Pat, the Editor

For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News
Add this Digest to your personal   or  
Read Daily Spam News

 

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:15:00 EST    Volume 24 : Issue 572

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Through His Webcam, a Boy Joins a Sordid Online World (Kurt Eichenwald)
    Re: U.S. Now Says All Porn is Child Porn Unless Proven Otherwise (K Abrams)
    Re: Missing ABN Amro Tape With Two Million Names Found (Ron Chapman)
    Re: Dumb Question About "Do Not Call" (Steven Lichter)

Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet.  All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote.  By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.

               ===========================

Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent.  Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime.   Geoffrey Welsh

               ===========================

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.  


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kurt Eichenwald <nytimes@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Through His Webcam, a Teenage Boy Joins a Sordid Online World
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:59:16 -0600


By KURT EICHENWALD, New York Times reporter

The 13-year-old boy sat in his California home, eyes fixed on a
computer screen. He had never run with the popular crowd and long ago
had turned to the Internet for the friends he craved. But on this day,
Justin Berry's fascination with cyberspace would change his life.

Weeks before, Justin had hooked up a Web camera to his computer,
hoping to use it to meet other teenagers online. Instead, he heard
only from men who chatted with him by instant message as they watched
his image on the Internet. To Justin, they seemed just like friends,
ready with compliments and always offering gifts.

Now, on an afternoon in 2000, one member of his audience sent a
proposal: he would pay Justin $50 to sit bare-chested in front of his
Webcam for three minutes. The man explained that Justin could receive
the money instantly and helped him open an account on PayPal.com, an
online payment system.

"I figured, I took off my shirt at the pool for nothing," he said
recently.  "So, I was kind of like, what's the difference?"

Justin removed his T-shirt. The men watching him oozed compliments.

So began the secret life of a teenager who was lured into selling
images of his body on the Internet over the course of five years. From
the seduction that began that day, this soccer-playing honor roll
student was drawn into performing in front of the Webcam --
undressing, showering, masturbating and even having sex -- for an
audience of more than 1,500 people who paid him, over the years,
hundreds of thousands of dollars.

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

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

A six-month investigation by The New York Times into this corner of
the Internet found that such sites had emerged largely without
attracting the attention of law enforcement or youth protection
organizations. While experts with these groups said they had witnessed
a recent deluge of illicit, self-generated Webcam images, they had not
known of the evolution of sites where minors sold images of themselves
for money.

"We've been aware of the use of the Webcam and its potential use by
exploiters," said Ernest E. Allen, chief executive of the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a private group. "But this
is a variation on a theme that we haven't seen. It's unbelievable."

Minors who run these sites find their anonymity amusing, joking that
their customers may be the only adults who know of their activities.

It is, in the words of one teenage site operator, the "Webcam Matrix,"
a reference to the movie in which a computerized world exists without
the knowledge of most of humanity.

In this virtual universe, adults hunt for minors on legitimate sites
used by Webcam owners who post contact information in hopes of
attracting friends.  If children respond to messages, adults spend
time "grooming" them -- with praise, attention and gifts -- before
seeking to persuade them to film themselves pornographically.

The lure is the prospect of easy money. Many teenagers solicit
"donations," request gifts through sites like Amazon.com or negotiate
payments, while a smaller number charge monthly fees. But there are
other beneficiaries, including businesses, some witting and some
unwitting, that provide services to the sites like Web hosting and
payment processing.

Not all victims profit, with some children ending up as pornographic
commodities inadvertently, even unknowingly. Adolescents have appeared
naked on their Webcams as a joke, or as presents for boyfriends or
girlfriends, only to have their images posted on for-pay pornography
sites. One Web site proclaims that it features 140,000 images of
"adolescents in cute panties exposing themselves on their teen
Webcams."

Entry into this side of cyberspace is simplicity itself. Webcams cost
as little as $20, and the number of them being used has mushroomed to
15 million, according to IDC, an industry consulting group. At the
same time, instant messaging programs have become ubiquitous, and
high-speed connections, allowing for rapid image transmission, are
common.

The scale of Webcam child pornography is unknown, because it is new
and extremely secretive. One online portal that advertises for-pay
Webcam sites, many of them pornographic, lists at least 585 sites
created by teenagers, internal site records show. At one computer
bulletin board for adults attracted to adolescents, a review of
postings over the course of a week revealed Webcam image postings of
at least 98 minors.

The Times inquiry has already resulted in a large-scale criminal
investigation. In June, The Times located Justin Berry, then 18. In
interviews, Justin revealed the existence of a group of more than
1,500 men who paid for his online images, as well as evidence that
other identifiable children as young as 13 were being actively
exploited.

In a series of meetings, The Times persuaded Justin to abandon his
business and, to protect other children at risk, assisted him in
contacting the Justice Department. Arrests and indictments of adults
he identified as pornography producers and traffickers began in
September, 2005. Investigators are also focusing on businesses,
including credit card processors that have aided illegal sites. Anyone
who has created, distributed, marketed, possessed or paid to view such
pornography is open to a criminal charge.

