Article/Issue: NYTimes, Justin Berry, and Child Pornography on the Web

The result of a 6 month investigation into the world of child pornography on the internet, the New York Times today published a gripping article that tells the chilling story of Justin Berry, who became a child porn webcam "star." A snippet:

Justin's dark coming-of-age story is a collateral effect of recent technological advances. Minors, often under the online tutelage of adults, are opening for-pay pornography sites featuring their own images sent onto the Internet by inexpensive Webcams. And they perform from the privacy of home, while parents are nearby, beyond their children's closed bedroom doors.

The business has created youthful Internet pornography stars - with nicknames like Riotboyy, Miss Honey and Gigglez - whose images are traded online long after their sites have vanished. In this world, adolescents announce schedules of their next masturbation for customers who pay fees for the performance or monthly subscription charges. Eager customers can even buy "private shows," in which teenagers sexually perform while following real-time instructions.

Unfortunately, this is nothing we haven't heard before. Although an extremely well-written article, the case of Justin Berry is not a new phenomenon as the article suggests- these sorts of acts have been going on since the creation of the internet. It's been over four years now that Philip Jenkins' Beyond Tolerance: Child Pornography and The Internet was published, a scathing account of the state of child porn on the internet based on Jenkins' research in the area (Jenkins is actually quoted in "A Shadowy Trade Migrates to the Web", a supplemental article about child pornography and the web). The New York Times article reinforces that while there has been much media coverage since Jenkin's book, little has changed.

Despite this, media coverage has led to increased law enforcement attention- namely Operation Innocent Images and crackdowns on groups like the Orchid Club in San Jose and the international Wonderland Club. Conservative and liberal groups have also added pressure, and supported legislation like the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996. Finally ISPs, often through media or consumer pressure, have offered free or discounted filtering software and have removed child pornography havens (like newsgroups like alt.binary.pictures.erotica.lolita, discussed at length in Beyond Tolerance).

The demand side of the equation, however, is astounding. Psychologically, the profile of Justin's 'fans' is in line with pedophiles in general. As the NYTimes article "Where the Credit Card Trail Leads" points out:

Of the 300 subscribers to Justin's site whose identities were checked, a large percentage were in professions that placed them in the proximity of children on almost a daily basis. There were pediatricians and elementary school teachers, as well as lawyers who represent children in court. But there were also subscribers whose careers seemed unrelated to children, including a public official in the West and the president of a privately held construction company who used his corporate credit card to sign up for the site.

Experts in the field of child sexual exploitation said such findings - particularly the prominence of adults having careers that placed them near children - were consistent with anecdotal evidence from law enforcement.

These are people that have gravitated towards children as a result of their sickness, both online and off. They are also people, however, who are 'well off' members of society that probably have a life- family, friends, reputation, career- that would be devastated if they acted on their desires. The internet offers them an outlet, with much less risk. The case with Justin is somewhat unique... he kept detailed records of transactions and online discussions between him and his admirers. Most transactions aren't that well documented... and even so, one would assume precautions would be taken on the part of the pedophiles. Using your personal credit card to send online payments to a 13-16 year old in exchange for video/pictures?

And this is what really gets me, what disturbs me at the deepest level. These are actions taken by people who are extremely disturbed, but that also feels a deep level of comfort on the internet... likely because it is part of a pattern of behavior that has been going on for quite a while. I just don't see any pedophile, given the level of paranoia associated with most (read Jenkins for more on that), jumping into a situation where personal and credit card information is tied to child pornography.

So what can the law do about it? Its extremely complex. For one, the makeup of users that trade child pornography can be divided into a small set of super-users, that spend an exceptional amount of time trading, disseminating, and in some cases manufacturing child pornography. There's a much larger set of what one might call 'amateur' pedophiles- they have an interest in the material, but are not active 'community members.' In the Justin Berry case, the super-users might be comprised of the members that gave him credit card information, bought him gifts, solicited him for pornography and sex, and took Justin's images and disseminated them across the internet to the extent that there was, as the Times writes, a "mythology" surrounding him. The amateurs are the users that discuss and repost Justin's images in newsgroups, bulletin boards, websites, and the like.

