The Three C’s (Computers, Crime, and Corrections)

Legalizing gambling is a topic that seems to ebb and flow with the times. In the not too distant past legal casino gambling in the United States was limited to Las Vegas and later Atlantic City. We then saw some growth with American Indian gaming. Additionally states, most recently Ohio, amended statutes to allow casinos within certain jurisdictional areas. Within the last few months online gambling legalization was suggested as a possible method to generate needed tax revenue. Why should community corrections officers be concerned about gambling issues, including the online variety? If it is legal what is the big deal? Let me “ante” into the pot to get this discussion going!

Internet gambling has nearly doubled every year since 1997 – in 2001 it exceed $2 billion . A simple Google search for the term “online gambling sites”, generates over 6,00,000 results. Currently, in the United States it is illegal to:

1. Place cyberbets on sporting events or in virtual card games;
2. Transfer money electronically for gambling; and
3. Place wagers in offshore Internet casinos, even if one lives in the U.S.

Okay, Einstein, it is all over the Internet but it is currently illegal in the states. So what? That may change and even if it doesn’t offenders can go to casinos and legally gamble (provided it is not prohibited by their supervision conditions). Why should I worry about? Time to” raise” the bet as it were. Consider these articles:

Lahn and Grabosky (2003) found that 34.3% of correctional survey participants had some form of gambling problem. The most serious current offenses for these problem gamblers were property crime (37.1%), violent crimes (28.6%) and traffic offenses such as drunk driving (17.1%). Additionally, 25.7% of problem gamblers disclosed that their gambling had contributed to their criminal behavior. Finally, 45.7% of problem gamblers said that they had stolen or obtained money illegally to gamble or to pay off accrued gambling debts.

Williams, Royston, and Hagen (2005) reviewed scientific studies on offender gambling and found the studies provided evidence that offenders have the highest overall rate of problem gambling of any known population. Their review found as many as one-third of offenders met the criteria for problem gambling and approximately 50% of crimes committed by these individuals were to support gambling.

Williams (2010) observes “Correctional professionals should be aware of the possibilities in which gambling may develop among offenders, particularly at a time when legalized gambling opportunities are increasing.” 

Okay, so you raise that community risk issue again. Big deal! Community correction officers just have to keep a better eye out for offenders that may have such gambling difficulties and prohibit them from going to locations where legal gambling is allowed. You know, put them on the problem gambling watch list at the local casinos. No more travel permits to Las Vegas or Atlantic City. Perform traditional field work to know what supervised offenders are doing. Again, Mr. Cigar Lover you got nothing but smoke. You are bluffing!

Time to show you my hold cards, collectively called “online gambling.” I got two studies, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (2002) and CyberPsychology & Behavior (2009), which suggest that people who gamble on the Internet are likely to have a gambling problem. The later study noted … “that the medium of the Internet may be more likely to contribute to problem gambling than gambling in offline environments.”

Online gambling addictions much like other problem online behaviors can be easily concealed from significant others and community corrections officers. Now the problem gambler can bypass their supervision officer’s brick and mortar techniques and go to cyberspace. They don’t need to be careful about going into a casino or have ready explanations why they weren’t home when their officer happened  to stop by for a surprise visit. With legalization of online gambling, an offender with a problem just needs a mobile phone. Even an offender on home detention with global positioning can gamble their way into trouble. Casino watch lists for problem gamblers will do little to stop an offender with an Internet connection from placing their bets. The only thing that may slow them down is their credit card…. or their next victim’s card limit. There is also the issue of virtual gambling in virtual communities. Even now criminal elements are finding new and novel ways to transfer “virtual money” into real world currency and commit fraud. Time to “fold”? Nope, I got some solutions to help you address this challenging issue. Here they are:

1. Know how a gambling problem may have contributed to an offender’s involvement in the criminal justice process. Be aware that gambling is no longer limited to just the brick and mortar casinos but is now in cyberspace.
2. Be aware gambling online can involved traditional exchanges debits/credits on credit cards bank statement
3. Look for signs that your offender is having unexplained difficulties meeting basic needs (food, lodging, clothing, etc.) and/or addressing family obligations and/or  restitution/fine/supervision fees. Maybe funds are being diverted to gamble or pay a gambling debt. Request offenders provide financial information as needed.
4. Periodically check credit card and bank statements for charges that might be associated with gambling. Require offenders explain and document large cash withdrawals and/or advances.
5. Periodically require a credit report to insure you are looking at all your offender’s credit balances.
6. For individuals with a gambling problem make sure that their treatment providers are aware how gambling can occur in cyberspace, which can be much harder to detect.
7. If your gambling problem offender is spending a lot of time online explore what they are doing. For instance are they truly job searching or placing bets? Ask  the obvious, i.e., are you gambling online?  But also explore if they are involved in virtual communities online and what are they doing in those communities.
8. Depending upon the circumstances consider searching or monitoring of computers to find online activity related to gambling. For problem gamblers with Internet access consider installing software that prevents access to gambling sites.

Community corrections officers are increasing called upon to address problem behaviors,  particularly when those issues may have resulted in criminal acts. Research has identified gambling as an area of concern in offender populations.  Officers must be prepared to address this concern, which can manifest itself either at the roulette table in Las Vegas or online in the offender’s home.  Cyberspace puts a new dimension to addressing problem behaviors like gambling. However, officers do have cards to play. They just have to welling to get into the game and be effective change agents.  Take care and be safe out there! Now where is that cigar I had…

References

Center for Counseling & Health Resources, Inc. Gambling Facts and Statistics Retrieved from  http://www.overcominggambling.com/facts.html

Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2007) Online Gambling: Don’t Roll The Dice Retreived from http://www2.fbi.gov/page2/june07/gambling060607.htm

Griffiths, M., Wardle, H, Orford, J. Sproston, K. and Erens B.(2009) “Sociodemographic Correlates of Internet Gambling: Findings from the 2007 British Gambling Prevalence Survey” CyberPsychology & Behavior. 12(2) Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19072080