"The fact that we are getting so many potential targets, people who
knowingly bought into a child pornographic Web site, could lead to
hundreds of other subjects and potentially save hundreds of other kids
that we are not aware of yet," said Monique Winkis, a special agent
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation who is working the case.

Law enforcement officials also said that, with the cooperation of
Justin, they had obtained a rare guide into this secluded online world
whose story illuminates the exploitation that takes place there.

"I didn't want these people to hurt any more kids," Justin said
recently of his decision to become a federal witness. "I didn't want
anyone else to live the life I lived."

A High-Tech Transformation

Not long ago, the distribution of child pornnography in America was a
smallish trade, relegated to back rooms and corners where even the
proprietors of X-rated bookstores refused to loiter.

By the mid-1980's, however, technology had transformed the business,
with pedophiles going online to communicate anonymously and post
images through rudimentary bulletin board systems. As Internet use
boomed in the 1990's, these adults honed their computer skills,
finding advanced ways to meet online and swap illegal photos; images
once hard to obtain were suddenly available with the click of a mouse.

As the decade drew to a close, according to experts and records of
online conversations, these adults began openly fantasizing of the day
they would be able to reach out to children directly, through instant
messaging and live video, to obtain the pornography they desired.

Their dream was realized with the Web camera, which transformed online
pornography the way the automobile changed transportation. At first,
the cameras, some priced at more than $100, offered little more than
grainy snapshots, "refreshed" a few times per minute. But it was not
long before easy-to-use $20 Webcams could transmit high-quality
continuous color video across the globe instantly.

By 2000, things had worked out exactly the way the pedophiles
hoped. Webcams were the rage among computer-savvy minors, creating a
bountiful selection of potential targets.

Among them was Justin Berry. That year, he was a gangly 13-year-old
with saucer eyes and brown hair that he often dyed blond. He lived
with his mother, stepfather and younger sister in Bakersfield, Calif.,
a midsize city about 90 miles north of Los Angeles. Already he was so
adept at the computer that he had registered his own small Web site
development business, which he ran from the desk where he did his
schoolwork.

So Justin was fascinated when a friend showed off the free Webcam he
had received for joining Earthlink, an Internet service provider. The
device was simple and elegant. As Justin remembers it, he quickly
signed up, too, eager for his own Webcam.

"I didn't really have a lot of friends," he recalled, "and I thought
having a Webcam might help me make some new ones online, maybe even
meet some girls my age."

As soon as Justin hooked the camera to his bedroom computer and loaded
the software, his picture was automatically posted on spotlife.com, an
Internet directory of Webcam users, along with his contact
information. Then he waited to hear from other teenagers.

No one Justin's age ever contacted him from that listing. But within
minutes he heard from his first online predator. That man was soon
followed by another, then another.

Justin remembers his earliest communications with these men as
nonthreatening, pleasant encounters. There were some oddities - men
who pretended to be teenage girls, only to slip up and reveal the
truth later -- but Justin enjoyed his online community.

His new friends were generous. One explained how to put together a
"wish list" on Amazon.com, where Justin could ask for anything,
including computer equipment, toys, music CD's or movies. Anyone who
knew his wish-list name -- Justin Camboy -- could buy him a gift. Amazon
delivered the presents without revealing his address to the buyers.

The men also filled an emotional void in Justin's life. His
relationship with his father, Knute Berry, was troubled. His parents
divorced when he was young; afterward, police records show, there were
instances of reported abuse. On one occasion Mr. Berry was arrested
and charged with slamming Justin's head into a wall, causing an injury
that required seven staples in his scalp. Although Justin testified
against him, Mr. Berry said the injury was an accident and was
acquitted. He declined to comment in a telephone interview.

The emotional turmoil left Justin longing for paternal affection,
family members said. And the adult males he met online offered just
that. "They complimented me all the time," Justin said. "They told me
I was smart, they told me I was handsome."

In that, experts said, the eighth-grade boy's experience reflected the
standard methods used by predatory adults to insinuate themselves into
the lives of minors they meet online.

"In these cases, there are problems in their own lives that make them
predisposed to" manipulation by adults, Lawrence Likar, a former
F.B.I.  supervisor, said of children persuaded to pose for pornography.
"The predators know that and are able to tap into these problems and
offer what appear to be solutions."

Justin's mother, Karen Page, said she sensed nothing out of the
ordinary.  Her son seemed to be just a boy talented with computers who
enjoyed speaking to friends online. The Webcam, as she saw it, was
just another device that would improve her son's computer skills, and
maybe even help him on his Web site development business.

"Everything I ever heard was that children should be exposed to
computers and given every opportunity to learn from them," Ms. Page
said in an interview.

She never guessed that one of her son's first lessons after turning on
his Webcam was that adults would eagerly pay him just to disrobe a
little.

