The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/etc/hacklaw/crimmin1.aol

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 10.5 KB | 182 lines

            BOSTON PHOENIX   AUGUST 3, 1995


    The US Senate Got An Earful on the Dangers of Child Cyberporn

by Barry Crimmins

I was thinking Frank Capra but feeling Don Knotts as I began my testimony
before the US Senate Judiciary Committee. My hand trembled so rapidly that
there were small-craft warnings for my water glass. But I settled down and
managed to say what I had to say and answer what was asked of me.

 What had brought me, the quintessential outsider, to the seat of American
power? It started more than a year ago, when a friend and fellow
children's-rights advocate, Martin Miller, told me that child pornography was
being openly traded on America Online. I joined the service and discovered
that there were indeed numerous member rooms (cyber-niches where people,
interacting live, can type messages about a common theme back and forth)
created by AOL users for the express purpose of exchanging child pornography.

 I lodged many complaints with AOL, and its officials responded in a fashion
that made the Nixon White House seem accessible by comparison. Their
indifference only fortified my resolve. In order to document the danger
children are in, I adopted the on-screen identity of a 12-year-old. (An AOL
user can have up to five cyber-names.) As that 12-year-old, I was sent
copious amounts of child pornography, which I then turned over to
law-enforcement officials and AOL.

 I also began discussing the problem with various child-advocacy
organizations. My friend Lana Lawrence, the publisher of Moving Forward, a
quarterly for survivors of childhood sexual abuse, put me in touch with John
McMickle, a conservative activist (oxymoron noted). Some weeks later,
McMickle joined the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired
by Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). In June, McMickle requested that I
write a summary of my investigation for the senator. I complied and was
invited to testify.

 So there I sat, my heart pounding but in the right place. I had come to warn
people that child pornography was now available to the masses, and that you
can't have child pornography without abused kids. Sitting in the sterile,
formal environment of a US Senate hearing chamber, I was haunted by the
horrifying images I had seen over the past seven months. The children with
the dead eyes and the defiled bodies. I wished everyone could see these
pictures. I wished no one could see these pictures. And I thought about the
kids who could still be protected.

 I was in Washington to say that I valued our freedoms dearly, but that child
pornography was not protected speech: it was evidence of a crime.

 At the hearing, each senator present was given five minutes for opening
remarks. Following this, there were three panels of three witnesses each.
Each witness was also given five minutes, and, after each panel had finished,
the senators questioned the witnesses. Occasionally, the senators would
facilitate a discussion among panel members during the questioning.

 When Chairman Grassley brought down the gavel, he began the hearing with a
grave warning about how cyberporn was yet another threat to the American
family. Senior minority member Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) followed by
expressing concern about undermining freedom of speech with undue on-line
regulations. He advocated for the software industry to be given a chance to
provide parents with the tools they need to protect their children.

 Senator Strom Thurmond (pterodactyl-South Carolina) apologized, saying that
he would not be able to stay for the entire hearing. (This dashed my hopes of
having a photo taken with him for a Christmas card of perpetual value. The
caption: "Crimmins left, Thurmond extreme right.") Thurmond's genius may be
that nobody ever knows what the hell he's saying. The combination of
extremely advanced years and a Southern drawl even thicker than the heads of
the people who continually re-elect him makes his oratory hard to follow
without subtitles. I unsuccessfully stifled a huge grin as he blathered some
senatorial cordiality and then summed up the importance of the hearing by
informing us (as far as I could tell) that he was appreciative that this here
hearing was called because children are young.

 Senators Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin), Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), and Paul
Simon (D-Illinois) all boasted of their unfamiliarity with the Internet. It
seemed as if they took a certain manly pride in how low-tech they were. Each
bravely disregarded his cyber-illiteracy and went on to espouse numerous
platitudes and make impassioned ambiguous statements.

 About 75 minutes into the hearing, the first panel (which consisted of a
teen who had been stalked on-line and two distraught parents) finished
testifying. I was on the second panel.  This was it. After hundreds of hours
of documenting - to quote human-rights rocker Bruce Cockburn - "things too
sickening to relate," my moment had arrived. I struggled through a maze of
panelists, journalists, and various Capitol Hill staffers and found my seat
at the witness table. A man stepped up beside me. After months of knocking on
AOL's door, I was suddenly face to face with Bill Burrington, America
Online's assistant general counsel and director of government affairs. We
exchanged feeble greetings and firm handshakes.