Ladd, G. and Petry, N. (2002) “Disordered Gambling Among University-Based Medical and Dental Patients: A Focus on Internet Gambling”.  Psychology of Addictive Behaviors Vol. 16, No. 1, 76–79 Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/adb-16176.pdf

Lahn, J. and Grabosky P. (2003). “Gambling and Clients of ACT Corrections”. Centre for Gambling Research. Regulatory Institutions Network. Australian National University. Retrieved from www.problemgambling.act.gov.au/Gambling%20and%20Clients%20of%20ACT%20Corrections.pdf

Sullivan, K. (2008) “Virtual Money Laundering and Fraud”  BankInfoSecurity.com Retrieved from http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/articles.php?art_id=809&

Williams, DJ. (2010). “Offender Gambling Behavior and Risk during the Re-entry Process”. Los Angeles, CA: Leisure and Deviance Education/Research Services (LEADERS). Retrieved from  https://dspace1.acs.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/1880/48141/1/Gambling_Behavior_and_Risk_During_Re-entry.pdf

Williams, R. J., Royston, J., & Hagen, B. F. (2005). “Gambling and Problem Gambling within Forensic Populations: A Review of the Literature”. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 665-689 Retrieved from http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/32/6/665.abstract

 Email This Post     Print This Post

Art Supervision

Child Abuse Prevention Month and Sexual Assault Awareness Month are in April. Additionally, April 10-16, 2011 is National Crime Victims Rights Week. What do these events have to do with cyberspace? I mean, cyberspace isn’t real right? No one gets harmed by 1’s and 0’s. Sure there are hackers and virus writers that harm or steal data but that has nothing to do with this month’s “real victims.” Oh contraire mon amie! Let me show you how what happens in cyberspace can have real world consequences.

Child Porn

One of the things that really fries my grits is the comment by some that child porn is just “dirty pictures” and the offenders who posses digital images are somehow removed from the victimization process because they didn’t produce the images. I somethings also hear the comment that these images mainly involve 16-17 year olds or are almost 18 years old, and it is “borderline illegal.” Moose hockey!

According to to National Center for Missing and Exploited Children the content of these illegal images “varies from exposure of genitalia to graphic sexual abuse, such as penetration by objects, anal penetration, and bestiality.” Additionally, of the “child pornography victims identified by law enforcement, 42% appear to be pubescent, 52% appear to be prepubescent, and 6% appear to be infants or toddlers.”

Beyond the creation trauma, what kind of harm are we talking about with these images? Digital images don’t degrade over time. Electronic media is the closest thing mankind has come to creating something that is permanent. These images can be traded hundreds and thousands of times and the look of fear, shock, and trauma on the victim’s face is just as fresh as the day it was taken. The images, transmitted all over the world, can’t just be deleted or recalled. They are viewed by all manner of sex offender, from the dabbler (curious offender) to the hard core preferential offender. They are even used by some offenders to entice new children. The children in these pictures are repeatedly victimized a little bit more each time these images are viewed, traded, and distributed. The phrase “dirty pictures”, sometimes used by offenders, attorney, and even judges, to describe these images minimizes the harm done to these children. It is like equating a tsunami with the splash one creates in a mud puddle.

Some federal courts are wrestling with putting a dollar figure for restitution orders in convictions involving child pornography possession. If these restitution orders stand,  maybe, just maybe, potential offenders will realize that possessing images of a children being brutalized can have a negative financial impact on them. It is a small measure of comfort to the victims in these images.

Internet Harassment

Approximately 3.4 million people are stalked annually and 1 in 4 victims reported the offense included a cyberstalking act. (Baum, Catalano, and Rand, 2009) Additionally, law enforcement estimates that electronic communications are a factor in 20% to 40% of all stalking cases. So the lines between on-line and off-line stalking frequently overlap. The effects of cyberstalking and more recently cyberbullying are starting to be viewed as more than just a cyberspace event. According to the National Center for Victims of Crime, cyberstalking victims … “often psychological trauma, as well as physical and emotional reactions as a result of their victimization. Some of these effects may include: changes in sleeping and eating patterns; nightmares; hypervigilance; anxiety; helplessness; fear for safety; shock and disbelief.”

Hinduja and Patchin found … “that experience with traditional bullying and cyberbullying is associated with an increase in suicidal ideation among our sample, and that both seem to be related to the outcome measure in similar ways.” They further note that the data does not support a cause and effect type relation, but that these experiences with bullying and cyberbullying may tend … “to exacerbate instability and hopelessness in the minds of adolescents already struggling with stressful life circumstances.”

Conclusion

I hope that during the upcoming month we realize that a crime, regardless of whether it occurs online or off-line, profoundly and negatively effects victims. We should not paint with broad minimization strokes simply because the crime occurred in the digital age. Those “1’s and 0’s” can sometimes be as harmful as “sticks and stones.”

References

1999 Report on Cyberstalking: A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry, a Report from the Attorney General to the Vice President, August 1999

Baum, Katrina; Catalano, Shannan; and Rand, Michael, (2009). Stalking Victimization in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Hinduja, Sameer and Patchin, Justin W. ‘Bullying, Cyberbullying, and Suicide’, Archives of Suicide Research, 14:3, 206 – 221

Lozano, Juan, “Legal experts: Ruling benefits child porn victims” Associated Press, March 25, 2011

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,  Child Pornography Fact Sheet

The National Center for Victims of Crime, Cyberstalking

 Email This Post     Print This Post

Art Internet Safety, Legal Updates, Supervision

Not too long ago an individual purportedly a plaintiff in Doe v. Shurtleff, Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 2010  was arguing to anyone that would listen that requiring registered sex offenders to disclose Internet identifiers as part of their registration was a violation their rights, most notably the First Amendment rights.  He was for a while a frequent critic of issues reported here regarding sex offender registeration and cyber-supervision suggestions.

As background to this discussion, on July 2, 2008, registration regulations implemented by the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking required by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 took effect.  These regulations mandated that Internet identifiers, such as e-mail addresses and profiles, were to be disclosed by sex offenders as part of the federal registration requirements. Later, the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008, also known as the KIDS Act of 2008, further solidified the disclosure of Internet identifiers as a Congressional mandate. 