The Instant Audience

It was as if the news shot around the Web. By appearing on camera
bare-chested, Justin sent an important message: here was a boy who
would do things for money.

Gradually the requests became bolder, the cash offers larger: More
than $100 for Justin to pose in his underwear. Even more if the boxers
came down. The latest request was always just slightly beyond the
last, so that each new step never struck him as considerably
different. How could adults be so organized at manipulating young
people with Webcams?

Unknown to Justin, they honed their persuasive skills by discussing
strategy online, sharing advice on how to induce their young targets
to go further at each stage.

Moreover, these adults are often people adept at manipulating
teenagers. In its investigation, The Times obtained the names and
credit card information for the 1,500 people who paid Justin to
perform on camera, and analyzed the backgrounds of 300 of them
nationwide. A majority of the sample consisted of doctors and lawyers,
businessmen and teachers, many of whom work with children on a daily
basis.

Not long ago, adults sexually attracted to children were largely
isolated from one another. But the Internet has created a virtual
community where they can readily communicate and reinforce their
feelings, experts said.  Indeed, the messages they send among
themselves provide not only self-justification, but also often blame
minors with Webcam sites for offering temptation.

"These kids are the ones being manipulative," wrote an adult who
called himself Upandc in a posting this year to a bulletin board for
adults attracted to children.

Or, as an adult who called himself DLW wrote: "Did a sexual predator
MAKE them make a site? No. Did they decide to do it for themselves?
Yes."

Tempting as it may be for some in society to hold the adolescent
Webcam operators responsible, experts in the field say that is
misguided, because it fails to recognize the control that adults
exercise over highly impressionable minors.

"The world will want to blame the kids, but the reality is, they are
victims here," said Mr. Allen of the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children.

But there is no doubt that the minors cash in on their own exploitation.
With Justin, for example, the road to cyberporn stardom was paved with
cool new equipment. When his growing legion of fans complained about
the quality of his Webcam, he put top-rated cameras and computer gear
on his Amazon wish list, and his fans rushed to buy him all of it.

A $35 Asante four-port hub, which allowed for the use of multiple
cameras, was bought by someone calling himself Wesley Taylor, Amazon
receipts show.  For $45, a fan nicknamed tuckertheboy bought a Viking
memory upgrade to speed up Justin's broadcast. And then there were
cameras -- a $60 color Webcam by Hawking Technologies from banjo000; a
$60 Intel Deluxe USB camera from boyking12; and a $150 Hewlett-Packard
camera from eplayernine.

Justin's desk became a high-tech playhouse. To avoid suspicions, he
hid the Webcams behind his desk until nighttime. Whenever his mother
asked about his new technology and money, Justin told her they were
fruits of his Web site development business. In a way, it was true;
with one fan's help, he had by then opened his own pornographic Web
site, called justinscam.com.

His mother saw little evidence of a boy in trouble. Justin's grades
stayed good -- mostly A's and B's, although his school attendance
declined as he faked illness to spend time with his Webcam.

As he grew familiar with the online underground, Justin learned he was
not alone in the business. Other teenagers were doing the same things,
taking advantage of an Internet infrastructure of support that was
perfectly suited to illicit business.

As a result, while it helped to have Justin's computer skills, even
minors who fumbled with technology could operate successful pornography
businesses.  Yahoo, America Online and MSN were starting to offer free
instant message services that contained embedded ability to transmit
video, with no expertise required. The programs were offered online,
without parental controls. No telltale credit card numbers or other
identifying information was necessary. In minutes, any adolescent
could have a video and text system up and running, without anyone
knowing, a fact that concerns some law enforcement officials.

There were also credit card processing services that handled payments
without requiring tax identification numbers. There were companies
that helped stream live video onto the Internet -- including one in
Indiana that offered the service at no charge if the company president
could watch free.  And there were sites -- portals, in the Web
vernacular -- that took paid advertising from teenage Webcam addresses
and allowed fans to vote for their favorites.

Teenagers, hungry for praise, compete for rankings on the portals as
desperately as contestants on TV reality shows, offering special
performances in exchange for votes. "Everyone please vote me a 10 on
my cam site," a girl nicknamed Thunderrockracin told her subscribers
in 2002, "and I will have a live sleep cam!"

In other words, she would let members watch her sleep if they boosted
her up the rankings.

Fearing the Fans

Justin began to feel he belonged to something important, a broad
community of teenagers with their own businesses. Some he knew by
their real names, others by the screen names they used for their sites
- Strider, Stoner, Kitty, Calvin, Emily, Seth and so on. But
collectively, they were known by a name now commonplace in this
Internet subculture:

They call themselves "camwhores."

Justin chatted with the boys online, and sometimes persuaded the girls
to masturbate on camera while he did the same. Often, he heard himself
compared to Riotboyy, another young-looking teenager whose site had
experienced as many as 6,400 hits in a single week.

