is a snapshot showing a network in existence at a
given moment; these networks change constantly as users join and depart them.
One of the key features of many peer-to-peer technologies is their use of a virtual
name space (VNS). A VNS dynamically associates user-created names with the
Internet address of whatever Internet-connected computer users happen to be using
when they log on.35 The VNS facilitates point-to-point interaction between individuals, because it removes the need for users and their computers to know the addresses and locations of other users; the VNS can, to a certain extent, preserve
users anonymity and provide information on whether a user is or is not connected
to the Internet at a given moment. Peer-to-peer users thus may appear to be anonymous; they are not, however. Law enforcement agents may identify users Internet
addresses during the file-sharing process and obtain, under a court order, their
identities from their Internet service providers.

33 LimeWire, Modern Peer-to-Peer File Sharing over the Internet. (http://www.limewire.com/

index.jsp/p2p)
34 Mihajlo A. Jovanovic, Fred S. Annexstein, and Kenneth A. Berman, Scalability Issues in
Large Peer-to-Peer Networks: A Case Study of Gnutella, University of Cincinnati Technical Report (2001). (http://www.ececs.uc.edu/mjovanov/Research/paper.html)
35 S. Hayward and R. Batchelder, Peer-to-Peer: Something Old, Something New, Gartner
(Apr. 10, 2001).

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

33

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

34

Mr. STEARNS. I thank you. By unanimous consent, Mr. John is

recognized for an opening statement.
Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I certainly appreciate the latitude of Ranking Member Schakowsky and also
Chairman Stearns for providing me an opportunity to give an opening statement. As a former member of this subcommittee and the
lead sponsor of the legislation to protect children from online pornography, I really appreciate the opportunity to say just a few
words.
I want to thank my fellow colleague, Congressman Pitts, for his
leadership on this issue and offer my continued support for his efforts to combat child pornography. I also want to thank the panel.
This is a little bit out of order to give an opening statement after
the panel, but I certainly appreciate the remarks and a lot of the

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

35
remarks that I have in my opening statement were addressed or
at least connected to some of your statements, so I certainly appreciate that.
As a parent of twin 5-year-old boys, I know the challenges that
are faced by parents these days as kids go and log on to the Internet. In fact, my boys love to go on and log and look at Bay Blades
and Yuggio cards and Power Rangers and a whole host of other
kinds of kids-related shows and merchandise that are on these
websites. And for the parents, its a little difficult to keep up with
some of these toys that kids today go a little crazy over. I guess
what disturbs me more is the proliferation of pornography online
that uses these very same kids games, kids toys, kids characters
to direct Internet users to pornography sites and a lot of the testimony cited that.
And its all the more problematic when the kids are using the
P2P or peer-to-peer file sharing programs because the names of
these games and cartoons are often misspelled or look very similar
in a lot of ways to some of these sites. We probably could spend
an entire hearing, Mr. Chairman, on peer-to-peer file network, file
sharing, as a digital means of stealing copyrighted material, but
that battle will come and thats for another time.
But today, I appreciate the witnesses addressing some of the concerns that I have and I will continue my fight with Mr. Pitts on
this issue and I thank the chairman and ranking member.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman for his attendance. Ill start
with my questions.
I guess the first question when you hear this, this is for the Federal Trade Commission, seeing what Mr. Pitts has showed us and
going through some of the testimony on the panel, and hearing
your example, I guess the question is do you have enough people?
Do you need additional law enforcement support to curb the spread
of online pornography via the Internet or the P2P?
Mr. BEALES. We can always do more with more resources. We
have a very active program and I think one thats been very effective in addressing a wide variety of problems. It iswe dont have
a particular request for additional resources. Well address that
through the appropriations process.
Mr. STEARNS. So you can say today that you think you have sufficient resources to handle this problem?
Mr. BEALES. Well, I think there is no amount of resources that
would eliminate this problem.
Mr. STEARNS. Were not saying eliminate, but that you can get
to the bad actors, that you feel comfortable that you can quickly
and effectively get to these bad actors?
It seems to me if he puts up 6,000 sites, thats going to take a
lot of research on your part and thats just one individual.
Mr. BEALES. Well, its the way a lot of these cases work. Hes got
6,000 sites registered under one name and once youre on to the
basic scheme, tracking down all the other names hes registered is
not that difficult. Whats hard in some cases is finding the scheme
in the first place.
Mr. STEARNS. Do you think theres anything we, as legislators,
that you would recommend that we do?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

36
Mr. BEALES. We dont have any legislative recommendations at
this point.
Mr. STEARNS. So you have no opinion on the Pitts Bill?
Mr. BEALES. We have no position on the Pitts Bill. We have
worked with Mr. Pitts staff on technical issues and we look forward to continuing that.
Mr. STEARNS. Okay. Ms. Koontz, Mr. Lafferty has submitted
written testimony. Hes on the second panel. He stated that in
using family filters at their maximum level, no files retrieved on
searches for popular terms like Britney, Pokeyman and the Olsen
Twins will contain pornography.
Based on your work in this area, do you confirm his statement?
Ms. KOONTZ. I cant confirm that thats the case. We havent
done a study of the availability of pornography on the larger Internet sort of situation. Soand we have not studied the efficacy of
filters either, although I would submit that we know that filters,
although they can be helpful, are rarely perfect and usually do not
eliminate all kinds of objectionable files.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Lourdeau or Mr. Beales, can you comment on
that, the fact that Mr. Lafferty says basically the family filters
work and they will prevent the pornography?
Mr. LOURDEAU. I have not checked out the filters to see if they
work or not. I cant answer that.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Beales?
Mr. BEALES. Weve not explored them in any detail either.
Mr. STEARNS. Let me ask the FBI, in which of the follow areas
is child pornography most prevalent: Internet websites, Internet
news groups, chat rooms, file servers, bulletin board systems or
peer-to-peer file sharing programs? And also, to which area is it
trending, if you can tell us that?
Mr. LOURDEAU. For the FBI, we have a priority listing of how we
attack child pornography and as you said, Mr. Chairman, the
websites is our No. 1 priority because of the international and national flavor of the websites. We think that the FBIs role is to try
to go after organized groups that profit from child pornography and
that occurs in the websites, where you can go into the websites and
purchase child pornography and people make money from that.
Is it more pervasive than the other sites? I can give you countless examples of chat rooms where people go into chat rooms and
discuss luring young children, girls and boys, to have sex with
adults. So is it prevalent there? Its very prevalent there. I dont
know if theres any one site or one
Mr. STEARNS. Trending in any way?
Mr. LOURDEAU. [continuing] or trend that is more prevalent than
the other. We know that there is a lot of legal file sharing of pornography over peer-to-peer networks and thats why we started our
new initiative to address that crime problem.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Beales, the last question, are the P2P files
traceable so that the illegal pornographers can be prosecuted? Is it
easily traceable and has P2P software hastened the spread of
spyware and adware?
Mr. BEALES. We have not been involved in circumstances where
we needed to track back P2P files. That is not something thats
come up in any of our cases and so I dont really know. We did

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

37
learn at our spyware workshop that a great deal of spyware and
adware is distributed bundled with P2P networks. There are other
distribution channels for it as well.
Mr. STEARNS. My time has expired.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Im afraid I dont really understand the technology, so youll forgive me a little bit if I ask questions that are
silly.
Im looking now at Mr. Pitts handout and when I look at Google
which searches websites, am I correct about that? Okay, that when
you search a website and the filter is in place, we find that theres
no pornographic websites when you search for Cinderella.
When we look at Cinderella on this P2P network, I dont know
what you call it, P2P file sharing, we get a lot of these pornographic information. So what Im trying to understand is it a problem with the filtering system, I dont know what that implies, that
there could be better blocking on the P2P or that the technology
itself precludes that kind of blocking? And I wondered if one of you
could answer that.
Mr. LOURDEAU. If I could just answer, maybe I could help out is
that with peer-to-peer, when you share the files that go between
one computer and another computer, individual computers, so its
not a file server that goes between. So to block out or use filters
that would block one message from your computer to my computer
that would not work.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Theres no possibility for doing that kind of filter?
Mr. LOURDEAU. I cant address if there is a possibility or not. Im
not a real technical person. So there might be some way to do that
and again, I think thats private industrys position to come up
with some type of block or filter to make that work.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me ask you the question that the Chairman asked Mr. Beales. Are you able though to identify, I thought
I heard you say that in your testimony, that you can identify the
individual who does have this porn on their computer, on their email that e-mails it. You can identify those individuals?
Mr. LOURDEAU. Weve come up with a protocol and investigative
technique that will identify individuals that are sharing child pornography through peer-to-peer. Again, thats part of our new initiative that we have on-going now, so I dont want to get into too
much of that, that would jeopardize those investigations.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, then let me ask you the question of
whether you think there are enough legislative tools, legal tools for
you to use or if you do think that we need more legislation that
would help?
Mr. LOURDEAU. Thats something I can review and get back with
the subcommittee, if you allow me to. Were always looking for
ways that would assist law enforcement in legislation and Id be
more than happy to again review anything that the subcommittee
could help through legislation.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Ms. Koontz, did you find that P2P is necessarily more risky than other means of accessing pron on the web?
Or were you not comparing?
Ms. KOONTZ. Our study was focused on the availability of child
pornography on peer-to-peer networks as well as the risk of inad-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

38
vertent exposure to juvenile users. But that focused solely on the
peer-to-peer networks. We did not try to compare either availability
or inadvertent use to the Internet, to news groups or to any other
kinds of technology. This was beyond the scope of what we were
doing. However, we do note that we know that pornography is pervasive on these other mediums and that there is a risk of inadvertent exposure on them as well, but we cant do the quantitative
comparison that youre asking about.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me ask you this, do any of you feel that
this will be the method of choice? You said that theres been, I
think everyone said theres been an increase in the amount of pornography available through this P2P networks, but Im wondering
if that is not also true of all the others, of the websites, etcetera,
or if were seeing a trend now, this is going to be the way that
seems easiest or most desirable for child predators or for purveyors
of porn.
Mr. BEALES. Congresswoman, I think the factor that will limit
expansion through this channel as opposed to others is that its a
lot harder to make money from it in the peer-to-peer context. In
the website context, or in the e-mail context, you can try to sell
people something and thats often a lot of the incentive to engage
in the practice. You cant do that in the same way over the peerto-peer networks and thats not to say it doesnt happen there, but
it happens at a more individual level and not at a commercial level.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The motivation though for someone then to
use peer-to-peer might, in fact, be more the predators, rather than
people who are seeking a profit might go there. Is that true?
Mr. LOURDEAU. I think it is true. Predators get on peer-to-peer
networks and they know the terms to put in to obtain child pornography images, so that is true.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I have a lot more to learn. Thank you.
Mr. STEARNS. Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts.
Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to
thank the witnesses for their testimony. I want to thank the FTC
for all they do and resources they offer to help consumers, especially parents, better understand the problems of pornography on
the Internet and peer-to-peer.
Regarding the filters on the peer-to-peer systems in your opinion,
Mr. Beales, do the filters provide clear and conspicuous information
on how the filters work, filtering searches rather than content?
Mr. BEALES. I dont know that weve looked at that in detail as
to exactly how they describe the use of the filter. We have looked
at some of the filters and what we found is the way they work, as
we understand it, is they just filter based on the file title or description, rather than on the full content of the file. I mean that
would be unlike a web search engine which can look at the whole
webpage and look at the content and not just the description.
Mr. PITTS. The FTC mission is to protect consumers against unfair and deceptive practices in commerce. According to the FTC an
act is unfair if, among other things, the practice causes injury to
consumers. Does a child inadvertently downloading pornography or
even child pornography qualify as harm to a consumer?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

39
Mr. BEALES. What we would typically focus on is how it happened. Tricking a child into doing that, theres no question that
thats an unfair and deceptive act or practice and theres an injury
in that kind of a context.
The nature of the injury thats involved in child pornography per
se is really more of a criminal issue than something thats a typical
FTC issue.
Mr. STEARNS. One of the dangers of peer-to-peer is when a person or a child accidentally downloads a pornographic file, if he or
she immediately closes the file, but does not delete it, he or she becomes a distributor of that file, therefore a person can unknowingly
become a distributor of child pornography. This, of course, could
lead to legal problems for that individual.
Has the FTC looked into this aspect of peer-to-peer technology?
Does this meet the threshold of an unfair practice?
Mr. BEALES. We have not looked into that at this point. It is
again, if were talking about something systematic where somebody
is doing this on a large scale, to get kids to download images, that
would certainly be something that we would be interested in that
we think would be a violation.
Theres one of our other recent spam cases is the Westby case
and what it involved, and I think its a good example of the kinds
of things were looking for in addressing this problem. This case involves spam with deceptive subject lines that try to trick you into
opening the message and when you did, there were pornographic
images. We think that was a deceptive practice. We think thats an
unfair practice. We think its a fairly straight forward case for us
to make and it was in that particular instance, we prevailed in
Court.
Mr. PITTS. Thank you. Mr. Lourdeau, with that illustration I
gave, could you speak to how this complicates law enforcement efforts? There are probably thousands of people who are unknowingly
distributing pornography out there.
Mr. LOURDEAU. And youre correct, sir. We have to prove intent
and for the violation of the crime and forthats one reason why
the Bureau came out with a consumer letter thats posted on our
website notifying the public of the dangers of peer-to-peer because
of the bad potential, that if they are on the network sharing files
between each other, that they are opening their systems up where
somebody could come in and dump child pornography on their computers and thats one of the dangers of using the peer-to-peer programs.
Mr. PITTS. I think in your testimony you reference peer-to-peer
software industry members that were considering placing icons or
popups from home pages regarding subjects wanted by the FBI for
exploitation of child on the Internet. Could you explain this concept
a little bit more in detail?
Mr. LOURDEAU. Again, we work with a lot of different private industry companies because we have to because the technology is
moving ahead so quickly, we need the cooperation of a lot of different private industries. We work with financial sectors. We work
with ISPs. We work with companies involved in peer-to-peer software, just to help educate the public, also to give us the information we need to identify individuals that are using peer-to-peer.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

40
Were in preliminary discussions with a number of different companies on how to again be more proactive and not just react to
cases that come to the attention of individuals sharing child pornography and again, those are preliminary discussions and we
havent confirmed those yet.
Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my time is up.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Terry.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Beales, can you help me work through and explain the brown paper wrapper, in essence, putting some type of a
mark out there that I would understanding that that particular file
iscontains explicit images or content? Can you tell me how that
would work in the area of peer-to-peer? Is there any overlap between our CAN-SPAM Act? Does it apply to the peer-to-peer fields
that are posted? Is there something else that we need to do legislatively that would empower the FTC to force these peer-to-peer
fields to be forthcoming in what the content is?
Mr. BEALES. I think the thing thats difficult about the peer-topeer context is youre dealing with individual files labeled by individuals. And to go after those one at a time or to try to enforce
brown paper wrapper kind of requirement one at a time, is something that would be exceedingly difficult to say the least. Its not
likebecause what you have is a single file or maybe a set of files,
but its from a single user whos posting those files on the Internet.
And youd be dependent on that individual to take the steps to
comply with that requirement.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Lourdeau, do you have anything to add from the
FBIdo you agree that it is just too cumbersome, too large to go
after individually? Is there anything that the FBI in that regard
would require from us?
Mr. LOURDEAU. It is a massive problem and again, our new peerto-peer initiative that we have underway addresses some of that
and its going to go after individuals who are sharing child pornography between each other and thats the initiative and again, in
about 2 weeks I can speak more on that initiative.
Mr. TERRY. All right, in the Washington Post today there was a
nice article that helped educate the public about peer-to-peer and
its hazards. It also mentioned that the FBI is working with the
BearShare, I think was mentioned and Kazaa had a whole separate
paragraph to itself, which it should, considering thats probably one
of the largest peer-to-peer sites or software.
Are there, is it true that Kazaa is quote unquote cooperating to
make sure that you can find those who are sharing child pornography and are you able to tell us if there are some of those sites
that arent cooperating with you?
Mr. LOURDEAU. Again, we do cooperate with a lot of our industry
partners because we have to. We need the cooperation of private
industry to identify some of the subjects that are sharing files. The
technology that the industry has and the access to information they
have, the government does not have, so we need to cooperate with
private industry.
We have had discussions with private industry on this technology
and we welcome the shared knowledge that they have to help us
address this crime problem. And to get into discussions of which in-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