The history on John Doe’s case is he brought suit  regarding the requirement to have Internet identifiers disclosed as part of sex offender registration. Initially, this information was available to the public. However, Utah amended its registration law, reflecting Internet identifiers of registered sex offenders would no longer be public. The district court removed its injunction and upheld the law. John Doe then appealed the case to the 10th Circuit.

The 1oth Circuit upheld the district court decision, allowing Internet identifiers as part of Utah’s sex offender registry.  John Doe also appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States (Case No. 10-957) by filing a  Petition for a Writ of Certiorari on January 24, 2011.  On March  7, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

“The effect of denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court is often debated.  The decision of the Court of Appeals is unaffected.   However, the decision does not necessarily reflect agreement with the decision of the lower court.”

In layman’s terms, John Doe will now have to register all his Internet identifiers as a resident of Utah (he claimed to be given a “temporary pass” by the Attorney General, pending the decision in this case).  The 10th Circuit and district courts’ decision stands.

I should note right after the 10th Circuit ruling was made the federal regulations were changed on January 11, 2011,  to reflect Internet Identifers were to be excempt from the public registeration websites.  States still working on getting compliant with the federal law would be well advised to make sure Internet idenifiter are required but not made publicly  available.

 Email This Post     Print This Post

Art Legal Updates, Supervision

On March 1, 2011, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) exercised its emergency scheduling authority to control five chemicals (JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497, and cannabicyclohexanol). These five chemicals are used to make what is referred to as “fake pot” products.  The resulting smoke-able herbal product brands, with such names as “Spice,” “K2,” “Blaze,” and “Red X Dawn”  were sold on the Internet and a variety of locations as legal substitutes for getting a a marijuana-like high.  The marketing and sale of these marijuana substitutes online represents just one way drug use is being impacted by the Internet. Community correctional professionals now need to become familiar with the cyberspace’s role in substance abuse behavior to be effective change agents.

The National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) observed in 2002 that drug use facilitation appeared to be the most common drug-related activity on the Internet. NDIC categorized this facilitation as:

• Use: Information is readily available online about the supposedly positive effects of drug use at the same time downplaying the negative effects.  Information is also presented on how to use readily available products, such as cold medications, in order to get “high.”  The sites also frequently explain drug use terminology and slang, thereby acclimating individuals to drug culture.
• Production:  Some Internet sites provide recipes for individuals to produce their own cocktails of abuse.  These sites often times include not only the ingredients but where to obtain them as well as the how to get the production equipment. Unfortunately, misinformation is not unusual, which can lead to serious injury/illness or death.
• Sale: Individuals can easily search online for drug suppliers or as noted above drug substitutes. Sites marketing drugs with no prescription needed are not usual.

Many of NDIC observations seem valid even today. A small 2005 study found 12 patients (9 male, 3 female) 100% reported that Internet-based information had affected the ways in which they had used psychoactive substances. Additionally, eight of these respondents described adopting behaviors intended to minimize the risks associated with psychoactive substance use. The respondents also reported changes in the use of a wide variety of illicit substances as well as over-the-counter and prescription pharmaceuticals based upon their online research. 

Leinwand (2007) also cited a study that found 10 million online messages written by teens in 2006 showed they regularly chat about drinking alcohol, smoking pot, partying and hooking up. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) also concluded in 2010 that “Social networking sites provide information from teens on their personal experiences on how to get high with prescription drugs.”  Lyon (2008) also observed that the Internet is also ripe with methods for users to defeat drug tests, some “downright dangerous.” 

 Actually obtaining illegal drugs online appears a smaller part of the overall cyber-effect on drug use.  A U.S. government study noted that only .04% of persons aged 12 or older in 2008-2009 who used pain relievers nonmedically in the past 12 months obtained their drugs online.  Nevertheless,  a 2010 United Nations report reflected that India has… “emerged as a major source for illegal drugs trade on the Internet with narcotics smuggled via the country’s courier and postal services to the rest of the world.”  The report further noted that illegal India firms, disguised as software companies, were allowing transactions of banned pharmaceutical preparations to be made over the Internet.

What does all this mean for the community corrections professional charged with supervising offenders with substance abuse issues?  Consider the following suggestions:

1. Do your own Internet research to see what is being discussed about use, production, and/or sale so you are better informed and know what to look for on your caseload;
2. Request treatment providers explore with your offenders the role cyberspace plays in their substance abuse history, noting the areas cited by the NDIC (Use, Production, Sale); 
3. Stress, particularly for juvenile offenders, that the Internet can be a wealth of information, but not all of it is reliable. Believing information posted by some anonymous person on the effects of this drug or that or how to  “safely” produce some mind alerting drug is fool-hearty.  (Have a ready supply of news articles of the tragic results to back this up.);
4. Periodically request credit card and bank statements to check for online drug purchases, particularly for offenders whose drugs of choice were prescription medications;
5. Periodically check social networking profiles and do searches to see who offenders are associating with and what is being posted for evidence of drug use and/or efforts to defeat drug testing;
6. Depending upon the circumstances consider searching or monitoring of computers, including mobile devices, to find online activity related to obtaining, producing, and/or selling drugs and defeating drug use monitoring efforts.

Over 25 years ago when my professional career started a drug user might steal a computer to later sell it to buy drugs. Now, thanks in large part to the Internet, computers are  being used in a different manner to facilitate drug use. Community corrections officers must learn to adapt to the Information Age if they hope to keep up with the 21^st Century substance abuser. 