In conversations with Justin, other minors with for-pay sites admitted
to being scared of certain fans. Some adults wrote things like "It
wants to possess you." They had special wardrobe requests for the
adolescents: in jeans with a belt, without a belt, with a lacy bra,
showing legs, showing feet, wearing boxers with an erection, and
others.

One 16-year-old who called himself hot boyy 23 finally found the
entreaties too much. "Hey guys," he wrote when he shut down his site,
"I'm sorry, there are just too many freaks out there for me. I need to
live a more normal life, too. I might be back someday and I might
not. I'm sorry I had to ruin all the fun."

It was not only the minors operating Webcam sites for pay who faced
frightening adults. Earlier this year, a teenage girl in Alabama posed
seminude on her Webcam in a sexually charged conversation with someone
she thought was another teenage girl. But her new confidant, it turned
out, was an adult named Julio Bardales from Napa, Calif., law
enforcement officials said. And when the girl stopped complying, she
received an e-mail message from Mr. Bardales containing a montage of
her images. Across them was a threat in red letters that the images
would be revealed unless she showed a frontal nude shot over the
Webcam. Mr. Bardales was subsequently arrested.  The police said he
possessed images of more under-age girls on Webcams, including other
montages with the same threat.

Justin says that he did not fully understand the dangers his fans
posed, and before he turned 14, he was first lured from the relative
safety of his home. A man he met online hosted Justin's Web site from
Ann Arbor, Mich., and invited him there to attend a computer camp. 
Justin's mother allowed him to go, thinking the camp sounded worthwhile.

Another time, the man enticed Justin to Michigan by promising to
arrange for him to have sex with a girl. Both times, Justin said, the
man molested him.  Transcripts of their subsequent conversations
online support the accusations, and a video viewed by The Times shows
that the man, who appears for a short time in the recording, also
taped pornography of Justin.

 From then on, Justin's personality took on a harder edge, evident in
the numerous instant messages he made available to The Times. He
became an aggressive negotiator of prices for his performances. 
Emboldened by a growing contempt for his audience, he would sometimes
leave their questions unanswered for hours, just to prove to himself
that they would wait for him.

"These people had no lives," Justin said. "They would never get mad."

Unnerved by menacing messages from a fan of his first site, Justin opened a
new one called jfwy.com, an online acronym that loosely translates into
"just messing with you." This time, following an idea suggested by one of
his fans, he charged subscribers $45 a month. In addition, he could command
large individual payments for private shows, sometimes $300 for an hourlong
performance.

"What's in the hour?" inquired a subscriber named Gran0Stan in one
typical exchange in 2002. "What do you do?"

"I'll do everything, if you know what I mean," Justin replied.

Gran0Stan was eager to watch, and said the price was fine. "When?" he asked.

"Tonight," Justin said. "After my mom goes to sleep."

As his obsession with the business grew, Justin became a ferocious
competitor. When another under-age site operator called Strider ranked
higher on a popular portal, Justin sent him anonymous e-mail messages,
threatening to pass along images from Strider's site to the boy's
father.  Strider's site disappeared.

"I was vicious," Justin said. "But I guess I really did Strider a
favor.  Looking back, I wish someone had done that to me."

By then, fans had begun offering Justin cash to meet. Gilo Tunno, a
former Intel employee, gave him thousands of dollars to visit him in a
Las Vegas hotel, according to financial records and other documents.
There, Justin said, Mr. Tunno began a series of molestings. At least
one assault was videotaped and the recording e-mailed to Justin, who
has since turned it over to the F.B.I.

Mr. Tunno played another critical role in Justin's business, the
records show. When he was 15, Justin worried that his mother might
discover what he was doing. So he asked Mr. Tunno to sign an apartment
lease for him and pay rent. Justin promised to raise money to pay a
share. "I'll whore," he explained in a message to Mr. Tunno.

Mr. Tunno agreed, signing a lease for $410 a month for an apartment
just down the street from Justin's house. From then on, Justin would
tell his mother he was visiting friends, then head to the apartment
for his next performance. Mr. Tunno, who remains under investigation
in the case, is serving an eight-year federal sentence on an unrelated
sexual abuse charge involving a child and could not be reached for
comment.

The rental symbolized a problem that Justin had not foreseen: his
adult fans would do almost anything to ensure that his performances
continued. At its worst, they would stand between him and the people
in his offline life whom they saw as a threat to his Webcam appearances.

For example, when a girlfriend of Justin's tried to convince him to
shut down his site in December 2002, a customer heaped scorn on her.

"She actually gets mad at you for buying her things with the money you
make from the cam?" messaged the customer, a man using the nickname
Angelaa.  "Just try and remember, Justin, that she may not love you,
but most of us in your chat room, your friends, love you very much."

A Life Falls Apart

In early 2003, Justin's offline life began to unravel. A former
classmate found pornographic videos on the Internet from Justin's Web
site, made copies and handed them out around town, including to
students at his school.  Justin was taunted and beaten.

