File Sharing Program
Users of Peer-to-Peer Networks Can Readily Access Child Pornography Gao ID: GAO-04-757T May 6, 2004The availability of child pornography has dramatically increased in recent years as it has migrated from printed material to the World Wide Web, becoming accessible through Web sites, chat rooms, newsgroups, and now the increasingly popular peer-to-peer file sharing programs. These programs enable direct communication between users, allowing users to access each other's files and share digital music, images, and video. GAO was requested to determine the ease of access to child pornography on peer-to-peer networks; the risk of inadvertent exposure of juvenile users of peerto- 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. Today's testimony is based on GAO's report on the results of that work (GAO- 03-351). Because child pornography cannot be accessed legally other than by law enforcement agencies, GAO worked with the Customs Cyber- Smuggling Center in performing searches: Customs downloaded and analyzed image files, and GAO performed analyses based on keywords and file names only.
Child pornography is easily found and downloaded from peer-to-peer networks. In one search, using 12 keywords known to be associated with child pornography on the Internet, GAO identified 1,286 titles and file names, determining that 543 (about 42 percent) were associated with child pornography images. Of the remaining, 34 percent were classified as adult pornography and 24 percent as nonpornographic. In another search using three keywords, a Customs analyst downloaded 341 images, of which 149 (about 44 percent) contained child pornography. These results are in accord with increased reports of child pornography on peer-to-peer networks; since it began tracking these in 2001, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has seen an increase of more than fivefold--from 156 in 2001 to 840 in 2003. Although the numbers are as yet small by comparison to those for other sources (45,035 reports of child pornography on Web sites in 2003), the increase is significant. Juvenile users of peer-to-peer networks are at significant risk of inadvertent exposure to pornography, including child pornography. Searches on innocuous keywords likely to be used by juveniles (such as names of cartoon characters or celebrities) produced a high proportion of pornographic images: in our searches, the retrieved images included adult pornography (34 percent), cartoon pornography (14 percent), child erotica (7 percent), and child pornography (1 percent). While federal law enforcement agencies--including the FBI, Justice's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, and Customs--are devoting resources to combating child exploitation and child pornography in general, these agencies do not track the resources dedicated to specific technologies used to access and download child pornography on the Internet. Therefore, GAO was unable to quantify the resources devoted to investigating cases on peerto- peer networks. According to law enforcement officials, however, as tips concerning child pornography on peer-to-peer networks escalate, law enforcement resources are increasingly being focused on this area.
GAO-04-757T, File Sharing Program: Users of Peer-to-Peer Networks Can Readily Access Child Pornography
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-757T
entitled 'File Sharing Program: Users of Peer-to-Peer Networks Can
Readily Access Child Pornography' which was released on May 06, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, May 6, 2004:
File Sharing Programs:
Users of Peer-to-Peer Networks Can Readily Access Child Pornography:
Statement of Linda D. Koontz:
Director, Information Management Issues:
GAO-04-757T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-757T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The availability of child pornography has dramatically increased in
recent years as it has migrated from printed material to the World Wide
Web, becoming accessible through Web sites, chat rooms, newsgroups, and
now the increasingly popular peer-to-peer file sharing programs. These
programs enable direct communication between users, allowing users to
access each other‘s files and share digital music, images, and video.
GAO was requested 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.
Today‘s testimony is based on GAO‘s report on the results of that work
(GAO-03-351).
Because child pornography cannot be accessed legally other than by law
enforcement agencies, GAO worked with the Customs CyberSmuggling Center
in performing searches: Customs downloaded and analyzed image files,
and GAO performed analyses based on keywords and file names only.
What GAO Found:
Child pornography is easily found and downloaded from peer-to-peer
networks. In one search, using 12 keywords known to be associated with
child pornography on the Internet, GAO identified 1,286 titles and file
names, determining that 543 (about 42 percent) were associated with
child pornography images. Of the remaining, 34 percent were classified
as adult pornography and 24 percent as nonpornographic. In another
search using three keywords, a Customs analyst downloaded 341 images,
of which 149 (about 44 percent) contained child pornography (see the
figure below). These results are in accord with increased reports of
child pornography on peer-to-peer networks; since it began tracking
these in 2001, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
has seen an increase of more than fivefold”from 156 in 2001 to 840 in
2003. Although the numbers are as yet small by comparison to those for
other sources (45,035 reports of child pornography on Web sites in
2003), the increase is significant.