REFERENCES

Boyer, E.; Shannon, M and Hibbert, P. “The Internet and Psychoactive Substance Use Among Innovative Drug Users” Pediatrics 2005, 115, 302-305 Retrieved from http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/115/2/302

Drug Enforcement Adminstration (DEA) “Chemicals Used in “Spice” and “K2″ Type Products Now Under Federal Control and Regulation”,  Press Release Retrieved from  http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr030111.html 

Drug Enforcement Adminstration (DEA) Hidden Dangers in Your Home,  (2010), Retrieved from http://www.getsmartaboutdrugs.com/Files/File/CurrentCoPPresentations_December2010/DEA_HiddenDangersSpeakerNotes_2010.pdf  

Leinwand,D. “Teens use Internet to Share Drug Stories”, (2007) USA Today, Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-18-online_N.htm

Lindsay, L. “Ways Teens Might Cheat on Drug Tests and How to Catch Them”, (2008) US News, Retrieved from http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2008/08/06/5-ways-teens-might-cheat-on-drug-tests8212and-how-to-catch-them

National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) Information Bulletin: Drugs, Youth, and the Internet(2002), Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs2/2161/index.htm

Reuters, “Illegal Drug Trade via Internet on the Rise in India” (2010) Retrieved from http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/02/24/idINIndia-46438820100224Reuters

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Results from the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Volume I. Summary of National Findings . Retrieved from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k9NSDUH/2k9ResultsP.pdf

 Email This Post     Print This Post

Art Supervision

A prohibition against any criminal associations is a standard condition common in community supervision (probation, parole, supervised release, etc.).  John Augustus, father of probation … “manifested an insistence on separating offenders from their criminal acquaintances.” (Panzarella, 2002, pg. 40). The basic premize has been that when offenders associate with another it frequently leads to more serious noncompliance, such as drug use or other criminal conduct. What exactly is criminal association? One source  defines it as:

… any planned, prolonged, or repeated, personal, telephonic, or written contact with a person having a felony record, or engaging in criminal activity, and/or if you had knowledge of, or should have had knowledge of his, or her felony conviction or the criminal activity in which they were engaged during the times of your association. Incidental contact is not considered association.”

Association on the job or during treatment is not usually considered criminal association. It is hard to ascertain how many supervision cases are actually revoked for the technical violation of criminal association. One study  found that approximately 35 percent of all the recorded parole violations were for technical violations and two-thirds of these cases were from absconding supervision. Another study found 9 percent of probation cases were revoked for technical violations. However, neither of these studies provided specifics indicating what percentage of the technical violations were criminal association in nature. It would seem to make sense that criminal associations would be related to new law violations in some manner. If this is accurate, they may be more present in the cases where revocation occurred as a result of a new conviction than solely revocations due to technical violations alone.

Prior to the advent of social networking sites (SNS) criminal association violations were sometimes detected during a chance home visit or possibly a “prison letter” found in an offender’s possession. Unfortunately they too often were first discovered in a police report of all individuals arrested with an offender during a new crime.

However, offenders are now associating with one another in increasing numbers on social networking sites (SNS), such as Facebook®. This trend raises the interesting possibility that supervision officers can be more proactive in detecting criminal associations as opposed to waiting for an offender’s arrest report to identify their problematic associates. What kind of numbers are we talking about? One recent case found almost 15% of one offender’s total “friends” were individuals they had meet while serving time in prison. This may be an extreme case but even one criminal association may be enough to get an offender into noncompliance.

SNS are used by offenders in much the same way as the general public, i.e. to communicate and maintain contact with friends and relatives and to make new contacts who share similar interests. However, when supervised offenders have contact with other offenders via a SNS, they are violating their association condition. What kind of trouble are we talking about? Supervised offenders have been posted on their Facebook® wall such antisocial activities as:

• Bragging about criminal conduct, including showing images of drug use and gun possession;
• Warning other associations about police investigations;
• Threatening alleged informants and witnesses

It is ironic that many of these activities are posted in public areas of an offender’s profile. However, most SNS also allow individuals to send private messages to one another. With mobile phones, a SNS presence can provide immediate access to one’s criminal associates. The contact is not only immediate but can also be simultaneous with all of one’s fellow felons. If they are publicizing such activities to the world we can only surmise what are they communicating privately among themselves.

Supervised offenders cannot be prohibited from using SNS unless their conditions, state law, or the SNS precludes their use. (See  Facebook: Sex Offenders Need Not Apply!) However, officers can provide clear instructions to all supervised offenders that criminal associations in cyberspace are also not permitted.  Supervision officers should also routinely request e-mail addresses and SNS information from offenders. With this information officers should also conduct what Blalock, refers to as “virtual home visits”, to ascertain what supervised offenders are posting as well as whom they have reflected as associates. Don’t do this with your personal SNS profile for this will provide your private information to your offender. You should have a SNS profile set up specifically for this purpose. Once a profile is located officers should document its condition in some manner. These profiles can be changed very easily and document and preservation is a must. One excellent program for this purpose is WebCase®.

Supervision officers should also periodically check popular SNS, such as Facebook® to see if their offenders have an undisclosed profile. Searches by emails, names, and alias, can frequently detect these. If these searches fail try searches of their close family/friends, to see if the offender’s profile is associated with them, and work backward.

Many individuals will have portions of their profile set to private but most will neglect the listing of their friends/contacts, which is what you are interested in when checking for criminal associations. Many SNS have search features that allow users to search for their own friends/contacts on another individual’s profile. This feature can be used to check for criminal associations among an offender’s friends/contacts. Consider the following:

1. Check first for co-conspirators on past and current offenses;
2. Next check for friends/contacts that are clearly not an offender’s relatives;
3. Check for friends/contacts that are flashing gang signs or displaying similar antisocial conduct.
4. Check for friends/contacts that appear out of place which might indicate they meet outside of the offender’s neighborhood, such as in correctional setting

Take the identified names and see if they match information in local or regional criminal records databases.. If so, and depending upon the SNS, determine when they were added and what posts where made by them. Additionally, identify additional names that you may have missed based upon your first inquiry. For instance, sometimes an offender will add several of their inmate friends at the same time. You might have detected one but missed others that were added at the same time.  Also check the criminal associations you have identified and see if similar friends/associates are listed on their profile. For example, your offender has John S and Tom J who you have identified as a felon. You look at John S and Tom J and find Billy W as a friend/contact of both. Billy W is also an friend of your offender. You didn’t initially identify Billy W but check him now and you might find he also has a criminal record.