Feeling embarrassed and unable to continue at school, Justin begged
his mother to allow him to be home-schooled through an online
program. Knowing he was having trouble with classmates, but in the
dark about the reasons why, she agreed.

Then, in February, came another traumatic event. Justin had begun
speaking with his father, hoping to repair their relationship. But
that month, Mr. Berry, who had been charged with insurance fraud
related to massage clinics he ran, disappeared without a word.

Despairing, Justin turned to his online fans. "My dad left. I guess he
doesn't love me," he wrote. "Why did I let him back in my life? Let me
die, just let me die."

His father did not disappear for long. Soon, Mr. Berry called his son
from Mazatln, Mexico; Justin begged to join him, and his father
agreed.

In Mexico, Justin freely spent his cash, leading his father to ask
where the money had come from. Justin said that he confessed the
details of his lucrative Webcam business, and that the reunion soon
became a collaboration.  Justin created a new Web site, calling it
mexicofriends, his most ambitious ever. It featured Justin having live
sex with prostitutes. During some of Justin's sexual encounters, a
traffic tracker on his site showed hundreds watching. It rapidly
became a wildly popular Webcam pornography site, making Justin one of
the Internet's most sought after under-age pornography stars.

For this site, Justin, then 16, used a pricing model favored by
legitimate businesses. For standard subscribers, the cost was $35,
billed monthly. But discounts were available for three-month,
six-month and annual memberships.  Justin used the cash to support a
growing cocaine and marijuana habit.

Money from the business, Justin said, was shared with his father, an
accusation supported by transcripts of their later instant message
conversations. In exchange, Justin told prosecutors and The Times, his
father helped procure prostitutes. One video obtained by the F.B.I.
shows Mr. Berry sitting with Justin as the camera is turned on, then
making the bed before a prostitute arrives to engage in intercourse
with his teenage son. Asked about Justin's accusations, Mr. Berry
said, "Obviously, I am not going to comment on anything."

In the fall of 2003, Justin's life took a new turn when a subscriber
named Greg Mitchel, a 36-year-old fast food restaurant manager from
Dublin, Va., struck up an online friendship with the boy and soon
asked to visit him.  Seeing a chance to generate cash, Justin agreed.

Mr. Mitchel arrived that October, and while in Mexico, molested Justin
for what would be the first of many times, according to transcripts of
their conversations and other evidence. Mr. Mitchel, who is in jail
awaiting trial on six child pornography charges stemming from this case,
could not be reached for comment.

Over the following year, Justin tried repeatedly to break free of this
life.  He roamed the United States. He contemplated suicide. For a
time he sought solace in a return to his boyhood Christianity. At one
point he dismantled his site, loading it instead with Biblical teachings
 -- and taking delight in knowing the surprise his subscribers would 
experience when they logged on to watch him have sex.

But his drug craving, and the need for money to satisfy it, was always
there. Soon, Mr. Mitchel beckoned, urging Justin to return to
pornography and offering to be his business partner. With Mr. Mitchel,
records and interviews show, Justin created a new Web site,
justinsfriends.com, featuring performances by him and other boys he
helped recruit. But as videos featuring other minors appeared on his
site, Justin felt torn, knowing that these adolescents were on the
path that had hurt him so badly.

Justin was now 18, a legal adult. He had crossed the line from
under-age victim to adult perpetrator.

A Look Behind the Secrecy

In June, Justin began communicating online with someone who had never
messaged him before. The conversations involved many questions, and
Justin feared his new contact might be an F.B.I. agent. Still, when a
meeting was suggested, Justin agreed. He says part of him hoped he
would be arrested, putting an end to the life he was leading.

They met in Los Angeles, and Justin learned that the man was this
reporter, who wanted to discuss the world of Webcam pornography with
him. After some hesitation, Justin agreed. At one point, asked what he
wanted to accomplish in his life, Justin pondered for a moment and
replied that he wanted to make his mother and grandmother proud of
him.

The next day, Justin began showing the inner workings of his online
world.  Using a laptop computer, he signed on to the Internet and was
quickly bombarded with messages from men urging him to turn on his
Webcam and strip.

One man described, without prompting, what he remembered seeing of
Justin's genitals during a show. Another asked Justin to recount the
furthest distance he had ever ejaculated. Still another offered an
unsolicited description of the sexual acts he would perform on Justin
if they met.

"This guy is really a pervert," Justin said. "He kind of scares me."

As the sexual pleadings continued, Justin's hands trembled. His pale
face dampened with perspiration. For a moment he tried to seem tough,
but the protective facade did not last. He turned off the computer
without a final word to his online audience.

In the days that followed, Justin agreed in discussions with this
reporter to abandon the drugs and his pornography business. He cut
himself off from his illicit life. He destroyed his cellphone, stopped
using his online screen name and fled to a part of the country where
no one would find him.