Juvenile users of peer-to-peer networks are at significant risk of
inadvertent exposure to pornography, including child pornography.
Searches on innocuous keywords likely to be used by juveniles (such as
names of cartoon characters or celebrities) produced a high proportion
of pornographic images: in our searches, the retrieved images included
adult pornography (34 percent), cartoon pornography (14 percent), child
erotica (7 percent), and child pornography (1 percent).
While federal law enforcement agencies”including the FBI, Justice‘s
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, and Customs”are devoting
resources to combating child exploitation and child pornography in
general, these agencies do not track the resources dedicated to
specific technologies used to access and download child pornography on
the Internet. Therefore, GAO was unable to quantify the resources
devoted to investigating cases on peer-to-peer networks. According to
law enforcement officials, however, as tips concerning child
pornography on peer-to-peer networks escalate, law enforcement
resources are increasingly being focused on this area.
Classification of Images Downloaded through Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing
Program:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-757T
To view the full testimony, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Linda Koontz at (202) 512-6240 or koontzl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
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 other's 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. [Footnote 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.
We also include an attachment that briefly discusses how peer-to-peer
file sharing works.
Results in Brief:
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,
[Footnote 2] to search for image files, using 12 keywords known to be
associated with child pornography on the Internet.[Footnote 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[Footnote 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 fivefold-
-from 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[Footnote 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.
Background:
Child pornography is prohibited by federal statutes, which provide for
civil and criminal penalties for its production, advertising,
possession, receipt, distribution, and sale.[Footnote 6] Defined by
statute as the visual depiction of a minor--a person under 18 years of
age--engaged in sexually explicit conduct[Footnote 7], child
pornography is unprotected by the First Amendment,[Footnote 8] as it is
intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children.
In the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996,[Footnote 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[Footnote
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 the government to establish that the
children shown in these digital images are real. Recently, Congress
enacted the PROTECT Act,[Footnote 11] which attempts to address the
constitutional issues raised in The Free Speech Coalition
decision.[Footnote 12]
The Internet Has Emerged as the Principal Tool for Exchanging Child
Pornography:
Historically, pornography, including child pornography, tended to be
found mainly in photographs, magazines, and videos.[Footnote 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 exploited--and
sometimes pioneered--emerging communication technologies--from the
dial-in bulletin board systems of the 1970s to the World Wide Web--to
access, trade, and distribute pornography, including child
pornography.[Footnote 14] Today, child pornography is available through
virtually every Internet technology (see table 1).
Table 1: Internet Technologies Providing Access to Child Pornography:
Technology: World Wide Web;
Characteristics: Web sites provide on-line access to text and
multimedia materials identified and accessed through the uniform
resource locator (URL).
Technology: Usenet;
Characteristics: A distributed electronic bulletin system, Usenet
offers over 80,000 newsgroups, with many newsgroups dedicated to
sharing of digital images.
Technology: Peer-to-peer file-sharing programs;
Characteristics: Internet applications operating over peer-to-peer
networks enable direct communication between users. Used largely for
sharing of digital music, images, and video, peer-to-peer applications
include BearShare, Gnutella, LimeWire, and KaZaA. KaZaA is the most
popular, with over 3 million KaZaA users sharing files at any time.
Technology: E-mail;
Characteristics: 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.
Technology: Instant messaging;
Characteristics: Instant messaging is not a dial-up system like the
telephone;
it requires that both parties be on line at the same time. AOL's
Instant Messenger and Microsoft's MSN Messenger and Internet Relay Chat
are the major instant messaging services. Users may exchange files,
including image files.