41
dustry partners are more cooperative than others, I dont know if
this is the right forum for that.
Mr. PITTS. Okay. Is there a private forum that you would let us
know which ones are not?
Mr. LOURDEAU. Id be more than happy to give your staffers and
yourself a briefing, yes sir.
Mr. PITTS. I appreciate that.
Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back. Going to Mr. Ferguson,
the gentleman from new Jersey.
Mr. FERGUSON. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STEARNS. No questions. Next, Mr. Bass is not here. Go to Mr.
Otter. No questions. Mr. Whitfield.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, Ill just ask one brief question. I
was just curious, Ms. Koontz, whether or not you all had followed
up since your 2003 report to look specifically at any new technologies incorporated into the P2P software?
Ms. KOONTZ. We have not.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Have not, okay. Thank you.
Mr. STEARNS. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Sullivan?
Pass. And Mr. Shadegg. Pass.
Before we go, I just want to ask Ms. Koontz, just a question. I
understand the title of your GAO audit was File Sharing Programs, Users of Peer-to-Peer Networks Can Readily Access Child
Pornography. Is that correct?
Ms. KOONTZ. Thats correct.
Mr. STEARNS. Is the risk of inadvertent exposure to pornography
to children increasing on the Internet today? Just yes or no?
Ms. KOONTZ. I dont know.
Mr. STEARNS. Can you tell us is child pornography increasing on
peer-to-peer, yes or no?
Ms. KOONTZ. It appears to be the case based on the number of
tips forwarded to the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children. It appears to be the case, yes.
Mr. STEARNS. But in your actual study that you did, the GAO
study, did not show that theres a trend increasing on peer-to-peer?
Ms. KOONTZ. Our study was at a point in time. We would have
to sample at another point in time to tell you what that comparison
was.
Mr. STEARNS. Do you intend to do that or not?
Ms. KOONTZ. If we are asked to do so, we will.
Mr. STEARNS. Okay. All right, I thank panel 1 and well now call
for panel 2.
We have Mr. Charles Catlett, Senior Fellow, Computation Institute of Argonne National Laboratory. Mr. Martin Lafferty, Chief
Executive Officer of Distributed Computing Industry Association.
Mr. Norbert Dunkel, hes Director of Housing and Residence Education, University of Florida in Gainesville. Mr. Ernie Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children; and last, we have Ms. Penny Nance, President of Kids First Coalition.
So I welcome the second panel and thank you for your patience
and time and we look forward to your opening statements and I
think well start with Mr. Catlett, if youre ready to go.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

42
Mr. Catlett has a demonstration for us, so I think we might need
to turn down the lights a little bit, so that we can see it clearly
on the television.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. CATLETT, SENIOR FELLOW, COMPUTATION INSTITUTE, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY;
NORBERT W. DUNKEL, DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND RESIDENCE EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA; ERNIE
ALLEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN;
PENNY YOUNG NANCE, PRESIDENT, KIDS FIRST COALITION;
AND MARTIN C. LAFFERTY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

Mr. CATLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STEARNS. Get it right close to you. Sometimes these people
drop their voice and then you cant hear them.
Mr. CATLETT. Ive been working in the Internet for 20 years and
Im honored to be here and talk to you today about this. Im also
a father of three and these are things that concern me quite a bit,
inappropriate material on the Internet.
I want to spent a little bit of time as a software and Internet expert telling you about some of the interesting things that were
doing on the Internet and specifically with distributed computing.
Im speaking as the Executive Director of the TeraGrid project
which is funded by the National Science Foundation. Were building a distributed system with about 10 universities across the
country. And Im also the chair of an international group called the
Global Grid Forum and this is about 200 organizations, 75 companies, worldwide. We develop specifications and standards for distributed software primarily for commercial and science applications.
Speaking of software, its very difficult to classify software. We
talk about distributed systems and thats any computer software
that talks to another piece of software across a network. There are
three kinds of distributed systems we generally talk about. One is
client server. A client server system is like a web browser talking
to a website.
Grid computing is what we talk about in the sciences because we
want to combine resources that are not all available in one location, to be able to do an advanced application. Ill speak a little bit
about three such applications.
And peer-to-peer tends to be desktop computers talking to one
another and these tend to be much larger networks than the other,
than the grid computing types.
One of the partners that we work with with our TeraGrid project
is from the University of Oklahoma. This is the Center for Analysis
and Prediction of Storms. And the goal of this project is to combine
weather sensors that are Internet connected, doppler radar and
things like that with super computers and data bases to be able to
take our weather models and accelerate or increase the amount of
time that citizens have available to them to take shelter in the case
of a tornado or severe storms.
I live in Illinois. Im told that the average time between a warning and the time you actually have to hit the cellar is 13 minutes.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

43
With a program like that, we can increase that to an hour or 2 and
actually predict the path of a tornado through a city like you see
here. This is Fort Worth from 1998.
A second project is a medical project. This is very similar to peerto-peer, but the content here is medical data, MRI data, protein
data bases and the point of this project is to give people who are
investigating brain diseases, give clinical researchers and academic
researchers access to many more data bases than they might be
able to have access to otherwise, do a single search, ask a complex
query of 50 or 60 data bases that are federated or connected together using similar to peer-to-peer technology on the Internet.
This is led by the University of California at San Diego.
And the third project is working with EPA and specifically the
National Exposure Research Laboratory. Were investigating
whether we can use the same technology that companies use to
model say airflow over the body of a car, whether we can use that
air flow model technology to model air flow through a city, an
urban area. So if we could take a model of a city and we have data
from a disaster, an explosion, a plume of smoke, toxins, airborne
toxins, were investigating the use of peer-to-peer and Internet
technology to be able to bring that capability to the point where
you might use it to guide emergency workers on the ground, if this
plume of smoke is going to go this way and not that way.
Id like to close with just a word or two about H.R. 2885, again,
I appreciate being able to be here and talk to you about this because this is a concern I have as well. I think theres some very
good ideas in this bill. The required warnings, standard notices for
consumers allowing me as a consumer to make a choice about what
the software is doing, not having some of the software that sneaks
in and does things, I think thats excellent.
I would say also that in the Internet technology, 12 months is
almost like a decade in other technologies and a lot can happen in
12 months. The language in this particular bill concerns me slightly because its very broad and as I read it, it actually encompasses
almost all of the software that is running on my computer right
here. So I think with some precision, I think this would be very
helpful and a strategy of working with software providers to actually harness the innovation and the technology thats available to
combat this problem, I think is a very good approach. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Charles E. Catlett follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. CATLETT, SENIOR FELLOW, UNIVERSITY OF
CHICAGO AND ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY CHAIR, GLOBAL GRID FORUM
Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing
me this opportunity to comment on the use of the Internet and distributed computing technologies. I am Charles E. Catlett, a senior fellow at the Computation Institute at the University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory. I am the executive director of the NSF TeraGrid project, which is constructing one of the
worlds most powerful distributed computing systems, scheduled to be completed in
October of this year. I am also the founding chair of the Global Grid Forum, an
international standards body that brings together distributed computing researchers, commercial software providers, and end users to create software standards for
distributed computing on the Internet. I have been involved in the evolution of the
Internet since 1984, doing research in both advanced network technologies and the
practical applications that these technologies enable. My work has been aimed at

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

44
providing increasingly powerful information technology tools for the science and
education community.
I am also a father of three, and I pay very close attention to what my children
are able to do with the Internet and Peer-to-Peer software in particular. I am very
encouraged by your interest in these issues, which involve very complex technology
and which have far-reaching impact on our Nation, and I am honored to speak with
you about this technology.
I have prepared some brief remarks regarding what types of applications are possible with the increasing availability of broadband Internet and distributed computing software capabilities, and several examples of the kind of benefit we are seeing from these capabilities.
1. Peer-to-Peer and Grid Computing
Many terms have substantial overlap and cause confusion in discussions about
the Internet and related software, so I would like to start with straightforward definitions of four such terms.
Distributed computing is a general term that refers to any set of computers
that work together, using a network, to provide some form of capability. Most distributed computing software used on the Internet falls into three categories:
Client-Server computing involves a person using a program (a client) on a
home or office computer, interacting over a network with a larger computer, or
server. The server provides information, applications, or services to many clients.
A Web browser is an illustration of a client, and the Google search site is an example of a server. Thus the Web is essentially a client-server system.
Peer-to-Peer could fairly be described as client-to-client computing, where
the participating clients run on home or office computers, and where there may be
tens of thousand or even millions of computers involved in sharing information or
computing capabilities.
Grid is a term that is used increasingly often to refer to what we might call
server-to-server computing. In a Grid system, shared resources such as powerful
servers, databases, or scientific instruments are integrated to support applications
that need powerful capabilities not available at a single location. Users of Grid systems may access them via client-server approaches.
All three forms of distributed computing share the Internet as their communications utility, and have many attributes in common. It is also difficult to classify
many applications into only one of these three categories, because the most powerful
applications tend to combine aspects of all three forms.
For this reason, it is important to consider a wide range of application types in
order to determine the impact that would be felt with the introduction of regulations
aimed at a particular software genre. This is not unlike the work that we do in the
Global Grid Forum, where we consider the broader impact of any changes to a protocol or interface standard.
As with other Internet technologies such as the World Wide Web, it is difficult
to predict what new applications will be enabled with new capabilities. Peer-to-peer
technology is a good example, and in the research community we find a number of
promising applications that are being developed and evaluated.
We see potential uses of peer-to-peer technology in many venues where informationwhether scientific, clinical, or educational datais shared among a large population of potential users. For example, the OceanStore project at the University
of California-Berkeley is using peer-to-peer techniques to provide highly available,
virtually indestructible storage systems that assume the underlying servers will
be neither reliable nor secure. Groove Networks is a commercial software firm that
uses peer-to-peer technology to create secure collaboration services for distributed
teams, allowing individuals to work closely together despite being spread across
many time zones. And many Grid applications share some aspects of peer-to-peer,
as I discuss below.
2. Practical Scientific Applications Using Distributed Computing Technologies
I would like to focus on three applications of distributed computing technology.
These are illustrative of the type of applications being developed on todays Internet,
each of which uses a variety of distributed computing technologies. In each of these
cases, peer-to-peer software has the potential for extending data sharing capabilities
to a much broader audience than the current scientific collaborations, however none
are using peer-to-peer software today.
The first involves predicting and response to severe weather, which causes hundreds of lost lives and some $13B in economic loss annually. Here I describe the
work of Professor Kelvin Droegemeier, director of the Center for Analysis and Pre-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

45
diction of Storms, and his colleagues. Weather applications are aimed at improving
the nations infrastructure for predicting and preparing for severe weather.
The second involves biomedical research aimed at understanding brain-related
disease ranging from Alzheimers to attention deficit disorder. Dr. Mark Ellisman,
director of the Biomedical Informatics Research Network (BIRN), and collaborators
at twelve U.S. universities are using the Internet to create highly secure, nationwide research and clinical data-sharing capabilities. The BIRN project uses the
Internet and distributed computing and information technologies to create infrastructure aimed at improving biomedical research by enabling researchers throughout the United States to collaborate on large-scale studies of human disease with
unique, multi-resolution tools. BIRN uses technology that is quite similar to peerto-peer software, albeit with much greater control over security, access and authorization.
The third application is the analysis of urban air quality and airflow, seeking to
understand the impact of both existing pollutants and potential effects of airborne
toxins from events such as fires or explosions. This application includes the work
of Dr. Alan Huber and colleagues from the Environmental Protection Agencys National Exposure Research Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratorys Environmental Assessment Division, and Fluent, Inc., a commercial software provider.
2.1 Severe Weather Prediction and Early Warning
The Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms (CAPS) at the University of
Oklahoma engages in basic and applied research in storm-scale data assimilation
and numerical weather prediction, with several ongoing programs in collaboration
with colleagues around the country. The work is aimed at integrating weather sensors and computer models, using high-performance computers and the Internet, to
rapidly model evolving weather patterns in order to predict destructive storms in
time to provide advanced warning.
Beginning in 1998, for instance, CAPS worked with the University Corporation
for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) Unidata Program, the University of Washington,
the National Severe Storms Laboratory (NSSL), and the WSR-88D Operational Support Facility (now the Radar Operations Center ROC) to establish the Collaborative
Radar Acquisition Field Test (CRAFT) project. The goal of CRAFT was to demonstrate the real time compression and Internet-based transmission of NEXRAD
data from multiple radars with a view toward nationwide implementation. CAPS is
currently working with the National Weather Service to transition the CRAFT system into an operational service.
To further advance sensor capabilities, CAPS is working with the Center for Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the Atmosphere (CASA) at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, to revolutionize the remote sensing of the lower troposphere,
initially via inexpensive, low-power, phased array Doppler radars placed on cell towers and buildings. A unique component of this project is that the sensors interact
with one another, using the Internet to dynamically adjust their characteristics to
sense multiple atmospheric phenomena while meeting multiple end user needs in
an optimal manner. These communications and data sharing techniques are similar
to what is typically classified as peer-to-peer.
Computer models have been used to predict long-term weather trends for several
years. However, in order to predict severe weather with sufficient precision and in
a time frame to allow for early warning, high-performance computing systems are
essential. Several years ago CAPS developed computer-based storm prediction capabilities to identify severe thunderstorm activity with roughly 4 hours notice. This
amount of time was sufficient, for example, to inform airlines of pending thunderstorms at major hubs, allowing those airlines to delay flights prior to takeoff in
order to ensure that landing would be possible, greatly reducing the cost of diverting
aircraft once in the air.
Today CAPS also leads an NSF-funded project called Linked Environments for Atmospheric Discovery (LEAD), which aims to create capabilities for analysis tools,
forecast models, and data repositories to function as dynamically adaptive, on-demand systems. These systems will change configuration rapidly and automatically
in response to the evolving weather, responding immediately to user decisions based
on the weather problem at hand, and enabling the steering of remote observing systems to optimize data collection and forecast/warning quality. The goal of such systems is to provide precise information about the predicted path of destructive weather, such as tornados, in a timeframe that permits citizens to prepare for, rather
than react to, such weather.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

46
2.2 Nationwide Sharing of Biomedical Research Data
The Biomedical Informatics Research Network (BIRN) is an initiative sponsored
by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Center for Research Resources (NCRR). BIRN fosters large-scale biomedical science collaborations by utilizing emerging distributed computing technologies and the Internet, including applications distributed among high-performance computers, databases, and new software and data integration capabilities developed within the project and elsewhere.
The BIRN currently involves a consortium of 12 universities and 16 research
groups participating in three testbed projects centered on the brain imaging of
human neurological disease and associated animal models. Some
BIRN groups are working on large-scale, cross-institutional imaging studies on
Alzheimers disease, depression, and schizophrenia using structural and functional
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Others are studying animal models relevant to
multiple sclerosis, attention deficit disorder, and Parkinsons disease through MRI,
whole brain histology, and high-resolution light and electron microscopy.
These studies are being used to drive the definition, construction, and daily use
of a federated data system. Federation presents biological data held at geographically separated Internet sites to appear as a single, unified and persistent data archive. Data is securely accessed across institutional boundaries to address issues of
data privacy and automatic translation of data formats. Most of the groups participating in the BIRN have traditionally conducted independent investigations on relatively small populations, using site-specific software tools.
The promise of the BIRN is the ability to test new hypotheses through the analysis of larger patient populations and unique multiresolution views of animal models through data sharing and the integration of site independent resources for collaborative data refinement. To accomplish these goals, the BIRN project will continue to rely on innovative distributed computing technologies on the Internet.
2.3 Air Quality and Impact of Airborne Biological or Toxic Agents
Understanding the pathway of toxic air pollutants from source to human exposure
in urban areas is of critical interest to the US Environmental Protection Agency,
and has been an ongoing activity. Rapid assessments of risk, such as the migration
of toxic gases related to major fires or chemical spills, are vital to first responders,
local officials, federal officials, and the public. The scientific shortcomings are especially serious for incidents that occur in an urban center where the understanding
of airflow around large buildings is poor.
Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulations have long been used in the aerospace and automotive industries to evaluate airflow around planes and cars, and increasingly in biomedical applications such as the modeling of blood flow through the
heart. CFD techniques also have the potential to be employed to describe the flow
of pollutants (be they a plume from an event such as an explosion or fire, or be they
the dispersion of some pollutant or agent) in the complex terrain that our urban
areas represent.
EPA scientists in the National Exposure Research Laboratory are working with
Argonne National Laboratorys Environmental Assessment Division and Fluent, Inc.
in a computational laboratory setting to test and use high fidelity CFD simulations
of the spread and transport of contamination in urban building environments. In addition, the EPA-Argonne collaboration will also explore the possibility of developing
or adapting the products from CFD simulations to support rapid exposure and risk
models to potentially guide urban emergency response and emergency management
for chemical, biological or radiological attacks or accidents.
As part of this investigation, EPA and Argonne scientists will use the Internet
to exchange databases, simulation results, and other types of data. Experiments will
be done using several forms of distributed computing on the Internet. One approach
to be explored is the use of Fluents Remote Simulation Facility, a Web-based portal that allows users to upload data from their computers to run a simulation on
Fluents computers. Another will be to use supercomputers at Argonne in clientserver mode, and a third approach will attempt to couple Fluents portal with supercomputers in NSFs TeraGrid project. All of these approaches are likely to be useful
for some types of work, and some may employ technology that has functionality
similar to peer-to-peer software.
Concluding Remarks
As a father and as a citizen I am very concerned about the availability of inappropriate material on the Internet. I would like to make several comments specifically
regarding H.R. 2885.
The proposed requirements for clear and prominent notice would, in my view, be
useful for software in general. Typical software end user license agreements are in-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