By now some of you are probably thinking this is great if their profile is very public. What about those who have their profile set to private? Well, most supervision conditions provide you the method to get into those private profiles. For instance, supervision conditions frequently provide that an offender will allow their officer to visit them at home or “elsewhere”. In this case “elsewhere” is their SNS profile. Another condition is follow your officer’s instructions. Using your investigation profile, request they allow you as a “friend.” Once accepted examine their site briefly, including their friends/contacts and remove yourself as a “friend.” Like a traditional home visit your are not interested in being a permanent fixture in their virtual space.

If they refuse you may need to seek more intrusive methods to find out what is going on. Be forewarned though. Some offenders when directed to provide access merely close their SNS profile. Without proper legal paperwork (frequently a search warrant) you can’t get at the closed account. However, they have violated your directive, which can result in a sanction and you have at least temporarily closed down a possible criminal association venue.

After you have found several criminal associations on your offender’s profile, time to confront them about these as well as to ascertain how they came to know the other contacts listed on their profile (just in case you missed some).  Once you have proven criminal associations you have to take corrective action as well. The action may be a verbal or written reprimand with direction to purge their SNS profile of the unapproved associations. However, you may be seeking a sanction or even a revocation if you find more serious violations during your examination of the SNS.

This was just a brief overview of how to start addressing cyberspace in one’s community supervision practices. Professional readers are strongly encouraged to seek out training on conducting these investigations. Again, one of my favorites for this is the High Technology Crime Association .  I understand that Wojo, Jimmie and the gang are working hard to have a hell of a training conference at Indian Wells, CA,  September 12-14, 2011. It looks like they are going to have a lab or two by Vere Software, makers of WebCase®.  I am sure there will be plenty of training on social networking investigations as well as computer forensic topics. I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention that Vere Software also has a free webinar series concerning online investigations. Don’t forget to tell Wojo, Jimmie and Todd (at Vere Software) I sent you!

With proper training and practice the time needed to check an offender’s SNS profile will decrease. It clearly makes sense for all community corrections agencies to take the proactive step of checking supervised offender’s SNS profiles as opposed to waiting until an offender associated themselves into a new criminal conviction.  Trust me, you don’t have to be a cigar smoking fool like me to learn this stuff!

References

Blalock, Shannon F. (2007) Virtual Home Visits: A Guide to Using Social Networking Sites to Assist with Offender Supervision and Fugitive Apprehension, District 1, Division of Probation and Parole Kentucky Department of Corrections.

Bonczar, T. and Glaze L., “Probation and Parole in the United States, 2006” (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 220218) (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 2007) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus06.pdf

Grattet, R.; Petersila, J.; Lin, J.; and Beckman, M., “Parole Violations and Revocations in California: Analysis and Suggestions for Action” Federal Probation, Vol. 73, No. 1 (June 2009) Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FederalCourts/PPS/Fedprob/2009-06/SuggestionsforAction.html#5

Orientation to Supervision United States Probation Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Retrieved from http://www.moep.uscourts.gov/Supervision%20Orientation%20Manual.pdf

Panzarella, R.  “Theory and Practice of Probation in the Report of John Augustus” Federal Probation, Vol. 66, No. 3, (December 2002), pg. 38-42 Retrieved from http://host4.uscourts.gov/fedprob/2002decfp.pdf

 Email This Post     Print This Post

Art Supervision

I have taken a look at least thirty-two federal cases on technology conditions (computer/Internet restrictions) since 1998.  These cases have been litigated in ten of the thirteen federal circuit courts and reflect a split between the circuits on the issue of computer/Internet restrictions for supervised offenders. There are nineteen cases supporting such restrictions and thirteen limiting them.  However, there frequently are nuances between the circuits and even within the same circuit on the imposition of computer/Internet restrictions.

The most active circuit in these cases has been the Eighth, with seven cases, five supporting technology conditions and two narrowing their use. The Eleven circuit has had four cases, all supporting technology conditions. The Second Circuit has three case limiting technology conditions and two supporting their use in some manner. The Third Circuit has two cases limiting technology conditions and one supporting them in some manner. Attached is the listing caselawup.

Please note these cases are only federal cases, involving federal offenders. They do not include state cases which are out there in many jurisdictions. They also pertain only to conditions imposed on individuals subject to correctional supervision. They also do not include cases such as Doe v. Shurtleff, Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit 2010 and White v. Baker, 696 F. Supp. 2d 1289 – Dist. Court, ND Georgia 2010 both of which relate to requiring registered sex offenders to disclosure of Internet identifiers. (In  Doe v. Shurtleff, the 10th Circuit ruled that Internet identifiers can be required as part of Utah’s sex offender registry. The plaintiff  is appealing this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States (Case No. 10-957).  White v. Baker resulted in a preliminary injunction being granted at the district court level precluding GA enforcement  of requiring disclosure of Internet Identifiers by registered sex offenders at this time.)

Finally, do not rely solely on the classification of one case appearing as supporting or not supporting technology conditions. The cases frequently are very specific to a particular fact pattern and/or type of restriction. So…READ THE CASE…which you can find easily enough through a Google search. (I can’t spend all my time providing links to all  the cases for you…after all I have to have time to smoke a cigar every now and then!)

In summary,  of the nineteen cases supportive of technology conditions, 14 dealt with child pornography offenses (possession, receipt, selling, production, or transporting). Two cases dealt with enticement via a computer. Of the offenses involving child pornography or enticement, seven involved real victim(s) or a similar aggravating circumstance. Three of the cases deal solely with fraud type offenses.  Of the thirteen cases limiting the imposition of technology conditions, eight dealt with child pornography offenses (five receipt and three possession). One case, dealt with enticement, which was an undercover sting operation. Two cases involved fraud offenses, with a sex offense history of some kind. One case involved counterfeiting.

Enjoy and please forward me corrections, additions, etc. as needed.  I will update this as needed.

PS: A thanks goes out to Blog poster JohnDoeUtah for pointing out the Doe v. Shurtleff and White v. Baker cases noted above.