Technology: Chat and Internet Relay Chat;
Characteristics: Chat technologies allow computer conferencing using
the keyboard over the Internet between two or more people.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Among the principal channels for the distribution of child pornography
are commercial Web sites, Usenet newsgroups, and peer-to-peer
networks.[Footnote 15]
Web sites. According to recent estimates, there are about 400,000
commercial pornography Web sites worldwide,[Footnote 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 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,[Footnote 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,[Footnote 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.[Footnote 19]
Several Agencies Have Law Enforcement Responsibilities Regarding Child
Pornography on Peer-to-Peer Networks:
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: Nonprofit: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children;
Unit: Exploited Child Unit;
Focus: Works with the Customs Service, Postal Service, and the FBI to
analyze and investigate child pornography leads.
Agency: Federal entities: Department of Justice;
Unit: Federal Bureau of Investigation[A];
Focus: Proactively investigates crimes against children. Operates a
national "Innocent Images Initiative" to combat Internet-related sexual
exploitation of children.
Agency: Federal entities: Department of Justice;
Unit: Criminal Division, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section;
Focus: 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.
Agency: Federal entities: Department of Homeland Security;
Unit: U.S. Customs Service CyberSmuggling Center[A,B];
Focus: Conducts international child pornography investigations as part
of its mission to investigate international criminal activity conducted
on or facilitated by the Internet.
Agency: Federal entities: Department of the Treasury;
Unit: U.S. Secret Service[A];
Focus: Provides forensic and technical assistance in matters involving
missing and sexually exploited children.
Source: GAO.
[A] Agency has staff assigned to NCMEC.
[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.
[End of table]
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
center's 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 Exploited Child Unit's
CyberTipline II. The FBI, Customs Service, Postal Inspection Service,
and Secret Service have staff assigned directly to NCMEC as
analysts.[Footnote 20]
Two organizations in the Department of Justice have responsibilities
regarding child pornography: the FBI and the Justice Criminal
Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS).[Footnote
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 country's 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 Unit's CyberTipline
II.
* The U.S. Secret Service does not investigate child pornography cases
on peer-to-peer 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[Footnote 22] showed
that 543 (about 42 percent) of the images had titles and file names
associated with child pornography images.[Footnote 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.
Figure 1: Classification of 1,286 Titles and File Names of Images
Identified in KaZaA Search:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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).
Figure 2: Classification of 341 Images Downloaded through KaZaA:
[See PDF for image]
Note: GAO analysis of data provided by the Customs CyberSmuggling
Center.
[End of figure]
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. 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 2003--or about a thirty-two-fold 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:
Technology: Web sites;
Number of tips: 1998: 1,393;
Number of tips: 1999: 3,830;
Number of tips: 2000: 10,629;
Number of tips: 2001: 18,052;
Number of tips: 2002: 26,759;
Number of tips: 2003: 45,035.
Technology: E-mail;
Number of tips: 1998: 117;
Number of tips: 1999: 165;
Number of tips: 2000: 120;
Number of tips: 2001: 1,128;
Number of tips: 2002: 6,245;
Number of tips: 2003: 12,403.
Technology: Peer-to-peer;
Number of tips: 1998: N/A;
Number of tips: 1999: N/A;
Number of tips: 2000: N/A;
Number of tips: 2001: 156;
Number of tips: 2002: 757;
Number of tips: 2003: 840.
Technology: Usenet newsgroups & bulletin boards;
Number of tips: 1998: 531;
Number of tips: 1999: 987;
Number of tips: 2000: 731;
Number of tips: 2001: 990;
Number of tips: 2002: 993;
Number of tips: 2003: 1,128.
Technology: Unknown;
Number of tips: 1998: 90;
Number of tips: 1999: 258;
Number of tips: 2000: 260;
Number of tips: 2001: 430;
Number of tips: 2002: 612;
Number of tips: 2003: 1,692.
Technology: Chat rooms;
Number of tips: 1998: 155;
Number of tips: 1999: 256;
Number of tips: 2000: 176;
Number of tips: 2001: 125;
Number of tips: 2002: 234;
Number of tips: 2003: 786.