47
comprehensible to average people. We have standard labels on food products to help
consumers determine nutritional value, and dangers. A similar program for software
could be designed to cover the disclosure proposed in H.R. 2885 as well as disclosure
regarding privacy and security risks.
It is also very important to provide the user with clear and prominent notice regarding information sharing status and to require that file sharing be explicitly enabled at the users discretion, not without their knowledge. Indeed some of the peerto-peer software I have seen in recent months has already moved in this direction.
The proposed do-not-install beacon is an interesting idea, and I would encourage
the committee to engage leaders from the software industry in exploring this idea
and possible implementations.
I note that the H.R. 2885 definition for peer-to-peer software, as written, covers
nearly all Internet software that I am aware of, including Web software, instant
messaging software, and file transfer programs. In addition, the exclusion of software that is marketed and distributed primarily for the operation of networks implies that functionality built into computer operating systems (such as Windows or
MacOS) would be excluded from these requirements. In practice, this would place
a greater software engineering and support burden on small companies developing
Internet software than would be placed on large companies adding new functions
to operating systems software. This would put small software companies at a distinct disadvantage relative to their larger competitors.
In summary I would like to commend this committee for taking on this complex
set of issues. I would also respectfully encourage the committee to engage leaders
and experts from the software industry to work together toward achieving what I
believe to be a common goal of protecting our children, and our privacy, while continuing to encourage innovation in this country using the Internet. This will require
much more precision in the definition of the software to be regulated. Thank you
very much for the opportunity to speak with you.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you. Mr. Lafferty. Do you want me to take

Mr. Dunkel and come back to you? That would be fine.
Mr. Dunkel, welcome. Wed like your opening statement, if you
could.
STATEMENT OF NORBERT W. DUNKEL

Mr. DUNKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

subcommittee. Good morning. I am Norb Dunkel, Director of Housing and Residence Education at the University of Florida. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee in order
to provide you with information regarding the education of resident
students and providing stewardship to our technological resources.
Many of you likely lived in a residence hall while attending college or university. Todays residence halls possess many, many
more amenities and services than when I or you went to college.
The electric typewriter that I brought was a hit to the guys on the
floor. Well, now students are each bringing color TVs and stereo
DVD players and refrigerators and videogame systems and desktop
computers and laptop computers, along with their blackberry or
cell phone or their PDA or other devices.
Now there are approximately 2 million students living in residence halls on campuses in the United States. One of the greatest
additions to residence halls in the recent years is high speed ethernet connection. This high speed connection is used to support the
institutions mission by allowing students to access online classes,
replaying video classes, accessing class syllabi, signing up for classes online and the like. We are seeing connection speeds that only
6 or 8 years ago were the slow dial up modems to now 1,000 megabits which equals one gigabit connection.
As a comparison, with a dial modem it would take a person
about 29 hours to download a 2-hour movie. With a gigabit connec-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

48
tion, it takes about 6 seconds to download that same 2 hour movie.
Downloading music files are inconsequential at that speed. The
speed and efficiency is tremendous and will only get better and
faster.
As housing professionals, we have two duties regarding the data
connections we provide for residence students. First, we have a
duty to educate our residence students as to the acceptable use of
their computer and the network. Second, we have a duty to be good
stewards in maintaining the technological infrastructure that we
provide to students. Housing operations need to take an active role
in educating residence students. A colleague and I recently found
that 93 percent of institutions with high speed connections actively
or passively educate their students. Some institutions, such as the
University of Delaware, require students to take a responsible computing exam before they can obtain a network ID and password.
The exam covers copyright resources, computer security, spam and
harassing e-mail, bandwidth measurement and commercial and
charitable use. The University of Hawaii in Manoa has residents
sign for handbook accepting responsibility for reading and following
the rules contained within.
At the University of Florida, residents register their computer
online and electronically sign that they have read, understood and
will abide by the policies governing acceptable use. For many students, this is all they will ever need. They will accept the policies
and make no attempt to circumvent the policies. For other students, we need to be more active. To be good stewards of our technological infrastructure, my staff developed software to serve as a
new network management program. We had to develop this software because the network could no longer support the academic
needs due to high peer-to-peer volume. One tool available through
this program mitigates peer-to-peer file sharing, while continuing
to simultaneously educate students all while maintaining a network service free of illegal copyright sharing behaviors.
We wanted residents to understand that when they arrive on
campus, and move into a residence hall, a new level of personal behavior and responsibility on the use of their computers and Internet would be expected. Most freshmen students arrive on campus
having unabated access to the network. No knowledge of installing
virus protection and they would allow anyone to use their computer. The education taking place on campuses stresses that students need to take responsibility for their computer and the use of
their computer.
With me today is Mr. Rob Bird, the architect of the software program called ICARUS. I have sent you an advance, more detailed
information on this program and its features, as well as the very
successful outcomes. Rob is also available to answer your questions
surrounding the technology and I would be happy to respond to
your questions regarding the education. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Norbert W. Dunkel follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF NORBERT W. DUNKEL, DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND RESIDENCE EDUCATION AND ROB BIRD, COORDINATOR FOR NETWORK SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND RESIDENCE EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to provide you information regarding the education of resident students and a new ap-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

49
proach to mitigating Peer To Peer (P2P) file sharing. With me is Mr. Rob Bird the
architect of the software program ICARUS which is an acronym for Integrated Computer Application for Recognizing User Services.
Many of you likely lived in a residence hall while attending a college or university. Todays residence halls possess many more amenities and services than when
I attended Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. I came with a suitcase, box,
and electric typewriter. The other students could not believe I had an electric typewriter.
There are approximately 2 million students living in residence halls on campuses
in the United States. Today, students are moving into residence halls where suites
and apartment style living is becoming increasingly available. The amenities that
exist in residence facilities today include enhanced studying and recreational facilities; contemporary dining accommodations; and larger rooms with more storage to
name a few. However, one of the greatest additions to residence halls is high speed
Ethernet connection.
The primary purpose for providing Ethernet connection in residence halls is to
support the academic mission. Many institutions, including the University of Florida, utilize this high-speed residential connection for on-line classes; accessing online services (i.e., class registration, room sign-up, ordering class textbooks, etc.); replaying video classes; accessing class syllabi; and working on group projects.
We have seen connection speeds grow in six or eight years from slow dial up
modems to 10 MB to 100 MB to 1000 MB (1 Gigabit) speeds. As a comparison, with
a dial up modem it would take a person about 29 hours to download a two hour
movie. With a Gigabit connection, it takes about 6 seconds to download a two-hour
movie. The speed and efficiency of this technology is tremendous.
As housing professionals, we have two duties regarding the data connections we
provide to students. First, we have a duty to educate our resident students as to
the acceptable use of their computer and the network. Second, we have a duty to
be good stewards in maintaining the technological infrastructure that we provide
students.
EDUCATION

In educating the resident students, we see many of our housing operations across
the United States having integrated the academic community within the residential
setting. Institutions have residence halls with live-in faculty, smart classrooms,
faculty offices, space for tutoring, and space for academic advising. We see sciencebased (i.e., engineering, math, etc.); education-based (teaching, etc.); and fine artsbased (i.e., architecture, dance, theatre, etc.) residential academic communities.
These types of arrangements and others lead to increased grade point averages for
residents, increased graduation rates, increased respect for faculty, and increased
psychosocial development. The education of our students is no longer taking place
only in the classroom environment. The classroom environment is now in the residential setting.
Accompanying the residential academic environment is the need for housing operations to assist in the education of resident students on acceptable uses of the technology available to them. In an on-going study (J. Haynes and N.W. Dunkel, 2004),
we have found that of the institutions surveyed with high speed connections in residence halls, 92% actively or passively educate their residents on the acceptable use
of their computer and the Internet.
There exist a number of different approaches to this education. The information
that is shared with residents may be as simple as defining terms and providing answers to frequently asked questions. The information may provide a general overview of the various aspects of a network and computer usage. At the University of
Delaware, students must take a responsible computing exam before they can obtain
a network ID and password. The exam covers copyright resources, computer security, spam and harassing e-mail, bandwidth measurement, and commercial and
charitable use. At the University of Hawaii in Manoa, residents sign for the handbook accepting responsibility for reading and following the rules contained within.
At the University of Florida, residents register their computer on-line and electronically sign that they have read, understand, and will abide by the policies governing
acceptable use.
We know that for some students, reading the policies is all they will ever need.
They will accept the policies and make no attempt to circumvent the policies. For
other students, we need to be more active in our oversight and education.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

50
STEWARDS OF TECHNOLOGY

Housing professionals must be good stewards of the technological infrastructure

provided to students. The information that follows provides a summary of the ICARUS program developed by Mr. Rob Bird. ICARUS is a network management tool
and one of the tools available is the mitigation of P2P file sharing.
Introduction
The University of Florida Department of Housing and Residence Educations Mission Statement is to provide well-maintained, community-oriented facilities where
residents and staff are empowered to learn, innovate, and succeed. As staff worked
to develop a software program to mitigate P2P file sharing, discussion continued on
how to simultaneously educate resident students while maintaining a network service free of illegal copyright sharing behaviors. This was a daunting task as most
first-year students arrive to campus having practiced P2P file sharing at home during their high school years. According to students, during high school years very little education on illegal file sharing was provided and student behavior remained unchecked. University of Florida housing staff wanted resident students to understand
that when they arrive on campus, a new level of personal behavior and responsibility on the use of their computer would be expected.
ICARUS
ICARUS pulls information from commercial and open-source tools used to monitor the network and spots traffic patterns that look like P2P transfers. ICARUS
then tracks down the users IP address, flashes a pop-up warning and limits its access to the internal campus network. An e-mail alert is sent to the student, who
must agree to suspend use of the offending P2P desktop software to regain full
Internet access (p. 40, Network Computing). There is no debate about ICARUS
effectiveness. Before it was turned on, there were as many as 3,500 simultaneous
violators at any given time on the Gainesville campus, school officials say. On the
day the switch was flipped, 1,500 violators were caught. There were only 19 second
time violators and no third-time violators. Purged of the digital cholesterol of media
files, the network saw an 85% drop in uplink data volume (p. 42, Network Computing).
Department of Housing and Residence Education Network ArchitectureTechnical
The University of Florida Department of Housing and Residence Education computer network (DHNet) consists of Cisco Catalyst 4000/5000/6000-series switching
equipment, and supports standards-compliant TCP/IPv4-services for its residents.
The fully-meshed OC12 ATM LANE core network consolidates edge switches via
OC3 & OC12 connections. A campus-wide VTP domain is maintained, managed by
multiple central VMPS servers. Virtual LANs are deployed on a per-building basis
to provide proper segmentation and encompass multiple levels of access granularity
(Table 1). Specific services are subsequently provided by the UF DHNet and UF
HRE web sites, depending on the source of access.

Table 1
Requires
Registration?

Destination
Restrictions?

Routed?

Guest ...........

No

Yes

Yes

Yes, private IP addressing.

Restricted ....

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, private IP addressing.

Quarantine ...

Special

Yes

No

Yes, private IP addressing; DNS redirection; local web

services via 802.1q
trunks.

Access Level

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00054

TCP/IP
Services
Provided?

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

DHNet
web site
role

Notes

Network registration,
computer configuration support and
policy education.
Judicial policy violation
handling. Automatic
recognition of restricted user.
Distribution of tools,
patches and updates. Automatic
recognition of quarantined user.

93980.TXT

Allows access to HRE

registration & information sites only
Allows access to University resources
only
Allows access to local
network quarantine
resources

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

51
Table 1Continued
Access Level

Requires
Registration?

Destination
Restrictions?

Routed?

TCP/IP
Services
Provided?

DHNet
web site
role

Black Hole ...

Special

Yes

No

No ...............................

None, no local or routed access provided.

Normal .........

Yes

No

Yes

Yes, public IP addressing.

Terminated ..

No
Service

No
Service

No
Service

Network information,
user forums, security, network policy
and configuration
information.
No Service ...................

No Service ..................

Notes

Provided to leave systems actively connected for security

analysis
Typical user

Last resort

Development and Deployment of ICARUS

Beginning in December of 2002, the Department of Housing and Residence Education Network Services group initiated the development of a system to aid in the
enforcement of its computer security policy. The system that was created was known
as ICARUS, (Integrated Computer Application for Recognizing User Services).
ICARUS was designed to meet three primary design goals. First, to create a
framework that allows for the collection of information from a variety of disparate
sources so that the data can be evaluated and acted on in a unified fashion. Second,
to create a system that allows for the real-time identification, containment, and education of managed network users while striving to minimize the impact on their academic use. Third, to leverage the use of GPL and BSD-licensed software, where possible. To this end, ICARUS consists of three main modules: (a) a data collection and
parsing module intended to homologate information from SNMP, security tools, logging sources and non-traditional data sources such as debug output into a central
database; (b) a data mining and analysis module which references external databases, performs signature analysis and other pertinent tasks; and (c) an action module that allows for the execution of any Perl-scriptable action.
Initial development of ICARUS focused on three core tasks. First, it was necessary to build a system for identifying users and tracking hardware movement
within the network while allowing for the flexibility required of a residential system. The initial system comprised three levels of access and did not include a registration process for residents. While this system was adequate for private residence
port authorization in light of the UF HRE judicial responsibility policy, it did not
adequately support the use of public access ports, nor did it provide for a bulk way
to handle the containment of security outbreaks. This solution was also deemed inefficient due to its heavy reliance on SNMP. Later, this system was expanded to six
levels of access to address these additional operational requirements, and moved to
leverage VMPS for superior access management. User registration was also added
to more positively establish authorization without the use of network logon technologies, which are often cumbersome in always-on residential environments. Second, development was focused on containing P2P application use as an example of
ICARUS ability to detect and react to complex network management situations. By
combining data from a variety of tools, it became possible to take a multi-faceted
approach to application recognition. This approach allows ICARUS to react very
quickly to both changing applications and policy requirements by removing reliance
on a single applications ability to fully identify and contain unacceptable P2P use.
In essence, it establishes a framework which allows for the ready automation of
analysis and action that traditionally had to be performed with manual intervention. Third, development was focused on building Pearl actions for ICARUS to take,
namely those involving VMPS, Windows Messenger Service, SMTP (internet email),
and assorted SNMP actions. These actions were then customized to support the active network education plan created by HRE.
Education of Resident Students
The education of resident students takes place passively and actively. The passive
educational program includes four steps: (a) Staff distributes an acceptable network
use brochure during the check-in process. This brochure contains information on the
overview of the housing network; relays the fact that housing aggressively enforces
its ISP policies; briefs the student on servers, copyrights, and the DMCA; provides

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

52
information on the housing network monitoring and service restriction process; provides answers to frequently asked questions; and provides information on how student computer behavior is a part of the University of Florida Student Code of Conduct. (b) Staff places informational stickers by each housing data port. These informational stickers provide instructions to resident students on how to register on to
the housing network. (c) The paraprofessional residence hall staff are trained prior
to student check-in. These training sessions provide basic information so that staff
are able to answer many of the student questions regarding the housing network.
(d) The UF DHNet web site contains all the information regarding HRE Network
Services. Students can read the information prior to their arrival at the University
of Florida to understand what is expected and necessary when they register on to
the housing network.
The active educational program designed by HRE is powered by ICARUS and supported by the UF DHNet and HRE websites. When ICARUS detects user activity
deemed unacceptable by policy, an appropriate series of actions are performed. In
the case of a violation of the HRE P2P policy, for example, the user in question is
sent a notification pop-up message to their machine, a notification email to their official University email account, and all the computer systems owned by that resident are promptly restricted to campus-only network access (Table 2). This restriction is in effect regardless of where the resident physically goes within the HRE network, preventing abuse by those using public access ports. Simultaneously, an entry
is created in the DHNet violation system, HAMMER. A snapshot of the users activity, including all evidentiary data, is then added to the database, and correlated
with past violations (if any). Residents are required to then visit the DHNet website
in order to restore their access. When the resident visits the website with any of
their computers, the page automatically recognizes them, and presents the resident
with the list of violations. Instructions are provided for remedying each violation,
and then a violation-dependent policy presentation is provided. Student violators are
then presented with the terms of their restriction. It should be noted that the time
counter for restriction does not officially begin until they have signed the on-line
form with their University ID (access was still restricted before, however).