 Email This Post     Print This Post

Art Legal Updates

From time to time supervision officers ask me about gaming consoles and sex offenders. There were some recent incidents that compelled me to write about it today. The first involved a law enforcement request seeking assistance in analyzing a gaming console taken by a parole officer from a sex offender. The parole officer was concerned about what the offender had done with it. The next was a recently decided case striking a gaming restriction for a sex offender. So why all the concern about gaming? Yes they are computers and yes they can connect to the Internet. But can sex offenders use them to have contact with minors and/or access pornography? Let’s take a look!

Contact with Minors

A 2008 Pew Research study noted “For most teens, gaming is a social activity and a major component of their overall social experience.” The study provided some stats on this. Specifically:

• 97% of teens ages 12-17 play computer, web, portable, or console games
• 86% of teens play on a console like the Xbox, PlayStation, or Wii.

Okay, so kids are playing games on computers, big surprise right? So what if they play video games. It is not like they are going online to play them. Oh contraire mon amie! The same study noted:

• Nearly 3 in 5 teens (59%) play games in multiple ways ( with others in the same room, with others online, or alone).
• Fifteen percent of these teens play most often with those they are connected to via the internet.
• Of the teens who play games online with others, 27% of teens play online games with people they first met online and 23% of teens play with both friends and family known in the offline world and people they met online.

You got real numbers on that? Yeah…. here is some for you… two of the top gaming consoles in 2008 had 10 million and 9.8 million subscribers respectively. So is it possible for a sex offender to have contact with a minor through a gaming console? Does Bugs Bunny like carrots and do I like cigars?

Accessing Pornography

Okay, so a sex offender can play a game with a minor. So what? It’s not like they can forward them pornography or send them a picture of themselves? Well, according to the 2011 Video GameConsoles Review, 8 of the 9 gaming consoles have web browsing capabilities and 5 of 9 can accommodate a webcam. The Review further notes:

Put the board games aside. With video games, you can play with friends, family and other video gamers across the world without ever leaving your living room. Best of all, with enhanced multimedia functions like video and music support and web browsing, you have a powerful all-in-one device.

Okay, so the gaming consoles sound like something a supervision officer should be concerned about when dealing with a sex offender. What about those portable gaming devices? What the heck can they do? Consider this from CNN article Internet Connectivity Key to New Portable Game Devices :

Whereas Nintendo’s 3DS is designed to connect directly with other systems in its vicinity and constantly search the airwaves for nearby Wi-Fi hotspots, Sony’s upcoming system takes a page out of the smartphone and tablet playbook. Sony’s successor to the PlayStation Portable will have a 3G Internet connectivity key to new portable game devices wireless data chip inside. Users will be able to connect to a cellular network to download game files, talk to friends or challenge them in games.

Alrighty then, we know these devices can be used to access the Internet and minors use them. So what.. That doesn’t mean there are any sex offenders who have used gaming to get at kids. Well, the Sexual Assault Response Center notes… “not every video game player is a sex offender; but some sex offenders use such games to gain their victims’ trust and interest. In these cases, playing video games is part of the grooming process.” Here are a couple of examples:

• Women, age 35, alledgely hooked up with boy age 15, through playing World of Warcraff (Disclaimer: this is a computer game online, not run through a gaming console).
• A man used his XBox 360 to lure a 14 year old girl to a motel for sex.

Solutions

Okay, did I get your attention? Now consider that there is no monitoring software that can be installed on these devices to watch whether a supervised offender is contacting a minor or viewing pornography. Okay, what about some kind of blocking controls. Nope…those are “parental controls”, designed to keep kids away from bad stuff. You might be able to limit a sex offender’s access to pornography through these controls but it also might force them to only interact with kids…very bad idea. Hey there is always the ability to search the gaming consoles right? Yes there is, but it is very technical and not for the faint of heart. The consoles are computers but they don’t have the same operating systems or internal hardware. It is not something your are going to employ every couple weeks or so to check on your sex offender’s gaming activities. You got any solutions for this mess you pointed out?…. here are a few:

• Seek a total ban/restriction for sex offenders who have a history of contact offenses involving minors or attempting to entice children online from possessing or accessing these devices. (Its not like they need them to find a job or get schooling right!)
• You might also be able to justify a prohibition for offenses involving child pornography if it can be shown that the images were obtained from the Internet, involved trading/distribution/production, and/or the offender has a history of contact offenses.
• In seeking restrictions, note the technical difficulties in monitoring these devices, the number of minors using them, and the capabilities to browse the Internet, chat, etc. This is particularly the case if restrictions limiting access to places where minors play, congregate, or gather are deemed appropriate.

For other cases in which you can’t get a prohibition, periodically ask to see bank statements and/or credit card bills to determine if they have been any charges for credits in online communities that might reflect they are in places where minors frequent. You might also consider laying some paper (subpoena/court order/warrant) on the Internet Service Provider that provides Internet access for the gaming console to get profile information and locations they go to while online. In states that require the disclosure of Internet identifiers as part of sex offender registration ensure that if your offender is online playing games he is reporting his/her online gaming profile in the register. Additionally, seek appropriate assistance if it becomes necessary to examine the gaming device. Suggestions include:

• FBI’s Regional Computer Forensic Labs
• Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces
• U.S. Secret Service Electronic Crimes Task Forces and Working Groups
• Your local or state police computer crime lab.

SEARCH also has A Guide to Online Gaming for Law Enforcement Investigators (October 2007), which is only for law enforcement. Finally, don’t forget my favorite high tech investigations training organization (HTCIA) ! I am sure they will cover gaming devices at the 25th HTCIA International Training Conference & Expo, September 12-14, 2011, at Renaissance Esmeralda Resort & Spa, Indian Wells, California (Near Palm Springs). Don’t forget to tell Wojo and Jimmie I sent you!