 It was immediately clear that if this were a beauty contest, I would be in
trouble. Burrington was nattily attired and youthfully handsome with
male-model, slicked-back, wind-tunnel-resistant hair. I was bearded and
curly-headed. In my suit and Jerry Garcia tie, I resembled a marijuana grower
appearing at his arraignment. We were to be seated next to each other for an
hour and a half. (The third panelist was Stephen Balkam, of the Recreational
Advisory Council, based in Cambridge; he remained neutral on the issue of
cyberporn.)

 No sooner had I taken my seat than Grassley prompted me to begin. Ten
minutes into my allotted five minutes, he urged me to wrap it up. I summed up
the last three pages of my testimony in a few hustled paragraphs, and closed
by saying, "I am here to tell the American people that not only are their
children unsafe on America Online, their children are unsafe because of it."

 Rushed and nervous as I was, I felt I had made my case. When he opened his
remarks, Mr. Burrington seemed to agree. He followed me directly, and he
began by saying, "I'm glad to be here . . . I think." He got a good laugh.

 His testimony seemed canned, basically a rehash of AOL's corporate line. The
only thing fresh about it was the mention of my name on numerous occasions.
During his testimony, he made several patronizing references to me, and he
attempted to dismiss as "dated" many of the problems I described. (During the
Q&A, however, I was able to point out that just one week earlier I had been
sent atrocious child pornography via his service.) He attributed the practice
of child-pornography trafficking on AOL to a "very small percentage of its
customers." I tried but did not get the chance to pose the obvious question:
just what percentage of members who traffic in child pornography is
acceptable to AOL?

 My most satisfying exchange with Burrington came when he cited AOL's "strict
three-strikes-and-you're-out" rule for members who behave inappropriately on
the service. I responded that I didn't think child pornographers were
deserving of more than one strike, a point Burrington stammeringly conceded.

 The real battle at the hearings, however, was not between Burrington and me
but between Leahy and Grassley. Grassley wants regulation so that the family
can be protected. Leahy prefers software so that parents may selectively
censor their children's on-line activities. In both cases, a major point is
missed. I covered it in my testimony when I stated that parental controls
disregard a serious reality: in many cases, the parents themselves are the
perpetrators of these crimes. AOL has member-created rooms with titles such
as "family fun," "Nudist families," "Incest is best," "Have hotstepdaughter,"
and so on. Many of the photos exchanged in these rooms are purportedly of
people's own children. So the notion that parents should be the sole entity
protecting children on-line, or anywhere else, I told the senators, is easily
discredited.

 Leahy insisted that there are adequate laws on the books dealing with child
pornography. I agreed but pointed out that the problem is lack of
enforcement, not only on AOL but across the Internet. I told them that when
there's a crime wave we don't say, "Well, that's okay, because there are laws
against crime." I called for more funds for law enforcement to deal with the
child-pornography crime spree.

 Burrington said AOL had increased its "terms-of service" staff 600 percent
since February. (Those employees supposedly enforce the member-service
agreement governing conduct on AOL.) That sounded impressive until he
divulged the actual figure: AOL's paid terms-of-service staff had
"skyrocketed" from four to 24. That is, a 24-person staff for a
24-hours-a-day/seven-days-a-week service with three million subscribers. I
let the senators do their own math on that one.

 After the hearing, I had no idea what purpose my testimony may have served.
I wondered: did I get to them? Will they take action? I hoped so. But this
was politics. Whatever the case, I knew the media had been there, and that
AOL had at least been forced to listen and respond to my allegations. As I
prepared to leave the chamber, Mr. Burrington expressed a seemingly sincere
desire to "work with me on this." Later, we scheduled a teleconference.

 If America Online really cleans up the problem, I will be the first to
applaud its responsiveness. If not, I know a "12-year-old" who is willing to
violate the child-labor laws by working long and late hours so that Mr.
Burrington's expensive shoes are once again planted firmly on the carpet in
Washington.

 Anyone who wants a copy of my full testimony may receive it via e-mail by
zapping me at [e-mail]. Your comments are also welcome. o

{This will be a separate box.}

 Barry Crimmins, a political satirist, will be appearing at Passim, in
Harvard Square, on Saturday, August 5, and at the Old Vienna Kaffee Haus, in
Westboro, on August 6. He promises not to limit his subject matter to his
recent Washington appearance, but to address whimsical topics, too - such as
Newt Gingrich, the 1996 presidential election, war, famine, and pestilence.


    Copyright Barry Crimmins, 1995.  All rights reserved.
        Used with permission.