Table 2
Violation Level

1* ...................
2* ...................
3 .....................

Duration of Campus-Only Restriction

Additional Requirements for Restoration

0Immediate restoration following completion of educational

presentation.
5 days .............................................................................................
Indefinite .........................................................................................

None
None
Meeting with the HRE Coordinator of
Judicial Affairs

*Special Handling ExceptionAny resident with a prior DMCA complaint is automatically escalated to level 3 if the violation is sharing related in any way. Violators with new DMCA complaints are automatically level 3 for the purposes of ICARUS.

Residents who ignore the restriction and take no action automatically have their
network access terminated after 10 days.
Similar action scenarios exist for a variety of situations from virus/worm quarantining to the active notification about available operating system patches to the active control of malicious activity.
Outcomes of ICARUS Deployment
The impact of ICARUS deployment has been profound and immediate. Over the
course of the six week Summer A term (608 Resident Users) and six week Summer
B term (2435 Resident Users), 863 total P2P violations were detected and restricted
by ICARUS. What is most striking, however, is the recidivism rate at each violation
level for P2P use (Table 3).

Table 3
Violation Level

Number of Violations

Recidivism Rate vs.

Previous Level

Recidivism Rate vs.

Total User Base

769
90
4

.................................
11.5%
4.4%

25.3%
2.9%
0.13%

1 ....................................................................................
2 ....................................................................................
3 ....................................................................................

Additionally, ICARUS had a marked effect on overall internet bandwidth utilization. The HRE network experienced a drop in upload utilization of almost 83%. Per-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

53
haps more impressive was the 3% increase in download utilization versus previous
periods. Analysis demonstrated conclusively that the slight increase was due to people searching for, and finding, new legitimate sources of rich content. Furthermore,
there was a notable increase in the viewing of online streaming video content.
I am pleased to provide you with this information. Housing professionals do have
a responsibility to educate resident students on the acceptable use of their computers and the network. There exists numerous opportunities for students to use
technology with legitimate purposes. Educating students to these purposes is part
of our responsibility and stewardship.
References

Haynes, J., & Dunkel, N.W. (in process). P2P resident education in the United States.
Joachim, D. (2004, February 19). The enforcers. Network Computing, pp.40-54.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you and we obviously want to welcome Rob

here and if we have more technical questions on this software
works relative to the dorms and how you filter it out, well be doing
that.
Mr. Allen, Ill come to you next.
STATEMENT OF ERNIE ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 1982, the Supreme

Court of the United States said that child pornography was not
protected speech, it was child abuse. And as a result, child pornography largely disappeared. It disappeared from the shelves of adult
bookstores, the Customs Service crackdown on its importation, the
Postal Service focused on its distribution through the mails. With
the advent of the Internet, all of that has changed.
Since the advent of the Internet, we at the National Center have
been operating the congressionally mandated CyberTipline. We
have handled to date, 240,000 leads regarding child sexual exploitation; 215,000 of those leads have related to child pornography. In
fact, we are convinced that its explosion on the Internet has been
a direct result of the relative anonymity that a distributor or a
trader could have online. And in fact, thats why were so concerned
about the problem with child pornography via P2P. We have handled, as was mentioned earlier, about 2100 reports. Now as a share
of the 215,000, thats very low, but its clear to us from anecdotal
reports and discussions with law enforcement leaders around the
world, that thousands of individuals are currently trading child
pornography via peer-to-peer programs. And that these distributors
could be found in every State and worldwide.
Why? Peer-to-peer programs make it more difficult to identify the
users. In the past, we were able to easily identify offenders on the
web because their Internet protocol of IP addresses were visible
and they were required to reveal their e-mail addresses. Thats no
longer the case. When we receive P2P reports via our CyberTipline,
its almost impossible to identify the perpetrators responsible for
trading the files. And law enforcement faces numerous challenges.
Theres no central data base of files, nor an organized network.
There are no centrally held logs on these systems to record activity.
Most of the popular file sharing programs are free, so theres no
subscriber information available to subpoena to determine the
users true identity. Content and users change very rapidly. And
this often requires law enforcement officers to be online at the very
moment that the offense occurs.
As Keith Lourdeau from the FBI mentioned earlier, tracking
users trading illegal content on peer-to-peer is difficult, but not im-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

54
possible. Savvy computer users can use certain commands to attain
an IP address of a user sending a file. Also, proactive law enforcement agencies have begun to use secondary programs to identify
the IP address of the perpetrator sharing the illegal files. However,
these programs must be active at the exact moment of the file
transfer and depending on the particular peer-to-peer program, if
a user accidentally downloads an illegal file, there is no way for
that user to document where the file originated. Considering the
massive amounts of files being shared at any given moment, this
anonymity provides a cloak of security for those criminals trading
images of children being sexually abuse.
In our judgment, the extensive swapping of child pornography
images on peer-to-peer would be reduced if users knew that recipients of the images or movies could easily attain their IP address.
Mr. Chairman, we dont come here today with quick, easy solutions, but it is our conclusion that the use of peer-to-peer networks
for the distribution of child pornography is growing dramatically
and further, we suspect that it will continue to increase as child
pornographers search for lower risk avenues where the possibility
of being identified is far less.
Federal, State and local law enforcement are more aggressive on
this issue than ever before, but they face significant barriers. I
hope you can help us remove some of those barriers and help us
identify and prosecute those who are misusing the Internet and
misusing a very positive technology resource for criminal purpose.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ernie Allen follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERNIE ALLEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you
today and express the views of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) regarding the issue of Peer-to-Peer networks and the distribution of
child pornography.
Let me first provide the Committee with some general background on NCMEC
and why we are so concerned about this issue. NCMEC is a not-for-profit corporation, mandated by Congress and working in partnership with the U.S. Department
of Justice as the national resource center and clearinghouse on missing and exploited children. NCMEC is a true public-private partnership, funded in part by
Congress and in part by the private sector. NCMECs federal funding supports specific operational functions mandated by Congress, including a national 24-hour tollfree hotline; a photo distribution system to generate leads regarding missing children; a system of case management and technical assistance to law enforcement and
families in the search for and recovery of missing children; training programs for
federal, state and local law enforcement; and much more.
While we are perhaps best known for our work in the field of missing children,
NCMEC is also a leader in the battle against child sexual exploitation and has become the epicenter of the war against child pornography. How did we become such
a central figure in the child pornography battle?
The Child Porn Tipline was launched in June 1987 as a service for the U.S. Customs Service and subsequently for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. In partnership with the U.S. Customs Service and U.S.P.I.S., NCMEC has received
and processed 11,000 such leads.
In 1994, months before the nation or the news media viewed online victimization
as a problem, NCMEC first printed the brochure, Child Safety on the Information Highway, a publication discussing online child safety. Subsequently, a
number of children were lured away to meet adults theyd met online, and suddenly online victimization became front-page news. Because we were the only
child advocacy group at the time with solid tips on how to prevent online victimization, the news media and families turned to NCMEC for help.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

55
On January 31, 1997, in response to the increasing prevalence of child sexual victimization, NCMEC officially opened its Exploited Child Unit (ECU). The ECU
is responsible for receipt, processing, initial analysis and referral to law enforcement of information regarding the sexual exploitation of a child.
In 1997 the Director of the FBI and I testified before the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary. The committee
asked how serious was the problem of Internet-based child sexual exploitation.
Director Freeh and I agreed that it was a serious and growing problem that we
were just beginning to recognize and address, and that much more needed to
be done at the federal, state and local levels. As a result of that hearing, Congress directed NCMEC to establish an Internet-based, reporting mechanism for
child pornography, online enticement of children, child molestation, child prostitution and child sex tourism. Congress also directed the Justice Department
to establish multi-jurisdictional Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces
across the country.
On March 9, 1998 NCMEC launched its new CyberTipline, www.cybertipline.com,
the 911 for the Internet, to serve as the national online clearinghouse for investigative leads and tips regarding child sexual exploitation. NCMECs
CyberTipline is linked via server with the FBI, Homeland Securitys Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Postal Inspection Service.
Leads are received and reviewed by NCMECs analysts, who visit the reported
sites, examine and evaluate the content, use search tools to try to identify perpetrators, and provide all lead information to the appropriate law enforcement
agency and investigator. The FBI, ICE and Postal Inspection Service have real
time access to the leads, and all three agencies assign agents who work directly
out of NCMEC, and review reports. The U.S. Secret Service has assigned three
analysts who assist in the review and prioritization process. The results: to date
(through May 2, 2004), NCMEC has received and processed 237,147 leads,
215,599 of which were reports of child pornography, resulting in hundreds of
arrests and successful prosecutions.
In December 1999, Congress passed the Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act, mandating that Internet Service Providers report child pornography on
their sites to law enforcement, subject to substantial fines for failure to report.
Again, Congress asked NCMEC if it could handle the reports through its
CyberTipline. NCMEC agreed. While the reporting mechanism is being formalized, NCMEC has entered into agreements with 122 major ISPs, including industry leaders America Online and the Microsoft Network, who are already reporting child pornography on their sites voluntarily.
Currently, NCMEC receives and analyzes CyberTipline leads in seven categories,
the final category added as a result of passage of the PROTECT Act in 2003:
possession, manufacture, and distribution of child pornography;
online enticement of children for sexual acts;
child prostitution;
child-sex tourism;
child sexual molestation (not in the fam)ly);
unsolicited obscene material se.t to a child; and
misleading domain names
Today, NCMEC is receiving hundreds of reports and tips re#arding child pornography from across America and around the world each week, and it is pursuing
those leads agressively with the appropriate law enforcement agencies. We are
proud of the progress. Following the Supreme Courts 1982 Ferber v. New York decision holding that child pornography was not protected speech, child pornography
disappeared from the shelves of adult bookstores, the Customs Service launched an
aggressive effort to intercept it as it entered the country, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service cracked down on its distribution through the mails. However, child pornography did not disappear, it went underground.
That lasted until the advent of the Internet, when those for whom child pornography was a way of life suddenly had a vehicle for networking, trading and communicating with like-minded individuals with virtual anonymity and little concern
about apprehension. They could trade images with like-minded individuals, and in
some cases even abuse children live, while others watched via the Internet.
However, in recent years law enforcement began to catch up, and enforcement action came to the Internet. The FBI created its Innocent Images Task Force. The
Customs Service expanded its activities through its Cyber Crimes Center. The Postal Inspection Service continued and enhanced its strong attack on child pornography. The Congress has funded forty Internet Crimes Against Children Task
Forces at the state and local levels across the country. Child pornography prosecu-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

56
tions have increased an average of 10% per year in every year since 1995. We were
making enormous progress.
On the subject of todays hearing, the trading of child pornography via peer-topeer networks, NCMECs Cyber Tipline has received 2,100 reports. However, we are
convinced that is in no way descriptive of the real scope of the problem. Through
anecdotal reports and conversations with law enforcement officials across the country, it is clear to us that thousands of individuals are trading child pornography via
peer-to-peer programs, and that the people utilizing this method of distribution can
be found in every state and in countries around the world.
Peer-to-peer programs have made it more difficult to identify the users. In the
past we were able to easily identify offenders trading child pornography using peerto-peer programs because their Internet Protocol (IP) addresses were visible and
they were required to reveal their email addresses. This is no longer the case. When
we receive reports to the CyberTipline, it is almost impossible to identify the perpetrators responsible for trading the illegal files. The anonymity of recent peer-topeer technology has allowed individuals who exploit children to trade images and
movies featuring the sexual assault of children with very little fear of detection.
Law enforcement agencies face numerous challenges including:
There is no central database of files nor organized network
There are no centrally-held logs on these systems to record activity
Most of the popular file-sharing programs are free so there is no subscriber information available upon subpoena to determine the users true identity
These are dynamic systems where content and users change very rapidly. This
often requires law enforcement officers to be online at the very moment the offense occurs.
Individuals from all over the world use these peer-to-peer programs.
While tracking users trading illegal content on peer-to-peer has become increasingly difficult, it is not impossible. Savvy computer users can use certain commands
to attain an IP address of a user sending a file. Also, several proactive law enforcement agencies have begun to use secondary programs to identify the IP address of
the perpetrator sharing the illegal files.
However, these programs must be active at the exact moment of file transfer. Depending on the particular peer-to-peer program, if a user accidentally downloads an
illegal file, there is no way for that user to document where the file originated. Considering the massive amounts of files being shared at any given moment, this anonymity provides a cloak of security for those criminals trading images of children
being sexually abused.
It is quite likely that the extensive swapping of child pornography images on peerto-peer networks would be reduced if users knew that recipients of the images/movies could easily attain their IP address.
At NCMEC we have had some success when we learn about child pornography
trading via peer-to-peer networks. Let me cite two recent cases where there was a
successful resolution from peer-to-peer CyberTipline reports:
The CyberTipline received an anonymous complaint about a website in which one
could share media files using a peer-to-peer network. The reporting person indicated that images of child pornography were available on this site. NCMEC analysts found numerous images of child pornography and determined that one
of the suspects posting and distributing child pornography was using an IP address registered to the University of California. NCMEC analysts contacted
Campus Police. Because the images were found on the peer-to-peer network, detectives were initially unable to locate the images because the suspect was offline. As a result, analysts worked with a university detective and assisted in
locating the images.
Subsequently, university detectives, working with detectives from the Santa
Barbara Co. Sheriffs Department High-Tech Crime Unit, were able to verify the
existence and location of the operation. A 21-year old suspect was identified and
detectives executed a search warrant at his apartment located off campus and
seized his computer. A forensic search of the computer found numerous child
pornography images. The suspect confessed and the District Attorneys Office
filed felony charges of distributing child pornography.
NCMEC received a CyberTipline report indicating that a suspect was offering
child pornography through a peer-to-peer program. This reporting person was
highly skilled with computers and used commands to document the IP address
of the person trading the child pornography images. Using detailed information
provided by the reporting person, ECU analysts determined that this IP address
originated in Kansas.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

57
NCMEC contacted Kansas law enforcement officials and provided documentation of the suspected illegal files being traded. The police apprehended the suspect and charged him with 500 counts of possession/distribution of child pornographic material, sexual exploitation of a child, and indecent liberties with a
child. The suspect admitted to raping, sodomizing and sexually abusing his own
daughter.
It is unlikely this predator would have been arrested if a concerned citizen
hadnt known the steps to take when she accidentally received one of his images. It is troublesome to imagine the number of offenders who are not reported
because the average citizen does not know how to collect the necessary information. Peer-to-peer program developers could make great strides in protecting
children if they allowed the software programs to allow users to log the origination of files.
Mr. Chairman, I dont come before you today with a quick, easy solution to
this problem, but I can state unequivocally that the problem of illegal child pornography has exploded with the advent of the Internet and that the use of peerto-peer networks for the distribution of child pornography is growing dramatically. Further, we suspect that it will continue to increase as child pornographers search for lower risk avenues where the possibility of being identified
is far less.
Federal, state and local law enforcement are more aggressive than ever before, but they must overcome significant barriers. I hope that you can help us
remove some of those barriers and help us identify and prosecute those who are
misusing the Internet for insidious, criminal purposes. Too many child pornographers feel that they have found a sanctuary, a place where there is virtually
no risk of identification or apprehension.
In the area of peer-to-peer dissemination of child pornography, I fear that we
have only scratched the surface. Far more must be done. NCMEC is willing and
eager to play an even larger role in addressing this problem.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Thank you for all that you
do.
Ms. Nance, welcome.
STATEMENT OF PENNY YOUNG NANCE

