Digby's Hullabaloo

Survey Says

by digby

Child-exploitation investigators found something unsettling when they recently took a 30-day snapshot of files being shared through computers in Missouri.

More than 7,000 computers were trading known images of child pornography. The Kansas City area accounted for more than 700 of those computers, which used peer-to-peer software similar to that used to trade music.

“These are really horrific things,” said Capt. Paul Carrill of the Platte County Sheriff’s Department. “It’s commonly referred to as ‘kiddie porn,’ like they’re children in bathing suits. But in law enforcement, they’re called ‘child rape images.’ “

The Western Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force conducted the survey in March after a year of preparation. Investigators searched for people who traded images of children whom the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children had identified as known victims of child pornographers.

Carrill, who leads the task force, said his investigators were sorting through the leads, preparing subpoenas and search warrants and assigning priorities to high-volume offenders.

I don’t know what criteria they used for this survey, but it appears that they did the survey first and are getting subpoenas later. How does that work?

To all appearances this appears to be a sort of crude data-mining operation, similar to what the federal government insists it needs to use to catch terrorists. And, who can object to it? I’m sure many people believe that child pornographers, like terrorists, are the worst of the worst and allowing the authorities to “survey” online activity and phone calls is a small price to pay to rid the world of their evil.

But what are the rules here? Can they do “surveys” looking for other information? Can they use other information they find in these “surveys?” What happens to the “survey” information? Is it stored for future reference? Who are the people who are doing these “surveys?”

I realize that if you’re innocent you’ve got nothing to worry about and all that, but there is a long history, including in the US in my lifetime, of the authorities using private information for personal, political or criminal reasons. Nothing is fool proof, but being forced to show a judge the basis for some specific suspicion is at least something.

I hate slippery slope arguments, but this is one case where vigilance is necessary. As Kevin Drum pointed out in this post yesterday, this technology is far too complicated for mere lawmakers and judges to adequately understand. The potential for abuse is enormous. As much as we all loathe terrorists and child molesters, we simply must hang on to the principle that the government has to have a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing before invading your privacy. If we don’t, we’re going to turn around one day and realize that our liberating modern technology actually restricts our freedom more than it enhances it.