PS:  Post your questions/suggestions about other cybercrime topics at  The Three C’s: Answers for the Correctional Professional on Cybercrime

 Email This Post     Print This Post

Art Supervision

Couple cases were published February 16, 2011, that thought might be of interest. Both of them are out of the 8th Circuit and come to different conclusions on Internet bans. Here are the highlights: 

U.S. v. WIEDOWER, No. 09-3192, 8th Circuit: Wiedower was convicted of possession of child pornography and the sentencing Court imposed the following conditions, 

 “(1) a requirement that Wiedower participate in sexual offender treatment, which would involve submitting to polygraph testing; (2) a ban on the use of any computer, whether connected to the Internet or not, without the prior approval of the probation office; (3) a ban on any online gaming unless “otherwise indicated in the sex offender treatment plan”; (4) a ban on possessing or viewing any “form of media containing pornographic images or sexually explicit material”; and (5) a ban on contacting any minors without prior approval or entering any place “where children frequently congregate,” such as theaters and theme parks.” 

The 8th Circuit upheld (1), (4) and (5). However, relying in part on its discussion in United States v. Crume, 422 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2005) and the fact Wiedower was only convicted of possession of child porn, the 8th Circuit struck down conditions (2) and (3): 

 …”the district court did not explain why a specific restriction on online gaming was necessary, even though the only evidence in the record suggested that Wiedower was attempting to replace child pornography with online gaming. Accordingly, we reverse the computer and internet restrictions, including the more specific prohibition on online gaming, and remand this case for the district court to create a more narrowly tailored ban, if the district court deems one necessary after conducting an individualized inquiry.”  

U.S. v. DEMERS, No. 09-2886, 8th Circuit: Demers pled guilty to possession of child pornography. However, Demers had a prior sexual abuse offense and was a registered sex offender at the time of the offense. Demers challenged a special condition (Number 5) which forbid him to “have access to an Internet-connected computer” or to “access the Internet from any location without prior approval by the probation office and for a justified reason.” 

 He first argued that a ban on his Internet access was not reasonably related to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The 8^th Circuit noted: 

 “Given Demers’s prior sexual abuse offense and his status as a registered sex offender, we have no trouble concluding that because Demers’s offense involved using the Internet to access child pornography, a limitation on his access to the Internet is “reasonably calculated to deter him from repeating his illegal activity, protect the public from similar conduct, and serve his correctional needs.”  

 Next, Demers argued that this condition “represents a greater deprivation of his First Amendment rights than is reasonably necessary.” The 8^th Circuit noted: 

 “Crume raises rather than decides the question of how much beyond mere possession of child pornography is necessary to justify a complete ban. In United States v. Boston, however, we upheld a restriction on internet access equally as broad in scope as the one at issue here. 494 F.3d 660, 668 (8th Cir. 2007).” 

Court further noted: 

 “In the instant case, Demers was arrested at a public library after having printed images of child pornography, which, as in Boston, could very well have been done for the purpose of distributing those images. We find that Boston controls this issue, and we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in imposing special condition 5.”  

 Email This Post     Print This Post

Art Legal Updates

On December 7, 2010, I posted Keep it Secret…Keep it Safe: Good Advice for Corrections and Social Networking and thought I would share this recently unattended discovery about what corrections folks think is relevant to keep safe and what isn’t a problem to share.

I have a profile on a business and professional networking site, LinkedIn® (Please note this is not a plug for them and no I am not on their payroll). From time to time I try to see if there is anyone in corrections out there on the site, particularly located near me. Well I did a search for a specific term associated with corrections and rehabilitation and came up with about 164 entries in my area.  Problem is the vast majority of these entries are useless. They contain names like Probation Officer, Parole Officer, or an institution’s name.  No one is going to network with these profiles as you can’t tell who the hell they are. The same pattern is present throughout the nation on Linkedin®. You search for a parole officer you can get hundreds of profiles in other cities of no named profiles.  Well, I wondered what if I did the same search for Facebook®. You guessed it ….almost double the entries, with names, pictures of kids, interests, locations, friends, etc. 

Now to be fair Facebook® is the big dog in this comparison with about 500,000,000 users and growing to LinkedIn® with about 80,000,000. Stats  But LinkedIn® has basic information for professionally sharing with other professionals. You control who sees your profile.  Don’t get me wrong, you still could get in trouble on it. I am amazed at professionals who feel the need to tell folks in their network they are in route to a conference, put their DOB on it, or personal cell phone.  Some folks are not shy about telling the world they are looking for a new job, something I am sure their current employer would find curious. Sure their job history and current job is listed.  Additionally, folks you add to your network know your professional connections too. But there are no pictures or details about your kids or your family, unless you post them as your profile pic or put them in your resume information (BAD IDEA).  It is just a different type of networking where it would appear corrections is overly cautious about telling others in the field who they are.  Could someone search for you on LinkedIn®? Hell yes!  So they find out where you work or worked.  Unless you have a stalker that is following you from job to job, they know that already. I mean your offenders you supervise already know you are a probation or parole officer.

It could be corrections folks aren’ aware of LinkedIn® and its professional networking potential. It actually has a pretty good Group function that allows you to join specific discussion groups.  For instance, I have one for Cybercrime Supervision, where folks can post questions, discussions, etc. It could also be that all those Probation/Parole Officers Profiles with no names are a lame attempt by some offenders to get folks to connect with them (I doubt it). 

So corrections folks are perfectly willing to share on Facebook® very intimate details about themselves but on a site designed to help them in their jobs they become secret agents. What up with that?  Hide from fellow professionals but tell the world (and your offenders) your kids are having a ball game on Friday night. Curious ain’t it!

PS: Keep those cards and letters coming folks…. I mean post your questions at The Three C’s: Answers for the Correctional Professional on Cybercrime and don’t forget to check out 25th High Technology Crime Investigation Associations International Training Conference & Expo site. I am pretty darn certain my good friends Wojo and Jimmie are planning a great event…including training on social networking investigations, cell phone forensics investigations and other stuff folks involved in supervising cyber-offenders would find helpful. And always be safe out there, whether in be in cyberspace or in the real world!

 Email This Post     Print This Post

Art Internet Safety

Two articles dealing with Facebook caught my attention recently. The first by DeConto described a North Carolina lawsuit challenging state statute §14-202.5 as unconstitutional. This law prohibits registered sex offenders, …. “to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site.” Violations are a Class I felony (punishable but up to 5 years or fine or both). The arguments appear to be centered on freedom of speech and the law is too broad.