Technology: Instant Messaging;
Number of tips: 1998: 27;
Number of tips: 1999: 47;
Number of tips: 2000: 50;
Number of tips: 2001: 80;
Number of tips: 2002: 53;
Number of tips: 2003: 472.
Technology: File transfer protocol;
Number of tips: 1998: 25;
Number of tips: 1999: 26;
Number of tips: 2000: 58;
Number of tips: 2001: 64;
Number of tips: 2002: 23;
Number of tips: 2003: 13.
Total;
Number of tips: 1998: 2,338;
Number of tips: 1999: 5,569;
Number of tips: 2000: 12,024;
Number of tips: 2001: 21,025;
Number of tips: 2002: 35,676;
Number of tips: 2003: 62,369.
Source: Exploited Child Unit, National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children.
[End of table]
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 center's
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 Center's
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.
Figure 3: Classification of 177 Images of a Popular Singer, Child
Actors, and a Cartoon Character Downloaded through KaZaA:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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-to-peer 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.
Table 4: Resources Related to Combating Child Pornography on Peer-to-
Peer Networks in 2002:
Organization: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children;
Resources[A]: $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;
Efforts regarding peer-to-peer networks: NCMEC referred 913 tips
concerning peer-to-peer networks to law enforcement agencies.
Organization: Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Resources[A]: $38.2 million and 228 agents and support personnel for
Innocent Images Unit;
Efforts regarding peer-to-peer networks: 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.
Organization: Justice Criminal Division, Child Exploitation and
Obscenity Section;
Resources[A]: $4.38 million and 28 personnel allocated to combating
child exploitation and obscenity offenses;
Efforts regarding peer-to-peer networks: The High Tech Investigative
Unit deals with investigating any Internet medium that distributes
child pornography, including peer-to-peer networks.
Organization: U.S. Customs Service CyberSmuggling Center;
Resources[A]: $15.6 million (over 144,000 hours) allocated to combating
child exploitation and obscenity offenses[B];
Efforts regarding peer-to-peer networks: The center is beginning to
actively monitor peer-to-peer 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.
[End of table]
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 system's 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.[Footnote 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,[Footnote 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.
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.
[End of section]
Attachment: How File Sharing Works on Peer-to-Peer Networks:
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 clients--users who request
services--and servers--providers of services, usually Web sites or
portals. Unlike this traditional model, the peer-to-peer model enables
consenting users--or peers--to 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.[Footnote 26]
The ability of peer-to-peer networks to provide services and connect
users directly has resulted in a large number[Footnote 27] of powerful
applications built around this model.[Footnote 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,[Footnote 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[Footnote 30]
network, in which individuals find each other and interact directly.
Figure 4: Peer-to-Peer Models:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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 Alice's 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,[Footnote
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.[Footnote 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 Ted's computer has announced that it is "alive"
to the various members of the peer network, it can 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, Alice's) 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 Ted's computer through
the file-sharing program. Ted can then open a connection with Alice and
download the file directly from Alice's computer.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
Figure 5: Topology of a Gnutella Network:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 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.
FOOTNOTES
[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).
[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.
[11] Public Law No. 108-21 (Apr. 30, 2003).
[12] S. Rep. No. 108-2, at 13 (2003).
[13] John Carr, Theme Paper on Child Pornography for the 2nd World
Congress on Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, NCH Children's
Charities, Children & Technology Unit (Yokohama, 2001). (http://
www.ecpat.net/eng/Ecpat_inter/projects/monitoring/wc2/
yokohama_theme_child_pornography.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.plannedparenthood.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/youth_internet/)
[17] 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 file-sharing
services in 2001.
[18] Minority Staff, Children's 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/pdf_inves/pdf_pornog_rep.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/vol1_no1/
articles/01_01_MeBePo_gnutella.pdf)
[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.
[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.
[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/g_fox_2.html)
[29] Illustration adapted by Lt. Col. Mark Bontrager from original by
Bob Knighten, "Peer-to-Peer 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).
[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).