As he sobered up, Justin disclosed more of what he knew about the
Webcam world; within a week, he revealed the names and locations of
children who were being actively molested or exploited by adults with
Webcam sites. After confirming his revelations, The Times urged him to
give his information to prosecutors, and he agreed.

Justin contacted Steven M. Ryan, a former federal prosecutor and
partner with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in Washington. Mr. Ryan had
learned of Justin's story during an interview with The Times about a
related legal question, and offered to represent him.

On July 14, Mr. Ryan contacted the Child Exploitation and Obscenity
Section of the Justice Department, informing prosecutors that he had a
client with evidence that could implicate potentially hundreds of
people. By then, Mr.  Ryan had learned that some of Justin's old
associates, disturbed by his disappearance, were hunting for him and
had begun removing records from the Internet. Mr. Ryan informed
prosecutors of the dangers to Justin and the potential destruction of
evidence. Two weeks passed with little response.

Finally, in late July, Justin met in Washington with the F.B.I. and
prosecutors. He identified children who he believed were in the hands
of adult predators. He listed the marketers, credit card processors
and others who supported Webcam child pornography. He also described
the voluminous documentary evidence he had retained on his hard
drives: financial information, conversation transcripts with his
members, and other records.  But that evidence would not be turned
over, Mr. Ryan said, until Justin received immunity.

The meeting ended, followed by weeks of silence. Word came back that
prosecutors were wrestling with Justin's dual role as a victim and a
perpetrator. Justin told associates that he was willing to plead
guilty if the government would save the children he had identified;
Mr. Ryan dissuaded him.

By September, almost 50 days had passed since the first contact with
the government, with no visible progress. Frustrated, Mr. Ryan
informed prosecutors that he would have to go elsewhere, and contacted
the California attorney general.

That proved unnecessary. Prodded by the F.B.I. and others in the
Justice Department, on Sept. 7, prosecutors informed Mr. Ryan that his
client would be granted immunity. A little more than four weeks after
his 19th birthday, Justin became a federal witness.

A Final Online Confrontation

Five days later, on the third floor of a lakeside house in Dublin,
Va., Greg Mitchel -- Justin's 38-year-old business partner on his
pornography Web site -- rested on his bed as he chatted online with
others in his illicit business.

Ever since Justin's disappearance weeks before, things had been tense
for Mr. Mitchel. Some in the business already suspected that Justin
might be talking to law enforcement. One associate had already
declared to Mr.  Mitchel that, if Justin was revealing their secrets,
he would kill the boy.

But this night, Sept. 12, the news on Mr. Mitchel's computer screen was
particularly disquieting. An associate in Tennessee sent word that the
F.B.I. had just raided a Los Angeles computer server used by an affiliated
Webcam site. Then, to Mr. Mitchel's surprise, Justin himself appeared online
under a new screen name and sent a greeting.

Mr. Mitchel pleaded with Justin to come out of hiding, inviting the teenager
on an all-expense-paid trip to Las Vegas with him and a 15-year-old boy also
involved in Webcam pornography. But Justin demurred.

"You act like you're in witness protection," Mr. Mitchel typed. "Are
you?"

"Haha," Justin replied. Did Mr. Mitchel think he would be on the
Internet if he was a federal witness? he asked. Justin changed the
subject, later asking the whereabouts of others who lived with
Mr. Mitchel, including two adolescents; Mr. Mitchel replied that
everyone was home that night.

In a location in the Southwest, Justin glanced from his computer
screen to a speakerphone. On the line was a team of F.B.I. agents who
at that moment were pulling several cars into Mr. Mitchel's driveway,
preparing to arrest him.

"The kids are in the house!" Justin shouted into the phone, answering
a question posed by one of the agents.

As agents approached the house, Justin knew he had little time
left. He decided to confront the man who had hurt him for so long.

"Do you even remember how many times you stuck your hand down my
pants?" he typed.

Mr. Mitchel responded that many bad things had happened, but he wanted
to regain Justin's trust.

"You molested me," Justin replied. "Don't apologize for what you can't
admit."

There was no response. "Peekaboo?" Justin typed.

On the screen, a message appeared that Mr. Mitchel had signed off. The
arrest was over.

Justin thrust his hands into the air. "Yes!" he shouted.

In the weeks since the first arrest, F.B.I. agents and prosecutors
have focused on numerous other potential defendants. For example, Tim
Richards, identified by Justin as a marketer and principal of
justinsfriends.com, was arrested in Nashville last month and arraigned
on child pornography charges.  According to law enforcement officials,
Mr. Richards was stopped in a moving van in his driveway, accompanied
by a young teenage boy featured by Mr.  Richards on his own Webcam
site. Mr. Richards has pleaded not guilty.