Ms. NANCE. Thank you, gentleman and ladies, for convening this
hearing. Its very important. I appreciate it.
My name is Penny Nance, Im the President of the Kids First Coalition which is a nonprofit educational and advocacy group.
Mr. STEARNS. Penny, Im going to have you move it just a little
closer.
Ms. NANCE. That I founded with the idea of protecting children
and families. I sit before you not only a pro-family advocate, but
also a mother of two small children and also as a victim of attempted rape by someone who was deeply involved in pornography.
I also represent Concerned Women for America Today who has
over 500,000 members across the country and I have with me the
Salvation Army, American Association of Christian Schools, its a
broad group of pro-family people who really feel strongly about this
issue.
Most of you are probably unaware from May is Victim of Pornography month and I guess its sadly no more appropriate than we
discuss this issue at this time.
Today is the wild west of the Internet with an estimate by
Forbes Magazine of $1.5 billion in global sales per year. One must
understand exactly what defines hard core pornography and obscenity that are on these kind of sites. Its not Playboy. It encompasses depiction of bestiality, bondage, domination, gang rape,
urine and excrement, sexual murders, child sex and torture. Its
vile and its hurtful. It is not loving and sexy. And all of it is just

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

58
a click away from our kids. We as parents know instinctively that
simply viewing pornography of any kind can be damaging to children.
Illegal obscenity is overwhelming available on the internet and
a long with this vile image await large numbers of disturbed individuals, huge strides in this area.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Penny Nance follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF

PENNY YOUNG NANCE, PRESIDENT, KIDS FIRST COALITION

Hello, my name is Penny Nance and I am the President of Kids First Coalition,
which is a non-profit educational and advocacy group I founded with the goal of protecting children and advancing pro-family legislation. I sit before you not only as
a pro-family advocate but also a very concerned mother of two young children and
a victim of an attempted rape that was connected to pornography. I am sincerely
passionate about this issue. Most of you probably are unaware but May is Victims
of Pornography Month and a sadly appropriate time to discuss Internet safety.
Today is the wild west of the Internet with an estimate by Forbes of $1.5 billion
in global sales per year. One must understand what exactly defines hard-core pornography or obscene material on the Internet. Its not Playboy! It encompasses the
depiction of bestiality, bondage, domination, rape, gang rapes, urine and excrement,
sexual murders, child sex and torture. It is vile and hurtful, not sexy and loving.
And all of it is just one click away from our kids. We as parents know instinctively
that simply viewing pornography of any kind can be damaging to children.
The 1986 Meese Commission on Pornography, and countless law enforcement and
behavioral scientists say there is a direct link between pornography and sexual violence. My experience of attempted rape by a strange man deeply involved in pornography confirms this belief. A topic for another day is the undeniable connection between pornography and violence against women and children.
Today, I am here to represent the members of my organization, (mostly moms
who have downgraded professional careers to raise kids) as well as the countless
parents in this country who seek to protect their children from graphic sexual images on the Internet.
Although this hearing today is centered on peer-to-peer pornography, Kids First
Coalition is also concerned about all types of Internet pornography and the safety
of children. We have worked to combat this pervasive problem in a number of areas
including advocacy for Truth in Domain names, tighter laws on porn spam, a ban
of virtual child porn and better enforcement of current law.
Kids First Coalition has worked closely with the Bush administration and the Department of Justice to urge a reversal of the Clinton Administrations policy to ignore obscenity crimes on the internet. I am pleased to say that DoJ listened and
is currently actively prosecuting cases that four years ago would have gone unnoticed. We urge each of you to support the Presidents Budget which contains about
$33 million and about $13.8 million in new funds to specifically pay for law enforcement. The budget contains $14.5 million for the Internet Crimes Against Children
(ICAC) program, which helps state and local law enforcement agencies develop effective responses to Internet child enticement and child pornography cases. It also contains $3 million for the Innocent Images National Initiative, which will support existing Innocent Images undercover operations and investigations designed to ferret
out child predators.
Illegal obscenity is overwhelmingly available on the internet. And, along with
these vile images await large numbers of disturbed individuals seeking to prey on
our children. Predators lurk in chat rooms, instant messaging, websites and peer
to peer sites. Todays parents must be more vigilant in protecting the safety and innocence of their children then ever before in our history.
Most children are not looking for pornography, but far too often pornography is
looking for them. Pornography will come uninvited and unannounced into your
home and will prevail upon your unsuspecting children the moment you turn your
back even for a second. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 70 percent of online youth between the ages of 15-17 say they have stumbled across pornography
online, and of those exposed to such content, 49 percent were upset by the experience. The study also found that young people agree: [Stumbling upon pornography]
is upsetting to many young peopleespecially young girlsand most think it is a
serious problem.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

59
The most common ways kids stumble into porn is by innocent searches on computers without filter. Pornographers use misspelled search terms to lure young people into their sites. The pornography industry was way ahead of Joe Camel in working to addict customers at an early age.
Fortunately, most internet service providers are actively working to provide both
filters that shield kids from viewing explicit materials and closed systems that
would disallow kids to even enter parts of the internet. Protectkids.com is a great
resource for parents to educate themselves on safety resources. Unfortunately, most
estimates show that about half of all family computers lack any safety precautions.
And those parents that do utilize filters may still not be doing enough to protect
their kids. Peer to peer computer sites do not use a central server so normal filtering will not keep kids out.
They are a source of serious concern to American parents. Ive spoken to hundreds
of concerned parents around the country, and conducted over fifty radio interviews
on this subject, I have discovered that peer-to-peer networks are a place where
unsuspecting kids can access pornography far too easily.
As a way of background, peer-to-peer networks are programs that allow computer
users to share electronic files with one another, usually in the form of downloading
free music or images. KaZaA is the most popular site (with over 4 million users at
any one time) but other sites include Grokster, Morpheus, and Gnutella. While
many parents assume their children are downloading free, non-offensive music or
images on these networks, in actuality these children can be in direct contact with
child and adult pornography and sexual predators. A recent GAO study said that
kids searching with innocent keywords like Britney Spears or Pokemon would find
either graphic adult pornography or child pornography 56% of the time. (This report
is available on gao.gov, report number GAO-03-351).
The owners of peer to peer sites like to say that only a fraction of the child and
adult porn available on the Internet exist on their sites. This doesnt absolve them
of the problem nor does it take into account some factors that make peer to peer
sites in some ways more dangerous than the Internet overall. As one dad told me,
On Google you have to ask to see something. On Kazaa, you ask for Elmo and they
push porn at you . . .
1) According to a GAO study, normally Internet users must actually pay to view
pornography (using a credit card), but peer-to-peer sites are generally free.
2) since peer-to-peer files do not go through a center server, most child-protection
filters are ineffective and the filters on the peer-to peer sites are flimsy and can be
easily dismantled by computer-savvy kids, and
3) Most importantly, these sites are considered hip and popular places for kids
to go and are therefore more heavily visited by children. According to the GAO, 4
million people are on Kazaa alone at any one time and 40% of those are kids. Therefore about 1.6 million kids are on KaZaa at any one time and who knows about all
the other sites.
Pedophiles are not ignorant of this. What is more alarming is that instant messaging is also available on these networks, which gives easy access to child predators to communicate with unsuspecting children. Pedophiles can pose as kids in
order to begin a dialogue with children on-line.
Let me walk you through a scenario that will help you to understand what is happening in America numerous times every day. Jenny is a spunky ten-year-old who
is sitting in her moms bedroom, typing on her mothers lap-top computer with the
intention of downloading the latest song that her friends are singing in school. She
goes onto a peer to peer website and, in just a few seconds, several hits are received. She double-clicks on the first one, and in an instant, she downloads a virus
that automatically downloads child pornography onto her computer that saves it as
a permanent screensaver! This is a true story that was told to me by a caller on
a radio show.
Heres another true story. A very intelligent dad, who is a former judge with an
M. Div and a Juris Doctorate shared with me that his computer is down. I asked
him why and he sheepishly said his kids had been playing on a site called KaZaa
and a virus ate his hard drive. I thought he would faint when I informed him that
the site contains often mislabeled porn. He kept saying, I had no idea.
David Wilson, professor of criminology at the University of Central England in
Birmingham, said: Peer-to-peer facilitates the most extreme, aggressive and reprehensible types of behavior that the Internet will allow. (Tuesday November 4,
2003The Guardian)
I would like to close my testimony by stating, we know from volumes of research
that people who view child pornography often eventually act out their fantasies and
molest or rape children. We also know that pedophiles usually share graphic porn
with young children to break down their modesty and resistance.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

60
New technology is so valuable to us as a country, but with it comes new challenges and responsibilities. I always tell parents that they must be the first line of
defense and remain vigilant against all threats including dangers on the Internet.
The family computer should be kept in the family room where parents can intervene
if a problem occurs. Computers in homes, schools and libraries need to utilize filters
to block graphic images. Children should be kept from chat rooms and instant messaging without direct parental supervision.
The companies profiting from the technology must also share in the responsibility.
Just as the ISPs are working to tighten its content and shield kids so must the peer
to peer systems take responsibility. The FTC should use its authority to force companies to give parental warnings and to screen viewers of pornography by requiring
ID. We should also make illegal the free teasers that pornographers use to lure in
viewers without ID
Last July our country was sickened by an AP story on the indictment of twelve
Suffolk, NY residents on charges of child pornography. Apparently the pedophiles
had been using Kazaa, a peer to peer file sharing program, as a means to pass
around vile images of their own or someone elses rape of toddlers. Congress needs
to answer with passage of H.R. 2885, The Protecting Children from Peer to Peer
Pornography Act or P4 bill by Joe Pitts (R-PA). Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank you.

Mr. Lafferty, you think youre all set? Welcome you for your
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN C. LAFFERTY

Mr. LAFFERTY. The DCIA is a trade group founded last July to

commercially develop peer-to-peer file sharing for legitimate purposes. Our charter calls for balanced membership among content
providers, software suppliers and platform companies. We currently have 15 members and are actively expanding.
The internet is of great value as a productivity tool, enabling low
cost conductivity, fast data transfers and a highly efficient marketplace. But it is neutral as whether such commerce may be legal or
not.
Peer-to-peer file sharing, one of the internets newest advances,
replaces costly and relatively slow centralized servers with client
software search engines that access other PCs for both discovery
and delivery of content. The entertainment industries have generally failed to stay current with technology. And in the absence of
authorized mainstream content, the internet so far as attracted a
disproportionate amount of pornography. Dissemination of criminally obscene content, as well as legal adult material is facilitated
by internet browsers, search engines, e-mail, instant messaging,
websites, peer-to-peer software, chat rooms and news groups used
regularly by tens of millions of U.S. citizens.
And with an increasingly decentralized internet, users themselves are frequently the sources of content and distribution. Porn
websites have increased by 17 times since the year 2000, from
88,000 to 1,600,000 today. Thirty-four million Americans visit them
monthly. But reports of peer-to-peer child pornography are down.
From 2 percent in 2002 to 1.4 percent in 2003 with the vast majority of the remaining 98 percent coming from websites and chat
rooms. And unlike websites, there is no commercial child pornography on peer-to-peer.
To demonstrate, leading file sharing software suppliers provide
tools enabling parents to protect their children to exposure to undesirable content. Users can choose options to block adult content
which is a default setting, add more key words to be blocked, pre-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

61
vent all video and images from being downloaded and password
protect their filter settings.
Use of these tools and monitoring of use by parents must remain
the primary means protecting children. The peer-to-peer family filters set at the maximum levels, no files retrieved on searches for
terms like Britney, Pokeyman or Olson Twins will contain pornography or child pornography. by contrast, MSN will return nearly
9,000 Olson Twins porn results; Google, some 820,000 Pokeyman
porn results; and Yahoo, 1,260,000 for Britney porn.
Peer-to-peer companies have also worked proactively with law
enforcement to prosecute criminals, abusers of their technology and
on deterrence and education to further combat child pornography.
Companies distributing file sharing software have responded to
other issues identified by Congress with steady improvements. Examples include the integration of powerful anti-virus software and
the implementation of default settings to prevent inadvertent sharing of private data.
The DCIA is now working with the FTC and others to address
spyware. Leading peer-to-peer companies certify that their programs are spyware free. They offer consumers a choice of paid or
ad supported versions. Their targeted ads collect no personally
identifiable information and up to 40 times more efficient than traditional online ads.
But the real obstacle to realizing the potential of file sharing is
the refusal of major labels and movie studios to license their content for legitimate paid distribution by peer-to-peer and it is this
which deserves to be examined by Congress. At 50 million licensed
files per month, DCIA members alone are now the webs largest
legal distributors of copyrighted music, movies and games. This is
accomplished through agreements with small, independent suppliers while the majors continue their boycott.
The entertainment industries lobby Congress with claims that
file sharing is perilous to children. At the same time, these entities
intentionally bombard them with shameful material. But it cannot
be supposed that major labels have taken on partner and substance
abuse, child abandonment, robbery, date rape or homicide as social
missions. The entertainment industries campaign to destroy peerto-peer companies and to strangle file sharing technology is based
on the assertion that they are suffering great economic harm
through copyright infringement by individuals and that is simply
not true.
Their emphasis on peer to peer pornography is unreflective of the
much larger amount transmitted by e-mail and instant messaging,
not to mention far greater risk of obscenity on websites and predatory dangerous in chat rooms and it is so dismissive of peer-to-peer
suppliers efforts to work with law enforcement and provide parental controls that takes on the character of a red herring.
Both copyright infringement and exposure of children to pornography are real problems and we condemn them, but how much
more beneficial for all parties it would be if Congress adopted an
alternative such as rights holders who wish to monetize digital distribution of their copyrighted works, must provide nondiscriminatory terms and conditions for all media.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

62
Once the carrot of licensed content distribution can be offered,
then the stick of enforcement focused where it should be on creators and disseminators of illegal material to be revisited.
Thank you. Ill be glad to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Martin C. Lafferty follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT

OF MARTIN
INDUSTRY

C. LAFFERTY, CEO, DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING

ASSOCIATION (DCIA)

Chairman Stearns and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. The Distributed Computing Industry Association
(DCIA) is a trade organization, established in July 2003, for the purpose of commercially developing peer-to-peer file sharing and more advanced distributed computing
applications for legitimate purposes. Our charter calls for representative membership among content providers, software suppliers, and platform companies. We currently have fifteen (15) members (listed alphabetically with links to their websites
on the Join page at www.dcia.info) and are actively recruiting to expand our balanced and solutions-focused membership.
(1) The Internet is of immense value to society, particularly through its evolving
and increasingly varied and decentralized usage as a tool for productivity, enabling
exponentially faster and lower-cost means for connecting individuals globally, facilitating the exchange of all types of data, and creating a radically more efficient marketplace for commercial transactions. As with prior great communications inventions, Internet technology is neutralfacilitating communication without regard to
whether content, or a transaction itself, may be deemed legal or illegal. Peer-to-peer
file sharing, one of the newest advances of the Internet, is accomplished by client
software search engines, returning queries from file directories, replacing costly and
relatively slow centralized servers for both discovery and delivery of content, with
an infinitely scalable number of participating PCs.
(2) Some content rights holders in the entertainment industries have failed to stay
current with technology advancements, and not taken reasonable precautions to protect their products from unauthorized copying and online redistribution. They have
confused the public by selectively enforcing their rights, and have boycotted prospective and willing new distributors rather than licensing them. In the absence of their
broadly authorizing mainstream content online and labeling it to protect users from
inadvertent exposure to inappropriate material, as in offline media, the Internet
overall has attracted a disproportionate amount of pornographic content, and adequate safeguards to consumers are for the most part not yet being provided.
(3) Many computer users believe that the content they encounter on the Internet
has been licensed and authorized as in other media that they routinely use such
as television, radio, online subscription services, and various recording and playback
devices. In Congressional hearings, computer users who have been sued by the
record industry for alleged copyright infringement associated with online music redistribution, for example, have testified that they felt abused, prompting at least
one US parent to sue the RIAA under RICO laws. Pornography on the Internet was
initially limited by low bandwidth and limited sources. Those restrictions disappeared as modem speeds increased, broadband services proliferated, and pornography websites and chat-rooms multiplied. It has been challenging for Congress to
balance consumer protection from undesired exposure with First Amendment rights
issues. Credit-card routines intended to keep under-age users from accessing commercial pornography, for instance, have unfortunately proven easy to circumvent.
(4) More broadly, the dissemination of pornography, ranging from legal adult material to criminally obscene content, including the most pernicious category of child
pornography, is facilitated online by such increasingly sophisticated electronic
means as Internet browsers, search engines, e-mail, instant messaging, websites,
peer-to-peer software, chat-rooms, and news groups, which technologies are now
used regularly by tens of millions of US citizens.
(5) Such trafficking in pornography creates new challenges for content rights holders, computer manufacturers, software developers, and Internet service providers, to
help protect minors from inadvertent exposure to such material online, and to educate the public, deter potential abusers, and enforce laws against dissemination of
illegal material.
(6) In light of these considerations, responsible content providers and legitimate
technology companies have an increasing opportunity to collaborate to protect consumers from inadvertent exposure to undesirable and illegal content, through appropriate and applicable technical solutions, business practices, and educational programs. All stakeholders should be encouraged to explore such measures in good