At about the same time an article was written by Brennan describing how difficult it was for a New York police department to keep sex offenders off of Facebook. The article noted:

“But local law enforcement is almost powerless to monitor sex offenders allowed to use websites such as Facebook. ‘We have our hands tied, unless they’re supposed to refrain (from using social networking),’ said Steuben County Sheriff Joel Ordway. Ted Murray, Hornell police chief, agreed with Ordway. ‘Unless they’re on probation or parole, there are no restrictions prohibiting them from being on a site like that (Facebook),’ he said.” ¹

So we have articles noting a legal challenge against a law restricting sex offenders from Facebook and another noting a different state’s law enforcement being practically powerless to remove sex offenders from social networking sites (SNS). What is the story? Are sex offenders allowed on Facebook?

Drum roll please… the answer is… sex offenders are prohibited from using Facebook. Take a look at their user agreement. Specifically: Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, 4. Registration and Account Security, Item 6, reflects: “You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender.”Facebook goes a step further and provides a method for notifying them of convicted sex offenders on their site.

Why would Facebook have such a policy? They are a private concern and have a right to set their policy as long as it doesn’t discriminate. Sex offenders, last time I checked are not a protected class. So they can set their policy to not exclude them. Some users may actually join Facebook or at least feel some comfort in joining because of this policy. They join with the belief that sex offenders aren’t allowed on the website, a belief that is enforced by Facebook’s policy on reporting sex offenders for action. That is what is called “freedom of association,” another one of those constitutional rights we have. So a private company sets up a rule excluding a non-protected group from joining, a group that represents a risk to minors. I am sure the courts will decide whose rights are more compelling, the sex offender’s first amendment right or the general public’s to associate with whom they chose.

During the discussion we need not forget that SNS are fundamentally different from other communicationvenues in the real world. A sex offender can be anyone they want to be on a SNS. They can be kid or the opposite sex. They can pretend to be several different people, all in an attempt to entice or mislead a minor. They can’t easily accomplish these tricks in the real world. Additionally, in those public places in the real world there are police walking around…parents…other kids….folks that can stop them or at least identify them. A sex offender on a SNS can hide, manipulate, and prey, without much concern about someone seeing them and/or identifying them before they strike. It is different than the real world and the danger can be much higher indeed!

So what does all this mean for a community supervision officer with a sex offender who has a Facebook profile? Consider the following suggestions:

1. Know what your state laws and/or supervision conditions are pertaining to sex offenders having a SNS. If a sex offender has a profile against a state statute this is obviously a new law violation.  It may also be a violation of supervision conditions. 
2. Check to see if the sex offender is reporting all Internet accounts and identifiers when they registered.²If the Facebook profile is not being reported, depending upon state law, they might not be maintaining their sex offender registration. This can be either a new law violation or a technical violation.
3. Even sex offenders who are not registered are violating the Facebook’s user agreement. A case can be made that they are gaining unauthorized access to Facebook’s website by maintaining the profile. This may be a violation of a state law regarding exceeding computer access or trespass. Think in the real world. Would law enforcement allow an offender to loiter or trespassing in a location they have been told they are not suppose to be at?
4. Use common sense. It could be the offender didn’t know about the prohibitions and the matter might be resolved by the offender deleting the account, with a follow up to Facebook. Or it might require you to ratchet up the supervision or get law enforcement involved. For instance, what would a sex offender be up to with a Facebook profile with 50 minors as “Friends”? Why conceal such a profile from their sex offender registration or supervision officer if it was innocence conduct? Investigate and follow where the evidence leads!

Now some of you maybe wondering how do I find out if my sex offenders have a Facebook profile? Well, develop your skills. Seek training on it. The High Technology Crime Investigation Association (HTCIA.org) is a great place to start. Join and get to their conference, which by the way usually has excellent sessions on social networking investigations.

If you don’t think it is important to be concerned about a supervised sex offender on a SNS check out Burton’s article below. It is about a law suit filed against Cook County Probation Department regarding a sex offender case. The suit was filed by a mother who found a sex offender, not online through MySpace® like her daughter…but in act of raping her in her own bedroom. For now remember, convicted sex offenders are not authorized to use Facebook!

Notes

¹ I am not sure what to make of Brennan’s article. In 2008, New York passed the Electronic Securing and Targeting of Online Predators Act (e-STOP) which requires sex offenders register all of their Internet accounts and identifiers; authorizes the release of state sex offender Internet identifiers to social networking sites; and requires, as a condition of probation or parole, mandatory restrictions on a sex offender’s access to the Internet where the offender’s victim was a minor, the Internet was used to commit the offense, or the offender was designated a level 3 (highest level) offender. As such it would appear New York’s law would be rather conducive to removing sex offenders from social networking sites, including Facebook.

² It is a federal requirement under the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 and the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008 (the KIDS Act of 2008) that sex offenders are to disclose all Internet identifiers. However, not all states are up to speed with the federal sex offender registration requirements. Make sure you know your state’s sex offender registeration requirements.

References

Brennan, Lynn, “The Ugly Side of Facebook”, The Evening Tribune Retrieved from http://www.eveningtribune.com/features/x286167677/The-ugly-side-of-Facebook

Burton, Cherly, “Mother files suit for alleged rape victim, 13” Retrieved from http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7922281

DeConto, Jesse, “Pol Defends Keeping Pervs off Facebook” The Raleigh, N.C. News & Observer Retrieved from http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view/20110129pol_defends_keeping_pervs_off_facebook/srvc=home&position=recent

Facebook User Agreement, Dated October 4, 2010,Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, 4.Registration and Account Security, Item 6, Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/terms.php.

North Carolina Revised General Statutes, Chapter 14, Criminal Law. Retreived from http://www.ncsu.edu/police/Information/NCLaw.html

North Carolina § 14-202.5. Ban Use of Commercial Social Networking Web Sites by Sex Offenders. Retrieved from http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-202.5.html

 Email This Post     Print This Post

Art Supervision