Hundreds of thousands of computer files, including e-mail containing a
vast array of illegal images sent among adults, have been seized from
around the country. Information about Justin's members has been
downloaded by the F.B.I. from Neova.net, the company that processed
the credit cards; Neova and its owner, Aaron Brown, are targets of the
investigation, according to court records and government
officials. And Justin has begun assisting agents with Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, who hope to use his evidence to bring new charges
against an imprisoned child rapist.

Justin himself has found a measure of control over his life. He
revealed the details of his secret life to his family, telling them of
all the times in the past that he had lied to them. He has sought
counseling, kept off drugs, resumed his connection with his church and
plans to attend college beginning in January.

In recent weeks, Justin returned to his mother's home in California,
fearing that -- once his story was public -- he might not be able to
do so easily. On their final day together, Justin's mother drove him
to the airport. Hugging him as they said goodbye, she said that the
son she once knew had finally returned.

Then, as tears welled in her eyes, Justin's mother told him that she
and his grandmother were proud of him.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or) http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For more articles each day from New York Times, National Public Radio
and the Christian Science Monitor, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/nytimes.html

------------------------------

From: Ken Abrams <k_abrams@[REMOVETHIS] sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: U.S. Now Says All Porn is Child Porn Unless Proven Otherwise
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 00:55:33 GMT


Spam Daily News <spam@telecom-digest.org> wrote

> From Spam Daily News

> All pornography in the US is now effectively classified as child
> pornography, unless providers can prove the ages of everyone taking
> part.

<snip>

> SOURCE: The Register; Wired; Washington Blade

> Copyright 2005 Spam Daily

IMHO, the way this is presented it has the feel of an "urban legand".

Exactly what rule, regulation or statute is being referenced here?

Have any of the sources been verified?  Even if they have, are they
reputable?

While this is somewhat interesting (if true), how is it (directly)
related to spam?


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is directly related to spam because
of the _huge_ amounts of pornography -- much of it involving children
-- which is in email each day. Whether it is a 'joe job' or a real
'honest' spammer sending it does not matter. Its still child porn
being emailed around the net. As for verification, the two gay
publications/web sites quoted i.e. Washington Blade and http://gay.com
are both well known and highly respected gay publications, both the
net version and in their paper editions. I am just beginning to get
familiar with 'Spam Daily' at the present time. And whatever you may
think of http://yahoo.com and http://msn.com and their whorish ways
where their respective 'Messenger' and 'matchmaking' programs are
concerned, you probably would agree they are legitimate.

A number of years ago, under President Clinton's first administration
as memory serves me, Congress did pass a law requiring 'adult'
magazines to keep records for examination by authorties of all persons
whose images and likenesses were displayed in the magazine. In June of
this year, 'someone' in Our Nation's (drug and crime-infested) Capitol
had the bright idea that the aforemetioned law should apply not only
to the print media, but to internet media as well. I think it was
about the time the young man mentioned elsewhere in this issue --
Justin Berry -- started talking to federal investigators about his
internet exploits. Any of our Washington DC lawyer/readers here want
to examine the federal code for the exact line numbers, etc?  I know
on my own blog  http://ptownson/blogspot.com the only picture I have
is a .jpg of myself, although I am told my tin foil hat (as the crabby
scientist among us requires of me) makes me look a lot younger, but
certainly older than 18, but I have seen some other Google Blogs which
are not so -- err - modest as my own. PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:00:18 -0500
From: Ron Chapman <ronchapman@wideopenwest.com>
Subject: Re: Missing ABN Amro Tape With Two Million Names Found


In article <telecom24.571.7@telecom-digest.org>, Monty Solomon
<monty@roscom.com> wrote:

> Update: Missing ABN Amro tape with 2 million names found. The tape was
> lost while DHL was transporting it to a credit reporting service

I call bullshit.

Let's analyze this:

2 million names and addresses and mortgage information and SS
numbers. And DHL lost it.

The letters went out last Friday, 12/16, and got to people Monday,
12/19.

The letters offered a 90 day complimentary subscription to TransUnion's
credit monitoring service, to help prevent identity theft.

I called ABN Monday night at 8:30 and told them, no good. I want a
year on that subscription. (It took me 20 minutes of busy signals
before I got through). He said, sorry -- 90 days is what's being
offered. He said they'll probably extend it past 90 days if they don't
find the tape, but 90 days it is.

I hung up.

I went to ABN's web site, signed in, and sent them a "contact me"
letter stating I want a year's subscription.

Tuesday morning at 8:30, 12 hours later, I called ABN to see what
another rep said. And guess what?

ABN's tape recorded message said:

* magically, the day everyone got his letter from ABN and called ABN
(no doubt a day of hell for them), DHL found the tape and delivered it
back to ABN Amro.

* "We are extended the credit monitoring subnscription to a year, due
to customer feedback."

I call bullshit on this one. I predict that they don't have the tape,
that they're lying to make themselves look good. Recovering the tape
the day everyone receives the letter? Too coincidental. If it sounds
too good to be true, it probably is.

Then I do a little sleuthing in Google news.