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

63
faith as well as adopting business models for legitimate content to be digitally distributed.
(7) With the increasingly decentralized topology of the Internet, users themselves,
including consumers of pornography, now serve frequently as the sources of content
being entered into distribution, as well as being the recipients of it. Therefore, unfortunately, it is not remarkable that pornography is being distributed through
many online technologies. As this activity has grown, it has become more difficult
to obtain accurate data as to exact quantities and the precise nature of such content. Nevertheless, the following studies and reports demonstrate salient facts regarding such pornography on the Internet:
(A) April 2004 reports from Websense, Nilesen/NetRatings, BigChampagne,
and WebSpins indicate that pornography websites have increased seventeenfold (17X) from eighty-eight thousand (88,000) in 2000 to nearly one-million sixhundred thousand (1,600,000) today; thirty-four million (34,000,000) people or
about one-in-four US Internet users visit them monthly, and thirty-seven percent (37%) have visited a porn-site at work; approximately four and one-half
percent (4.5%) of downloaded peer-to-peer content is pornographic images, while
approximately nineteen and three-tenths of a percent (19.3%) is pornographic
videos.
(B) A November 2003 supplemental report from the General Accounting Office (GAO) to the Senate Judiciary Committee stated that the risks of inadvertent exposure to pornographic content using peer-to-peer file-sharing software are no greater than those posed by other uses of the Internet (such as
browsers, e-mail applications, instant messaging, websites, chat-rooms, news
groups, or commercial search engines). Some 840 instances of reported child
pornography were attributed to peer-to-peer software usage out of a 62,000
yearly total. 45,035 were on the Web, 12,043 were by e-mail, and 1,128 were
on Usenet bulletin boards.
(C) According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(NCMEC), reported child pornography on peer-to-peer was down from 2% in
2002 to 1.4% in 2003, with the vast majority of the remaining 98%+ coming
from websites and chat-rooms.
(D) Further, as confirmed by DCIA member reports, unlike websites, there is
no commercial child pornography distributed by means of peer-to-peer applications.
(8) Thus, while the use of file sharing software for the distribution of pornography
is regrettable, it is less of a problem than activity in many other online environments. Finally, the leading file-sharing software suppliers provide tools enabling
parents to protect their children from exposure to undesirable content. Users can
choose options to block adult content, which is the default setting, add more keywords to be blocked, prevent all video and images from being downloaded, and password-protect their filter settings. While parental controls designed for search engines and other Internet applications, or distributed as stand-alone programs, may
not automatically work with peer-to-peer software applications, the customized filtering solutions that have been incorporated in the leading file-sharing software programs are unexcelled in the levels of protection they provide and are setting the
standard. Use of these tools and monitoring of use by parents and custodians must
remain the primary protection of children from inappropriate Internet content.
(9) Beyond the provision of parental control tools, leading peer-to-peer software
companies have also worked cooperatively and proactively with law enforcement
agencies on programs to facilitate prosecution of abusers of their technology, who
attempt to distribute criminally obscene content. It should soon become apparent to
distributors of such material that sharing it via peer-to-peer public folders is the
best way to expose themselves to identification and prosecution. Leading peer-topeer software companies are also working voluntarily on deterrence and education
programs to further combat child pornography before enforcement actions are necessary. The DCIA, for example, is focusing its resources on a collaborative program
to enable peer-to-peer users to recognize, report, and remove criminally obscene content from their computers.
(10) While no amount of child pornography can be tolerated, the charge made by
entertainment interests that peer-to-peer software exposes even children conducting
unfiltered searches to a greater amount of pornography than those using an
unfiltered Internet search engine is unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, in contradiction to these disingenuous allegations, using family filters included with leading peer-to-peer software applications set at the maximum level, in direct refutation
of specific entertainment industry allegations, no files retrieved on searches for popular terms like Britney, Pokemon, and Olsen Twins, will contain pornography,
child pornography, or child erotica. By contrast, searching on these same terms

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

64
using unfiltered search engines will yield many thousands of pornographic and
criminally obscene results.
(11) Entertainment industry comparisons of relative growth of pornographic files
are also misleading. Their cited peer-to-peer figures typically correspond to the period of greatest growth in the consumer adoption of peer-to-peer software and actually represent a more than fifty percent (50%) reduction in the complaint-to-user
ratio. By contrast, websites, chat-rooms, news groups and bulletin boards, already
well established and relatively mature, represented more than ninety-seven percent
(97%) of reported incidents in this period. The record demonstrates that these issues
have been and are being addressed, despite the greater challenges posed by a decentralized, user-generated file-sharing environment, resulting in a user experience
comparable to, if not better than, that of surfing the Internet generally. While this
concludes comments on the specific subject of this hearing, the following addresses
other issues raised by the Subcommittee.
(12) The innovative companies developing and distributing publicly accessible filesharing software have also responded to other issues identified by Congress and
through self-regulatory processes by making steady improvements. Additional relevant examples of their commendable track record include the integration of strong
anti-virus software with peer-to-peer file sharing applications, and the implementation of default settings and procedures to prevent inadvertent sharing of private or
confidential data. Users can flexibly select the frequency of updating virus definitions; leading peer-to-peer companies promptly alert users of known attacks; and
protected users help shield other users of file-sharing applications. With respect to
safeguarding private information, current leading peer-to-peer software requires
users to take multiple affirmative steps in order to share files that may include personal data. Peer-to-peer software suppliers have affirmed their commitment to further reduce risks and enhance both the safety and value of the user experience on
behalf of their consumers and the public at large.
(13) The DCIA is currently addressing spyware/adware, in part by working with
two DCIA member companies in the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) led
Consumer Software Working Group (CSWG) since its inception. The DCIA also testified at the Federal Trade Commissions workshop in April 2004. At this event, it
was made a matter of public record that leading peer-to-peer file-sharing suppliers,
in addition to integrating powerful anti-virus software, now also certify that their
programs are spyware-free. In addition, these suppliers offer consumers a choice of
paid or ad-supported versions of their programs, with no pop-up ads appearing in
the paid versions. Targeted advertising in the ad-supported versions collects no personally identifiable information, provides clear attribution as to its source, and is
up to 40 times more efficient than traditional online advertising, meaning far fewer
intrusions for users. Notifications are provided to consumers pre-installation, at
download, and during operation; and the uninstallation of peer-to-peer programs,
along with any associated advertising software, follows the same standard add/remove procedure as other legitimate applications. The DCIA readily acknowledges
that more needs to be done to achieve its goal of establishing best practices in this
area, and welcomes the opportunity to also coordinate with Congress on this issue.
(14) As noted earlier, however, the real obstacle to realization of the full potential
of peer-to-peer technology is the refusal of key content owners to license their content for legitimate, paid distribution via peer-to-peer file sharing. In this regard, the
DCIA commends the Subcommittee for scheduling a hearing on HR 107 The Digital
Media Consumers Rights Act on May 12, 2004, in contrast to the Judiciary IP Subcommittees introduction and reporting in a single day, with no hearing, of HR 4077,
a measure that could criminalize millions of young Americans, given its vague negligence standards, for merely storing digital music on a networked device. The entertainment industries strategy is to combine their refusal to license content with
their aggressive attempt to demonize peer-to-peer technology, in an attempt to crush
what they erroneously view as a threat to their interests. This is the same timedishonored strategy they tried in the futile fight against photocopiers, video recorders, and many other innovations that have brought great benefits both to consumers
and to the companies that at first opposed them. And it is this which deserves to
be the subject of Congressional investigation.
(15) DCIA members alone represent, with an average of 50 million licensed files
now distributed monthly, the largest form of distribution of legally traded copyrighted music, movies, software, and video games on the Internet. This is accomplished primarily through agreements with small independent content suppliers,
while the major studios and music labels continue their boycott of peer-to-peer. Nevertheless, licensed content distribution continues steadily to increase via peer-topeer software programs. The challenges presented by digital content are indeed
multifaceted, and no single response is sufficient. But among the different solutions

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

65
that have been tried by the major music and movie rights holders, the most glaring
omission is the most obvious oneproviding consumers with legitimate choices in
each digital medium, including peer-to-peer.
(16) However, the continuing failure of the major labels and movie studios to license the peer-to-peer distribution channel exposes these users to potential lawsuits
from the record industry for copyright infringement. This is the only unique threat
that users of these applications face, and Congress should urge major labels and
movie studios to swiftly license their content for all digital media, including peerto-peer, in furtherance of the public interest.
(17) The full potential of peer-to-peer technology to benefit consumers has yet to
be realized, and will not be achieved until content rights holders license their copyrighted works on a non-discriminatory basis for legitimate distribution by means of
file-sharing applications. The ongoing boycott by major music labels and movie studios poses an increasingly serious threat, causing substantial damage to consumers,
who are being harassed and threatened unnecessarily with lawsuits; to their shareholders, to whom they are denying a promising new revenue stream; and to content
creators, particularly the independent labels and filmmakers seeking to monetize
their copyrighted works using peer-to-peer distribution channels. The widespread
availability of unprotected content from the majors severely disadvantages the independents from competing to sell their products using this most advanced and costeffective distribution method.
(18) The companies that develop and distribute peer-to-peer file-sharing software
have made energetic efforts to license content from the major labels and movies studios, but have been consistently rebuffed, in what may constitute a collusive refusal
to deal. Related to this, a technical amendment to HR 1417, providing a blanket
anti-trust exemption for music in all digital media, was passed without hearing, resulting in a thousand-fold windfall benefit to record labels.
(19) The current legitimate digital music marketplace is inadequate to properly
serve consumers. Pricing at now licensed online music stores, for example, is maintained at artificially high levels so as not to compete with offline CD sales through
an entrenched distribution infrastructure. Online store technology represents an
older generation, less efficient centralized architecture. The quantity and quality of
digital files made available for online sale are kept low so as not to be competitive
with CD sales. Comparatively few users access these stores and fewer purchase files
from them. The legitimate digital music marketplace needs to be expanded to encompass current and future technologies, including not only the latest Internetbased application, peer-to-peer file sharing, but also future technologies, with the requirement that music rights holders, and copyright holders generally, who wish to
monetize their content in the digital realm, license it on non-discriminatory terms
for all digital media.
(20) Returning to the subject of this hearing, the entertainment industries are lobbying Congress with claims that file sharing is perilous to children and that peerto-peer companies, though they have no control over user actions, should be responsible for the content of files some users independently share. At the same time,
these entities intentionally and continuously bombard impressionable children and
youth with shameful material. Major labels peddle hate-filled and reprehensible
lyrics condoning, even promoting, criminal conduct, from drug trafficking and matricide to rape and theft. By their actions, these companies demonstrate they are motivated by a determination to protect their revenues and not by any tenderness for
the young. Their conduct goes beyond unclean hands to a pernicious business model
that should be reviewed by Congress as part of its media indecency initiative. Can
it be that to incentivize the creation of a wide range of responsible entertainment
we must at the same time make wealthy those bloodless cynics who shamelessly
trade childrens innocence for money and who undermine values such as faithfulness, work, sacrifice, selflessness, tolerance and self-discipline? Is this what the
framers of the Constitution had in mind when they authorized the creation of copyright laws?
(21) There can be no doubt that the ultimate motivation for such works is money.
It cannot be supposed that any artist or corporate official has taken on partner
abuse, child abandonment, robbery, date-rape, homicide, or revenge as social missions that they would pursue absent the lure of dollars. Yes, such expressions are
protected under the First Amendment, but where is the policy that says we must
also facilitate the enrichment of their creators and promoters by imposing draconian
measures on the citizenry? While this last line of argument takes us beyond the parameters of this hearing, the astonishing hypocrisy of the entertainment industries
in this regard had to be pointed out.
(22) A primary reason the DCIA has felt compelled to comment at such length
is that the entertainment industries ongoing campaign to destroy the peer-to-peer

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

66
software companies and to strangle file-sharing technology has gone largely unanswered. It is based upon the unproven assertion that labels and studios are suffering great economic damage through the copyright infringement of individual
users. The DCIAs mission is to develop and promote the legitimate uses of P2P
functionality, and to help foster business models that make partners, rather than
litigants, of content owners, technology companies, Internet service providers, peerto-peer software companies, and consumers.
(23) The entertainment industries continuing emphasis on peer-to-peer pornography is unreflective of the much greater relative presence of pornography on the
Web, and of the much greater ease of transmitting pornography via e-mail and instant messaging attachments, not to mention the far greater risks of criminally obscene content available on websites, and of predatory dangers in chat-rooms. And
it is so dismissive of peer-to-peer providers efforts to work with law enforcement
and to incorporate parental control software into their products that it starts to take
on the character of a red herring. The inaccurate pornography charge too, is one
of the pillars of the entertainment companies platform for destroying the nascent
distributed computing industry, oblivious to the damage wrought by their own intentional and shameful role.
(24) Both copyright infringement and exposure of children to pornography are real
problems, and we condemn them. However, we also encourage Congress to consider
the possibility that the entertainment industries ceaseless chant of piracy, and their
unbalanced and diversionary claim of pornography, are not such issues as demand
an inexorable tightening of the legislative screws on millions of Americans, young
and old, by an angry Congress on behalf of unworthy supplicants. Instead, we commend to you the idea that these campaigns, on which so much money and so many
words have been spent, are excuses that serve the purpose of shielding poor management from investor scrutiny, and of substituting for a lack of strategic business
vision and for a lack of artistic creativity, and for an inability to learn from the lessons of the past regarding the development of earlier media distribution technologies.
(25) How much more beneficial and constructive it would be for the United States
and all of its citizens, and for the entertainment companies themselves and their
shareholders, if as the next step in development of the new and rapidly changing
decentralized digital distribution marketplace, Congress were to adopt an alternative along these lines: To be effective on the date of initial publishing of a copyrighted work, any rights holder who wishes to monetize the digital redistribution of
such work on the Internet and otherwise, shall be required to provide in advance
terms and conditions on a non-discriminatory wholesale basis to all distributors, including software suppliers and individuals, who may wish to engage in such redistribution. Once the law has been modified in such a way to ensure that the carrot
of legitimate licensed content redistribution can be supported given the realities of
technical advancements now affecting the topology of the Internet itself, then the
stick of enforcement could reasonably be revisited, with more appropriate requirements for commercial parties who may then be expected to bear increased responsibilities for protecting the new forms of commerce so enabled. These would logically
include appropriate labeling and warnings for adult content, actions to combat
criminally obscene content, and other measures to fully legitimize online entertainment distribution.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. We would be pleased to
answer your questions and arrange a peer-to-peer technology demonstration at your
convenience.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank you. Well, I think we have a classic debate

here between the P2P, peer-to-peer here saying that its a neutral
technology and has great worth and were not sure that some of the
solutions perhaps that have been offered in the Pitts Bill are practical, isnt that what youre saying, Mr. Lafferty? Youre saying that
the Pitts Bill is not something that you support?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Well, weve worked with
Mr. STEARNS. Yes or no, would you support the passage of his
bill?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Wed like to work with them on it more so. In its
current form, we cant support it.
Mr. STEARNS. You could not support it in its current form.
Mr. LAFFERTY. Id like to explain.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

