Victim Impact Statement
az icac
SURVEY OF INTERNET CRIME INVESTIGATORS: OCTOBER 2009

Dr. Frank Kardasz, October 29, 2009

The link below leads to the survey results from information provided by investigators of Internet crimes. The
survey explored data-retention times, investigations damaged by the failure to retain data and suggestions
for improving the system and relationships with ISP’s. I hope you find the information interesting and useful.

http://docs.google.com/present/edit?id=0AY35igHT2KB9ZGdyNHhmeDdfMjQwam5qM21rZjI&hl=en

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Some interesting results from the survey includes the following information:

  • 100 investigators surveyed estimated that they submit between 239 – 1900 items of legal process
    per month to various ISP’s.

  • Impact of failure to retain data on investigations
        - 61% had investigations detrimentally effected because data was not retained.
       - 47% had to end an investigation because data was not retained.

  • How long should subscriber data be retained?
        - 31% believed subscriber information should be retained for 3 years.
        - 28% believed subscriber information should be retained for 5 years.

  • How long should content data be retained?
        - 44% believed content information should be retained for 1 year.
        - 19% believed content information should be retained for 3 years.

  • 89% of investigators agreed that a nationwide computer network should be established for the
    purpose of linking ISP’s with law enforcement agencies so that they may exchange legal process
    requests and responses to legal process. Authorized users would communicate through encrypted
    virtual private networks in order to maintain the security of the data.

  • Investigators suggested the following improvements by ISP’s:
        - Longer retention times
        - Provide information more quickly
        - Provide user guides
        - Have a site that permits electronic submission of process
        - Have a law enforcement direct line
Internet Crimes Against Children
On February 4, 2010, I presented the findings to an Online Safety and Technology Working Group (OSTWG)  
meeting at the Commerce Department in Washington DC. I included thoughts and opinions from law
enforcement investigators who work Internet crimes against children, some good - some bad.

Parts of the presentation were not well-received by some of the Internet Service Providers in the room. At one
point I praised their good work, but when I criticized some of their failings one lawyer (from AOL) shouted,
"Objection!" as if in a courtroom, and the committee chair, a lawyer from CBS/MySpace sustained the
objection and asked me to delete the offending PowerPoint slides. He scoffed at my suggestion that vicarious
liability might someday result in Internet service providers becoming subject to lawsuits by victims when they
respond slowly or not at all to requests for information from law enforcement..

In a preemptive attempt to discredit the work, one media-member of the group was already misquoting the
information and taking it out of context in an article the day before I gave the lecture.

Apparently some members of the OSTWG group do not want Congress to hear all sides of the arguments.

Below is a link to my un-redacted presentation, including the offending slides.

Here are the slides:
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3XfthhGWg7RYmY3YWQ2NTItYWIzZi00NGI1LWJhNjktOWQ3ZjFkNWEwMGI1&hl=en

Here is the text:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B3XfthhGWg7RYWY5MzRjZTktYTMzYS00Y2ViLWFhYTItMjMzZjkyMzg3N2Rl&hl=en

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=