ABN lost this tape on NOVEMBER 18, a month ago. It wasn't until
December 16 that they mailed the letters out to customers.

ABN is also claiming that this tape they lost was "scheduled" to be
the last physical delivery like this, that they had already begun to
implement a secure electronic delivery of this information, slated to
begin this month.

I REALLY call bullshit on this now. The meter is pegged. They're
reporting too many "happy" coincidences.

I say that they lost it on November 18, and on November 19 began
implementing secure electronic delivery of the information.

And they delayed telling anyone about this because they had NO
contingency plan in place for this situation. They spent a month
negotiaing the deal with TransUnion to provide credit monitoring.

Potentially, your information was out there for an entire month, being
used, without your knowledge, thanks to ABN Amro.

And potentially, it's still out there being used -- because I don't
believe that ABN got that tape back yesterday. I believe they're
lying. It's just too coincidental.



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, it is _possible_ that ABM got the
missing tape back after a month or so. More than likely ABM had their
shipment through DHL insured to a maximum value, and when an _insured_
shipment gets somehow lost in transit, the package tracers will look 
high and low, even a month or more to find it rather than have to pay
off on the loss.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com>
Reply-To: Die@spammers.com
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc.  (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co.
Subject: Re: Dumb Question About "Do Not Call"
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:25:18 GMT


Randall wrote:

> Three times a day, every day, the phone rings and a female robot voice
> says "Hello, this is not a sales call. This is about an important
> business matter. Again, this is /not/ a sales call, this is an
> Important Business Matter!"

> Then the damn thing hangs up.

> There is no CLID info with the calls -- they come through as "Unknown"
> or "Unavailable" -- despite the fact that this line is /supposed/ to
> reject anonymous calls.

> Been going on for three weeks or so.

> Three calls, every day.

> If I'm here when it rings and I see "Unknown" or "Anonymous", I just
> pick the receiver up and set it back down.  They'll call back.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is no such thing as a dumb
> question around here, Randall.  Just ask many of our users. With 
> my tin-foil hat and diseased brain, I am likely to say almost
> anything as I bring discredit and shame to the entire net.

> The 'reject anonymous calls' condition only applies if the caller
> _deliberatly_ inserted *67 to withhold his number. That condition will
> not work if the failure to deliver ID is due to a telco shortcoming,
> such as the type of switch used by the sending telco, etc. The 'reject
> anonymous' condition relies on the sending telco specifically saying
> 'do not say who is calling'. In your case the sending telco is not
> saying that, it just does not know who the caller is or else the
> details somehow got lost in the switching matrix on the way. But it
> did not _deny_ or _hide_ anything at the caller's request.

> You still have a way around it however. Subscribe through your telco
> to *60 (I think that is called 'reject these callers' in many places). 
> *60 answers you and says 'enter the number to be rejected' or words to 
> that effect and from that point on _that_ caller gets a message saying
> you are not taking calls at this time.

> Now I heard your next question already: if you do not know _who_ is
> calling, how are you supposed to block them?  Good question. The *60
> recording also tells you 'to reject the last call you received,
> whether or not you know the number, press (some) key.' I think around
> here it is '01' or something. You press whatever you were told, and
> the Operator-Bot responds, "Thank you! That number is a _private_
> entry." But none the less it has been blocked. Your telco has a 'local
> cache' of the last call you placed/received and it uses that entry to
> do the blocking. If your telco offers 'return last call' service (*68
> I think) then you can also use that service to return the last call
> and find out what the 'important business matter' is all about. Both
> 'return last call' and 'reject this caller' service are sold by most
> telcos these days.  PAT]

Or you have one of those Radio Shack CID boxes that allow you to program 
numbers into it to block.

The only good spammer is a dead one!!  Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2005  I Kill Spammers, Inc.  A Rot in Hell Co.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But Steven, recall that the man's caller
ID box reported 'unavailable'. Radio Shack's Caller ID number blocker
would not be able to help with that ... _what_ number to block? I
think the man is going to have to rely on telco's magical cache of
'block last number even if you don't know who called you' arrangment.
PAT]

------------------------------


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm-
unications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as
Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums.  It is
also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.

Contact information:    Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
                        Post Office Box 50
                        Independence, KS 67301
                        Phone: 620-402-0134
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 530-309-7234
                        Fax 3: 208-692-5145         
                        Email: editor@telecom-digest.org

Subscribe:  telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information:        http://telecom-digest.org

Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
  (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308
    and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from                  *
*   Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate  *
*   800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting.         *
*   http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com                    *
*   Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing      *
*   views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc.                             *
*************************************************************************

ICB Toll Free News.  Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.

One click a day feeds a person a meal.  Go to http://www.thehungersite.com

Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

              ************************

DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD!  REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM   SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !

              ************************

Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.

The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum.  Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.

Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu

              ************************

   ---------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list. 

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.

End of TELECOM Digest V24 #572
******************************

Return to Archives**Older Issues