67
Mr. STEARNS. Let me ask you this, though, you can put filters
on it, but can the filters actually look into the content of a file? I
mean I can put the filters on all day long, but if Imif the server,
the IP ishe can put a name and that name comes in and then
bingo, youve got pornography, child pornography. So the filters
really dont work in the sense that they cant detect whats actually
the image or the graphics or whats inside. Isnt that true that the
content cant be detected through a filter?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Correct. These are key word filters. The parents
can add their own key words as they discover content thats problematic to block out both the title of the file and the metadata that
goes to describe the file. So the best solution right now is for parents of young children to use the block all video and images mode
where everything is blocked.
Mr. STEARNS. So all images would have to be blocked to make
the filter work right.
Mr. LAFFERTY. Which it does have.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Dunkel, you at the University of Florida now
had this peer-to-peer in all the dorms. The University of Florida
has 46,000 students and you can imagine before you got involved
with the program you had all this pornography and movies and everything going and you found it so disruptive, as you told me, that
it slowed down the whole system because everybody was
downloading all the time. So you put in your software and I guess
the obvious question would be would the software that you use be
effective for the family? Maybe you can talk about that you and
your associate on how that would work for a family and should this
be a software program that they can buy and how would it actually
prevent the content and give a filterhow did you do it so that you
just blocked all video, is that the way you did it?
Mr. BIRD. What we chose to do was we chose to prohibit the
mass distribution of content from individual machines. We felt that
that was an appropriate use.
Mr. STEARNS. What does that mean, the mass distribution of content?
Mr. BIRD. Well, many years ago, in fact, about seven years ago,
we created policy that said were not going to allow servers to run
in our residence halls and that essentially means is at that time
we were facing a problem of commercial abuse of our resources in
the residence halls. So as an extension of that, we noticed that
there was rampant abuse of these peer-to-peer applications for one
persons ability to distribute content to millions of other folks. And
what we found is that the connections are so significantly faster
than your average home broadband user that actually residential
users on college campuses have tremendous opportunity to distribute in a way that even your best home user cannot.
What we chose to do was we chose to stop the distribution of essentially all files by those mechanisms, so we stopped websites, we
stopped peer-to-peer applications, we stopped a large number of
things and redirected the residents to appropriate resources for
their needs.
Mr. STEARNS. So you just put up a wall?
Mr. BIRD. We basically put up a wall, but that wall is very difficult to maintain without an application like this.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

68
Mr. STEARNS. And I dont know if that would be a practical application. I guess it could be for a family if young children, but that
wall also prevents peer-to-peer for music if a student wanted to
download music or a video, for legitimate concerns.
Mr. BIRD. Correct. The one thing that we found is that the wall
that we have in place at the University of Florida is not specific
to ICARUS, so the application itself can be used in a variety of different ways. Its not specifically a block all or nothing sort of scenario. It could easily be customized for home use and in fact, the
version that were working on presently does just that.
Mr. STEARNS. That seems to me the key that if you had a software thats not either or that it could still have the nuance to allow
legitimate
Mr. BIRD. Correct.
Mr. STEARNS. I guess the real key would be to be able to actually
survey the content. You could have a filter that says okay, based
upon name, but once a name came up and allowed it in, it actually
looked at the content. Now I dont know how you technologically,
thats not available yet where you can actually survey the content
of these downloaded programs.
Mr. BIRD. It would be possible to build a variety of databases
that might cover certain file formats, for example, thats been done
in the copyrighted music industry. Certain commercial companies
have built databases that will detect the transmission of copyrighted materials explicitly, but it essentially is impossible to monitor and block explicitly on content because content can be compressed, it can be encrypted and theres no way to actually analyze
that.
Mr. STEARNS. Well, my time has expired, but I would say to Mr.
Allen, I guess a hopeful sign would be if the University of Florida
can detect and prevent peer-to-peer in a negative way, and ISPs
are required by law to report any child pornography on its sites,
perhaps two of these processes could come together to help you,
wouldnt you think?
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be enormously helpful and let me thank you and the Members of the Committee. The
fact that Congress mandated in 1999 in the Protection of Children
From Sexual Predators Act that ISPs have to report child pornography on their sites to law enforcement. Through our CyberTipline
at the National Center has produced hundreds of prosecutions and
arrests and is generating thousands of leads. So I think the combination of technology and were very much in support of filters
and other technologies. Ms. Nance pointed out most parents still
dont use them. But I think its a great tool. Its just not a panacea.
Enforcement has to be a key element to the equation.
Mr. STEARNS. Thank you. My time has expired. Ranking Member?
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lafferty, a few
moments ago you noted that you couldnt support the Pitts Bill in
its current form and I wondered if you just take a minute to explain what legislation you could or what changes you feel need to
be made.
Mr. LAFFERTY. We welcome the opportunity to work with Congressman Pitts staff on those issues. A couple of points, one is that

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

69
that bill seemed to say in its subtitle, it singled out peer-to-peer,
the subtitle was to ban peer-to-peer. So of course, thats a problem
for us.
When we talked about the real intent of the bill which is to protect children, given that theres so much more of child pornography
and obscene content on websites and chat rooms, we felt strongly
that that bill should be broadened to cover other instances of child
pornography and criminally obscene content on other parts of the
internet. And theres some technical questions about the notion of
a beacon which the bill contains. So we think the way to go is to
continue on the path of developing more and more powerful family
filters as weve been discussing this morning and apply it to the
internet as a whole. And we would welcome the chance to work
more on a bill to protect children from pornography on the internet.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You also had a different interpretation of what
was available on the internet. And that the Google searches that
you were talking about produced a good deal of pornography. Was
the filter in place when you did that? How come theres such a discrepancy between what Ms. Nance found and what you found, Mr.
Lafferty?
Mr. LAFFERTY. The commercial search engines generally dont
provide a filter, so its a third party filter like the NetNanny that
could be added as separate software, where as the P2Ps actually
integrate a family filter into their software that downloads it into
default position. I didnt do that search. I cant comment. We did
the one that we did and we compared using the family filter integrated with Kazaa with just a straight search on Google, Yahoo
and MSN and those were the results.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Ms. Nance, you said that a filter was in place
when you did the Cinderella search.
Ms. NANCE. It was in place and it was the adult filter that Kazaa
provides, but I want to say even if parents were able to think of
all the possible search terms that some person could possibly some
twisted person could come up with to try to snare in kids, if I could
think of all of those and I could passport it and I could put it on
there, the only thing that happens is that the kid put in the password is a popup dialogue box that says would you like to disable
the filter and its a yes or no. Or, if youve got a savvy, curious 13year-old that gets on there and it popups and says or he cant get
into what he wants, all he has to do is redownload Kazaa or one
of these sites and in two minutes hes back in business without any
kind of filter at all.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Catlett, you were suggesting all these
really wonderful uses of the P2P network. What would happen to
those if, as written, the legislation were to pass?
Mr. CATLETT. Im frankly not sure that the applications that I
showed would be impacted by this bill. Im not a lawmaker, and so
I may not be reading it correctly, but so Im not sure my applications that I showed would be impacted, but I think its possible depending on the implementation of the bill thatIll give you an example, the bill describes peer-to-peer software in a way that, as I
said, includes instant messaging and other things on my computer.
It has an exclusion for operating system software like the
McIntosh operating system I run here or Windows on this machine,

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

70
as I read it. And that would make me a little bit nervous because
if we exempt the operating system then a large company that provides an operating system could build new technology into their operating system under a different set of rules than a small company
developing software whether its peer-to-peer or something else.
I look at that bill and I read the bill and I just absolutely am
thrilled that you are taking this one and I see some very good ideas
in there and I think with the turn of a crank, with collaboration
with some software companies that it could be a reasonably good
bill.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So that even those of you who oppose the
who have some problems anyway with the legislation as written,
feel that technologically we can address adequately the situation of
children getting access to this pornography?
Mr. CATLETT. If I can answer, I think one of the things that were
seeing here is peer-to-peer technology is very new compared to web
searches and it doesnt have the jump. Web searches have been
around for 10 years. Ten years ago when my 16-year-old daughter
was in second grade I had her whole classroom come in to where
I worked at the time at the University of Illinois and I wanted to
use our classroom there was internet connected to do a scavenger
hunt to show the kids the internet. The night before I typed into
one of the search sites Barbie and I forgot to put the E on the
end and I got a different kind of Barbie that I thought I was going
to get. So I worked the whole curriculum to constrict what the kids
were able to search for the next day when they did that.
I wouldnt have to do that today the way I did before, but I would
if I were using peer-to-peer technology say a year ago. Im not sure
whats happening lately with peer-to-peer technology, but it does
change a lot in a short amount of time.
I also did extensive research last week in that I asked my 16year-old how this works for her. I said how often is it that you are
using Kazaa and she like to downtown television shows that she
missed and things like that. How often do you get inappropriate
content when you search? She said well, at first I saw some inappropriate things maybe last year, but Ive built up my filters to the
point where I never get inappropriate things any more with one exception, she said, there was one time she downloaded what was
supposed to be a sitcom, a Friends show or something like that and
it was actually something else and she figured out from the title
when the movie started that it wasnt the kind of the thingso its
not full proof, but its come a long way and thats what I said earlier. Harnessing the innovation and technology in the software field
to address this problem I think is really a good approach. And also
the ideaso my 8-year-old can pick up a snack and he says Dad,
this has a lot of fat in it because he understands these simple labels. What I wish my 8-year-old could download software and say
hey, Dad, I think this software has some privacy issues, maybe we
shouldnt install it. So simple labels and notification would be tremendous and not just for this software, but all software.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you.
Mr. STEARNS. The gentleladys time has expired. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

71
Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you to the witnesses
for your testimony.
Mr. Catlett, first of all, I appreciate your comments on our Bill,
H.R. 2885, in your written testimony. In your opinion is it technologically possible to develop a do not install beacon?
Mr. CATLETT. I think it is. I read that part of the bill and I was
intrigued by that idea. Depending on how its implemented, it just
simply has an impact on the software engineering costs and support costs of companies that are doing software and operating systems. And so is it technically possible, certainly. Depending on how
its implemented, it could be either very easy or it could be very
onerous for software developers.
Mr. PITTS. You expressed concerns about how peer-to-peer is defined. Would you be able to provide us in writing your recommended revisions to the definition? Id like to work with you to
ensure that the definition is not so broad as to have unintended
consequences for legitimate peer-to-peer uses.
Mr. CATLETT. Certainly, Id be happy to try to look at that and
even engage some of my colleagues. One of the things about that
is its very difficult to precisely define software, but Im not if its
impossible or not, but its very difficult. I made my comments because I would like to help, yes.
Mr. PITTS. Thank you. Mr. Lafferty, in your testimony you mentioned the music industry, they should also be held accountable. I
know that the music industry has to go before the FTC for the approval on their content. Do peer-to-peer distributors go before the
FTC for the content they distribute?
Mr. LAFFERTY. The peer-to-peer software does not distribute content. Its a technology. The content is put there by the consumers.
We appeared on the FTC panel on spyware. Were working closely
with the FTC on that issue and expect to continue to work on that
to establish industry best practices that will be acceptable to society.
Mr. PITTS. Now you mention in your written testimony that there
840 instances of reported child pornography that were attributed to
peer-to-peer software usage. Have your member groups acted
proactively to make sure pornographic material is not on their network? If so, what steps have you taken to proactively help law enforcement?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Weve been working with the FBI for a number
of months and not to step on anything, covert operations that cant
be disclosed, it should be apparent to all that P2P is the dumbest
place to put illegal materials like standing in the middle of a town
square and saying look at me, I have something illegal. You will
get caught and quickly and prosecuted. So were very pleased with
that aspect of it.
Were also working with them on deterrence and education programs to help users recognize, remove and report criminally obscene content and using new technology thats not the keyword filter, but a collaborative filtering approach to be able to cleanse the
P2P services from objectionable content with the users engaged in
doing so.
Mr. PITTS. You mentioned users again choose options to block
adult content which is the default setting. How does the adult filter

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

72
work? The filter works by blocking search terms, right, not actual
files based on content. And, what search terms trigger the adult filter on Kazaa?
Mr. LAFFERTY. And it is a bit of a blunt instrument at this point.
Yes, its a very new industry. Were less than 10 months old, not
to make excuses, because no amount of child pornography is acceptable, but it works in two modes. You can enter key words that
are in the title of the file, put there by the individual who distributed that file and the metadata that describes the file. So if there
are adult words in that, it will block it out.
The second mode which is what I recommend for parents with
young children, it blocks all images, blocks all video. So really two
modes, blocking words up to a certain point and then stronger
mode, maximum level to block all video and images to fully protect
children.
Mr. PITTS. If you search by a term that does not trigger the adult
filter, such as baseball. Does the filter block pornographic material?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Only if the metadata had some reference in it
that would trigger that adult level or if the parent had added the
word baseball to block that. Again, its a keyword filter. It has limitations. I think its been developed as far as it can be to be as effective as it is, which is why the separate higher level of blocking all
video images is also provided.
Mr. PITTS. Now if you use the maximum level, I think you used
that term which means images and video filter set, you cant
download movies or concert videos or pictures of Barry Bonds hitting his 600th home run, right?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Correct.
Mr. PITTS. What is a parent or child for that matter, doesnt
want to block all images. They want maybe a G-rated movie. Is the
adult filter the only other way to block adult content?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Currently, thats correct. Were working onwere
not resting on any laurels here by any means and member firms
are working on collaborative filtering which I mentioned which is
a new technology that allows users to tag a file as being objectionable or criminally obscene and then it will be pushed out of distribution on a particular P2P software application. Thats new and
its coming along. In addition, working with the FBI on deterrence
popups to warn users and on education programs, further education programs to help consumers recognize, report and remove
content.
Again, its a new technology and certainly were pleased to see
that the incidents dropped from 2 percent of all of the reports to
1.4 percent last year, but we wont be satisfied until its zero. Its
just a continuing effort to fight, to combat child pornography and
get it off of these services.
Mr. PITTS. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Strickland.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the witnesses. Mr. Lafferty, if I understood your answer correctly
to Mr. Pitts, you are responsible for the peer-to-peer technology.
You are not responsible for materials that may be made accessible
or available through the use of that technology. Is that correct?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

73
Mr. LAFFERTY. Were a trade association, but answering for my
members who are peer-to-peer software suppliers, speaking for
them, thats correct. They provide the software and then 99 percent
of the content is put there by users, put in a shared folder and
shared with other users.
Mr. STRICKLAND. So you accept no responsibility for whatever
content may be made available through the use of your technology?
Is that a correct statement?
Mr. LAFFERTY. I wouldnt, no. Theres a difference between
knowledge and control of what the content is and providing parental tools to protect children. There are warnings, clear, conspicuous
warnings about copyright infringement. There are any number of
things being done to try to have this software be implemented for
proper, legal uses, legitimate uses. Thats what were dedicated on
doing.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Excuse me for interrupting you. I didnt intend
to do that. You dont feel though that you should be held liable for
illegal materials. Im talking about child porn, specifically, that
would be made available to children through the use of your technology. Its not a trick question. Im just trying to discern what
your position is.
Mr. LAFFERTY. Not to answer a question with a question, but
itsshould Microsoft Windows Outlook be accountable for every
single e-mail that all of its hundreds of millions of users can sort
every day. The nature of the software is that individuals can put
whatever they want on there and thats the problem were having
with the music industry that popular music is ripped and put online with no copy protection, no upload protection and its there.
Mr. STRICKLAND. That brings me a question that I have for Mr.
Dunkel.
Mr. Dunkel, you talked about the University of Floridas student
body overwhelming downloading music and movies before you
changed your policy. And I know were here to talk about child pornography, but I think we cannot talk about this technology without
bringing up another relevant matter which involves honesty and legality and all of that. And that has to do with copyright protections. I would be interested in hearing a little more, if you could
tell me, what you at the University of Florida are doing in regard
to your computer policy and steps you may be taking to educate
students regarding the morality or legality of their behavior regarding copyright laws.
Mr. DUNKEL. Certainly. When ICARUS was originally turned on
to date which is less than one year, we had discovered 3,700 first
time violators. So these were students who were using their desktop knowingly or unknowingly as a server with music, video or images and once we identify a student so Mr. Strickland, weve identified your computer and whether you knew it or not, you had a file
server program working on your computer, we would then terminate you from the internet. You would still have access to the University of Florida, so youd have access to your courses and teachers and so forth, but not the greater internet. We would direct you
to a website within our operation and it would take you through
educational information to identify why what youre doing is not
within our acceptable use policy, what you need to do and walk you