I would argue that a different strategy needs to be taken for each, with respect to the law. First, child pornography will not be totally eradicated... it will not happen, and the net, even if authoritatively regulated, will be used as a medium for illicit material. Second, amatuers may be effectively deterred by more reliable enforcement of existing laws- these individuals can be assumed to have a more rational cost-benefit motive in looking at child pornography- not driven by the sort of pathology that super-users have. Symbolic acts- like increased media reporting- also helps to deter such users.

The hardcore users, however, will not be deterred by this, and they tend to be fairly computer-savy (for example most of the material that the Wonderland Club collected has not yet been analyzed due to encryption based on the USSR's KGB code). These users are also obviously the most important targets in ridding the net of child pornography. There is no golden bullet, but here are some places that would help:

1. Pressure the major chat companies to regulate user rooms: In 2003, Microsoft closed down its free chat rooms amid concerns over child molestors. In the early 1990's AOL started paying some employees to monitor chat rooms, and initiated a kid-only area (which has been effective save for rare incidents). What does Yahoo do? They didn't do anything for a while (Yahoo! chat rooms and user groups had become a haven for child pornography- in fact, one such user group, "Candyman" was the name given to part of the F.B.I. Operation Innocent Images, "Operation Candyman"). Now, Yahoo! has closed down its user-created chat rooms and requires that users be over 18. These standards need to be applied across the board, and complaints need to be answered swiftly. The same goes for chat that allows webcam use. In both cases, companies have in the past earned much of their revenue off of sexually charged communication, some of which comes from underaged users. Some net libertarians may feel that ISPs are not responsible, and that such content not only impedes on the freedom of the internet, but also endangers free speech. I don't agree- the same sort of chat can and will go on I'm sure- but now its more encouraged to go on in adult chat rooms. By removing adult-child sex chat from the mainstream providers, companies have eroded some of the sense of community that pedophiles hold onto. While it may impede on freedom (for example I can no longer make my own chat room about say, internet law), it does not jeopardize speech (I can talk about internet law all I want in a pre-designated law chatroom, or any other room for that matter- and it will probably be about as boring as this blog).

2. Tap into net community: Groups like the Anti Porn Militia and Condemned.org have, since 2000, joined law enforcement in an effort to eradicate child pornography on the web. This is in sharp contrast to other vigilante groups such as Perverted Justice, that rely on harassment campaigns and knee-jerk media coverage, techniques that have earned them the apprehension and in some cases contempt of law enforcement (another group, Corrupted Justice, which claims to be comprised of past PJ members and participants, has been created to criticize PJ's practices). I can understand the desire, when faced with stories like Justin, to strike up the "the government isn't doing enough!!!" choir, and to support vigilante acts. But I don't think it should be about pressing sex chat room users into an ambush- that doesn't really do anything in the long term. It should be about STRUCTURAL changes. If Perverted Justice wants to actually have an impact, it should work closely with law enforcement, allow transparency into their orginization, and finally, mobilize users against SPECIFIC internet suppliers. Ask the big questions- what ISPs are the most pedophile-friendly? what newgroups need to be banned? where are pedophile communities on the net?

3. Increase international cooperation: Countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia have traditionally been the starting point for a lot of child pornography that gets created and sent over to the States and other places. Removing child pornography on the internet, in the case of hardcore users that may route their connection through different channels, requires the cooperation of the international community. It also would help if the United States applied extraterritorial law to at least ONE of the pedophiles that go from the States to countries like Thailand, Sri Lanka, and the Phillipines to molest children and then return (the argument is that its too expensive and time consuming to prosecute such cases, which often involve foreign, hard to find witnesses). It would also be nice if servers in other countries didn't routinely give access to child pornography sites. ECPAT (End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism) released a report last month calling for more international cooperation, noting the global nature of an industry that the F.B.I. claims is around 20 billion dollars.

The content control of the internet needs to be re-thought, in terms of who has responsibility for what. As BlueBerry, a hacker for condemned.org suggests, if the internet community does not regulate itself, than external forces will. I'm fine with ad-hoc coalitions and companies regulating child pornography- but its taken how long for MSN, Yahoo!, and AOL to take steps towards this end?