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

74
through the steps to take care of that. We would then time you out
for 30 minutes. So youve had a first time violation. You have 30
minutes now that youre no longer on the internet. If we find you
violating that a second time, you go through the same steps and
youre timed out for five days. A third time, and you go through
the University of Floridas Judicial Affairs process. So a record
then, in Judicial Affairs is maintained by the University and a
sanction is applied accordingly.
For most students, those 3,700 first time students, that would be
the only time they ever hear of that. Three hundred fifty were second time violators and only 32 were third time violators and that
included students who had viruses and worms hosted on their computers and they wouldnt take the steps to clean their computers.
So we also deal with viruses and worms going through that program.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Let me congratulate you. It sounds like youve
taken appropriate action to deal with what I consider a very legitimate problem.
If I could ask any other member of the panel, do you think that
theres any responsibility on the part of those who make this technology available to also provide some kind of educational component to the user regarding what is and is not legal and appropriate
in terms of copyright infringements?
Mr. LAFFERTY. We clearly think there is and were working with
our members and glad to work with Congress, the FTC and others
to do that, do exactly that.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. DUNKEL. I would add just a further word that clearly the
University of Florida as any other institution of higher education
is in the business of educating students. We have to do that actively. We have to do that passively, so whether were handing a
brochure out or placing a sticker on their dataport or doing something on line, clearly, we have a responsibility to educate.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time
has expired.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Im glad I had a chance
to make it up here after mythe other hearing we had.
Let me askall of you are really tech savvy and understand
whats out there. Let me ask a question to each one of you.
Is there a spot on the worldwide web where a parent can direct
their children to go that is safe, thats reviewed, that does not allow
peer-to-peer, would not allow spyware applications and is safe by
the Federal definition, not harmful to minors under the age of 13?
Mr. Catlett, do you know of a place like that?
Mr. CATLETT. Well
Mr. SHIMKUS. Basically, yes or no. Is there a site right now
where parents can go for kids under the age of 13 to search for information that has no hyperlinks, in essence, no internet messaging, no chat rooms available?
Mr. CATLETT. I think you could set up a web browser so that it
would
Mr. SHIMKUS. The question is is there a site now, do you know?
Mr. CATLETT. Sure.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00078

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

75
Mr. SHIMKUS. Do you know the name?
Mr. CATLETT. I would guess somewhere like Ill say lego.com
wouldnt have any links off the site, but I couldnt verify that.
Mr. SHIMKUS. I would doubt that.
Mr. CATLETT. It may have links off the site.
Mr. SHIMKUS. It sure does. They all do. Lets just go down, Mr.
Lafferty?
Mr. LAFFERTY. I am encouraged by KidsOnline which is a service
of AmericaOnline, a subsidiary of AOL and we would like to have
such a site using the P2P technology with the filter fully engaged,
a kids Kazaa, which is completely safe and where the content is absolutely locked and
Mr. SHIMKUS. You failed the test too. Mr. Dunkel?
Mr. DUNKEL. Our work does not venture in that area. I could not
answer that question.
Mr. SHIMKUS. You should know them and were going to educate
you in a minute. Members usually dont educate.
Mr. Bird?
Mr. BIRD. Im not aware of any technology like that.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Allen?
Mr. ALLEN. No.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Ms. Nance?
Ms. NANCE. There is no place I can turn my back on my children
and allow them alone on the computer.
Mr. SHIMKUS. The answer there is a site, enacted in the law,
signed by the President, 18 months ago. Its interesting that we
have competing hearings today because we just came from the
hearing. Kids.us. Safe site for kids on the internet. Doesnt allow
peer-to-peer. Doesnt allow instant messaging. No hyperlinks. Information-based only. Its positive, voluntary and its a site where we
need help in getting people who want to provide safe information
for kids. So pro-family organizations and groups ought to be hounding the private sector and the public sector to get up on the site.
We have 13 active sites. They go from the smithsonian.kids.us,
abckids.us. We havein essence, theres 13 in total.
And what we are fighting is the chicken and the egg battle.
NewStar manages the site. They have, I think, kids.net oversees
the site. NTIA can pull down the site if theres anything that
sneaks on that is inappropriate. Part of the job that Im doing, as
part of the author, along with Chairman Upton and Chairman
Markey, Ranking Member Markey and then Ranking Member Dingell and Chairman Tauzin at the time when we passed this legislation is when you pass legislation you just cant let it go, I mean
if you really want it to be successful. So I use the bully pulpit. Im
allowed to do that and thats what Im doing now.
When we had the pornography hearings on the Super Bowl I
looked at the network guys and I said how come you dont have a
.kids site, a kids.us site? Guess who is now up, abckids.us.
So my plea isthe University of Florida ought to have one. If
you want to educate children about the great aspects of the University of Florida in a safe arena for kids, so that maybe one day they
may want to be a Gator, you ought to be there and so this isI
know youre here to educate us. Theres serious problems.

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00079

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

76
In the hearing today I asked the question when I ended up and
it was a very good hearing because its the difference. Here were
trying to react to problems. We have a safe site now for kids and
were not promoting it. No spyware. You cant put spyware on a kid
who is on the kids.us site. No peer-to-peer, information-based only
and is reviewed by both the government and private sector contracted agency with ability to pull the plug.
So Im using the bully pulpit. Thank you for being here. Spread
the word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Gentlemen, we have your site right up on the
screen to help you promote the site that your legislation originated
and that you support and were a strong advocate and the President signed your legislation and I thank you for your comments.
Gentlelady, Ms. McCarthy?
Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Panel
and apologize for being late to your testimony. I had another full
committee and subcommittee simultaneously.
But I am intrigued by the thought that there might be wisdom
on other legislative alternatives that we could employ to address
this, not only the unauthorized download of copyrighted information which is an infringement and punishable, but also to require
porn sites to enforce laws or be terminated. And the RIAA recently
brought lawsuits against university students for copyright infringement.
I wondered if any of you, particularly, Mr. Dunkel and Mr. Bird
from the University, Im very impressed with your effort. I wonder
what the effect on students it might have potentially or have had
with regard to the private sector weighing in with consequences
just as you have chosen as an administration and a university and
whether that is something that we should be looking at as a legislative alternative, the encouraging of such partnerships and such
efforts, and what role the Federal Trade Commission could have or
what more power they would need to be an effective partner in
such an alternative. I would just welcome your thoughts.
Mr. Lafferty, youre welcome to weigh in.
Mr. DUNKEL. Certainly, I could share with you that prior to last
summer, there are various agencies that would send out notice to
educational institutions that a particular user is violating a copyright law and they would send out a DMCA violation letter. So a
digital millennial copyright act violation letter. It would say Ms.
McCarthy at this certain port and so forth, youre violating a certain part of the copyright law.
When we deployed ICARUS, prior to deploying ICARUS, our institution was receiving approximately about 60 or 70 of those per
month. When we deployed ICARUS, we have not received one since
that time. So I think weve worked very effectively with industry
in helping to educate the residents and the program seems to be
working well.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Any other ideas from any panelists on what
other legislative alternatives we should be pursuing with the private sector and government regulatory bodies?
Ms. NANCE. I would just suggest, you know, there are probably
things within Mr. Pitts bill that we could all agree on like perhaps

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00080

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

77
parental warnings. I mean theyre willing to put up parental warning for copyright infringement, why not pornography?
Very simply things that can just alert parents to what is happening. I would urge people to sit and talk to Mr. Pitts and for all
of us to come together on the areas that we can agree on and to
go forward because its a serious problem.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Ms. Nance.
Mr. LAFFERTY. You brought up the copyright issue. We have
helped convincing the major labels and large movie studios to embrace this new technology and begin licensing their content for legitimate distribution so it can commercially develop. I mean the
only unique threat that users have on P2P now, given all the other
threats of other aspects of the internet is an RIAA lawsuit and the
notion of bludgeoning your customers and trying to terrorize consumers is the wrong approach.
We need to have them legitimately license their content for pay
distribution. Wed love to be working with the RIAA members on
a program for this fall for college, to provide college students with
a way to purchase songs, legally, at attractive prices and that
would be a terrific solution. It will be a revenue generator on a voluntary basis, not some kind of a tax on students that the university has to put in place and not a cost, an expansion of commerce.
Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you and I quite agree. My concern remains that a young person would be going up on a peer-to-peer situation to download a Britney Spears song and while there, is confronted with pornographic pictures of a Britney Spears of some sort
and how to separate those two. But I dont know that thats a legislative solution as much as it is just the industry and others working together as they have been doing to try to address it and I
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STEARNS. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Ferguson.
Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of
questions for Mr. Lafferty.
Mr. Lafferty, its common for one of these services and I begin
by saying that Im not familiar with Kazaa. Ive never used it, so
Im a little bit ignorant on the actual use of some of these and peerto-peer technology as well, but frequently, I would imagine for
some of the folks that you represent and I know for some of these
services there are these end user license agreements and they say,
one of them that I saw says that you state that they do not allow
their users to distribute obscene or illegal material to other users
of the product. Thats pretty common, I would imagine.
Mr. LAFFERTY. Correct.
Mr. FERGUSON. How is that enforced? Its obviously not true.
There are obscene materials being distributed from one user to another. How is that agreement enforced? It sounds hollow to me.
Mr. LAFFERTY. The way to enforce it is working with the FBI, as
we are, on these covert operations to identify, capture egregious
users who are inserting criminally obscene content into the system
in which case theyll be terminated because theyre in violation of
the agreement, but its, as I mentioned to Congressman Strickland,
the sheer volume of content, think of if you had to deal with Windows Outlook on all the e-mails being written every day and some-

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00081

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

78
how have knowledge and control of that, probably Microsoft would
go into bankruptcy trying to do that. Its that type of issue. So
when we see a problem work with law enforcement, identify it,
prosecute the abusers and terminate them.
Mr. FERGUSON. How many folks have been terminated?
Mr. LAFFERTY. I cant comment on that because its privateit
hasnt been announced yet.
Mr. ALLEN. Could I comment?
Mr. FERGUSON. Could I ask, have any? Is that private?
Mr. LAFFERTY. So far the number of busts, prosecutions have
been not great, but thats going to change and I think you soon will
see that P2P is the dumbest place to try to disseminate criminally
obscene content.
Mr. FERGUSON. Why is the bust rate, as you call it, why has it
not been very good?
Mr. LAFFERTY. I think were getting into some confidentialwed
like to talk about it privately with the FBI and not public.
Mr. FERGUSON. By your own description, the monitoring of this
has not been particularly good, is that a fair characterization?
Mr. LAFFERTY. I think law enforcement thinks that perpetrators
of illegal content on P2P, its likein their words, its like shooting
fish in a barrel.
Mr. FERGUSON. But what has the industry done to monitor itself?
What have the companies done to monitorifwhat does the
FBI do to monitor these things? They get people to start surfing
the net and being users. Cant companies do that as well? If the
company has an agreement that says youre not allowed to do this,
doesnt the company have some responsibility to monitor itself?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Sure.
Mr. FERGUSON. And do the companies do it at all?
Mr. LAFFERTY. The companies are most familiar with the technology and see the scale of the issue and so they attack it through
other technology means such as the family filters which have come
to a point of blocking all video and images.
Mr. FERGUSON. Forgive me, my time is short. The filters tend to
be useless, dont they? I mean cant kids go in and cant you just
download Kazaa again if your parents have put a filter on it? Cant
you just go and download it again and get around the filter?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Thats really an operating system, a browser
issue.
Mr. FERGUSON. But the question is doesnt that render the filter
useless?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Once the parents put the password in it locks
that particular setting and you need to know the password to be
able to break that setting.
Mr. FERGUSON. Can children get around these settings?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Theres always going to be hackers
Mr. FERGUSON. Im talking about a 12-year-old kid?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Unless they find out the password, it works.
Mr. FERGUSON. But do the companies feel like their responsibility has been met simply by putting filters on that can be hacked
through?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Absolutely not. This is a moving target. Were not
going to rest until weve really defeated child pornography and

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00082

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

79
cleanse these networks. Its abhorrent and horrendous. So thats
why other steps are being taken and deterrence, education, additional forms of filtering that are more sophisticated and the work
continues. Its a very new industry. Its less than a year old. Its
10 months old.
Mr. FERGUSON. I appreciate that. And as you can tell and as Ive
said Im not familiar with it, partly because it is so new.
Mr. LAFFERTY. Whats happened is the consumer adoption rate
has been fantastic. This has taken everyone on the content side of
the table and the technology side of the table by surprise. Its taken
our breath away and were playing catch up to civilize it and to do
the right thing.
Mr. FERGUSON. Let me just close since my time has ended, let
me just close by urging you to work with your companies to take
a more active role in monitoring themselves to help the FBI. I
know youre working with law enforcement to do that. But if law
enforcement can do that, the private sector has a responsibility
here too and were talking about legislation now and youve said
that you cant support the legislation as its currently written.
I dont speak only for myself. There are a lot of Members on both
sides of the aisle in this body and certainly on this committee who
are very concerned about this issue, feel that the industry has a
real responsibility to continue to monitor itself, to do a better job
of monitoring itself and its our hope that you can continue to make
progress on that and working with law enforcement because legislation is coming and if you dont like the legislation youve got to
be willing to either work with us to make that legislation better
and/or make it so that legislation is not necessary by doing the
work yourself. If, in fat, you dont like the legislation that were
considering, you can help that. You can change that. The industry
can do it itself and I would urge you to work with your members
and the folks that you represent to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, could I comment, just very briefly?
Mr. STEARNS. Absolutely, sure. Go ahead.
Mr. ALLEN. I think Mr. Fergusons point is incredibly important
because this has not been like shooting fish in a barrel. Working
these cases on P2P has been very difficult and its very important
and encouraging that this industry has stepped up in the last few
months and is working with law enforcement, but the reality is
people are fleeing, those predators who prey upon children and use
child pornography are fleeing websites because of the increasing
presence of enforcement. The ISPs now have an obligation to report
child pornography on their sites. What we have to do to preserve
the integrity and the potential of peer-to-peer and distributed computing is to make sure that it is not allowed to become a sanctuary
for those who are seeking ways to operate in anonymity and violate
and avoid the law. I think the steps theyve taken are really important, but your message is one that the whole industry needs to
hear loud and clear.
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Allen, just following up
on that, do you think thatwould you advocate that the peer-topeer companies have to register with the Federal Trade Commission?

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00083

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

80
Mr. ALLEN. I think thats really beyond our expertise. The one
thing that I think is really important and in the early days of the
internet, the ISP community was concerned as well
Mr. STEARNS. You advocate, you support the idea of the ISPs,
have been mandated by Congress to report pornography and child
pornography. Do you support that kind of idea for the peer-to-peer?
Mr. ALLEN. I think its an excellent model that ought to be examined.
Mr. STEARNS. Well, Mr. Lafferty, I think youve heard sort of Mr.
Fergusons comments and I think everybody in this room has
agreed in the goals of this subcommittee is to protect our children
from pornography, child pornography. How we do it, whether we do
it through Federal legislation or we do it through best practices,
how many companies are there in the peer-to-peer organization
now that you have?
Mr. LAFFERTY. We have 15 members and about 5 of them are in
the peer-to-peer space. Five are content, five are service support.
Mr. STEARNS. How many do you think there are in the United
States peer-to-peer?
Mr. LAFFERTY. Internet is global, so I cant120 known peer-topeer software service
Mr. STEARNS. And thats another point I point out to my Members, cross-border fraud is very prevalent and this is a global market, so you have companies outside of the United States. Its very
difficult. We passed a cross-border fraud and deception out of this
committee at the request of the Federal Trade Commission. Its
gone to the House. We dont have it out of the Senate. Wed like
to pass that bill which would give the Federal Trade Commission
reciprocity with other nations where we could actually go after
those companies, bad actors. But it is all going to come down, I
think as Mr. Ferguson has pointed out is whether your association
is going to have a best practice, have a standard and actually work
hard to make sure that the peer-to-peer technology is used in a
useful way and we dont have the bad actors, but I think as you
can see, were so strong about this issue, all of us having children,
that were willing to consider legislation.
And Mr. Catlett, Id appreciate if you would talk to Mr. Pitts and
perhaps you can suggest things that would make it more feasible
for it.
Is there anything in concluding? Ms. Nance, anything thatMr.
Allen, anything anyone would like to say before we close?
Ms. NANCE. Thank you again for convening this hearing and yes,
I just want to agree with your last point. I think it absolutely
they should be obligated to report back to the DOJ any incidents
they find of obscenity or pornography, and I just think thats the
minimum they can do to help our families. So thank you.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, can I just add one thing? I just
want to thank Penny Nance, too, for the work shes done. Shes
done an enormous amount of work, pro family work for a number
of years here on the Hill and around the country and starting this
organization, she speaks for so many moms and dads and folks
across this country who are working so hard, concerned about their
kids, worried about what theyre seeing on the internet. Our kids,
as I say, are not old enough for using the internet yet, but they

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00084

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1

81
will and its coming. Itsthere are certain things we can do on the
legislative side, but as we know, there are certain things that need
to be done by moms and dads and groups and associations of families who will speak up for people around the country who frankly
sometimes feel like they dont have quite that voice that they want.
We try to give them that voice through our representation, but
there are organizations like hers which are doing a great job and
I thank her for that as well.
Mr. STEARNS. Any other comments before we close? Mr. Pitts,
anything?
Mr. PITTS. Ill just second those comments. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. STEARNS. Thank you very much for your patience during this
hearing and the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]

VerDate 11-MAY-2000

10:46 Sep 01, 2004

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00085

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6011

93980.TXT

HCOM1

PsN: HCOM1