Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Welcome back everyone. Chair LaLonde had to step out for a minute and I'll be taking over while he's out. My name is Thomas Burditt, representative of the vehicle. Anyway, he just stepped back in the room.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We're I have to step out. I apologize.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: No. That's fine. That's fine.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Leave it in your capable hands.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yep. And we're gonna be readdressing h six two six and act relating to voyeurism disclosure of sexually explicit images without consent, and we're going to be hearing from sheriff Larson undersheriff Larson.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: Thank you. Yeah. Lowell Larson, current undersheriff of Marquette County, Michigan. I should be up on your screen right now. Just kinda give you a special reference of where we're at Michigan in the Upper Peninsula currently.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Under sheriff, before you start, what's the what's the title of under sheriff? Because here

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: Second in command. Okay. Chief deputy. The under sheriff is appointed by the sheriff to run the day to day operations.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: Yes. Do you have chief deputy there? Or I okay. Sorry for interrupting. Sorry. So small county, 67,000 residents. I've been with the sheriff's office since 1999. I investigated the Jordan Damay case back in March 2022 at the time I was the detective lieutenant. I'm not gonna go through the Jordan Damay case and the specifics because, unfortunately, it's eerily similar to, Brian and Mary's testimony. It's basically a cottage industry, and the playbook is basically the same. What I would like to focus on is my experience in law enforcement and dealing with this extortion and kinda what you're working at and adjusting your laws and how we can respond to this. You know, in law enforcement, a lot has changed since 1999. This device here I have in my hand, we now have, the potential to be a victim to anyone in the world. So maybe in the state of Vermont, you might be asking yourselves, well, what can we do about it this as the state of Vermont when we have a worldwide epidemic, basically? And there's a few things to think about. You have local law enforcement, and you have federal law enforcement, and, of course, state federal, law enforcement. Now a lot of people ask me why was the Jordan Demay case successful in getting extradition. We were the first case to get successful extradition of the Ogashi brothers from Nigeria brought back to The US, and they are currently sent sentenced to seventeen and a half years in federal prison. I credit the family. The fam the family made this public. By doing so, they told the story, and it, I believe, pulled at the heartstrings of the Department of Justice, and they scrambled every resource possible to make this happen. And it also kinda established a playbook of how do we get successful extradition and hold people accountable, for the actions that they've done. The problem is this is such a rampant crime that the DOJ does not have the resources nor the local law enforcement the resources to respond to this. So what so you can't always get, I hate to say it, a federal entity to bite onto something to for them to run the investigation. So you need local laws. You need laws within Vermont so your local law enforcement can obtain search warrants and arrest warrants based on your state law. And if anyone's ever tried to, work with federal law enforcement, they have it is very it's a lot more difficult for a federal agency to get a a search warrant, compared to a local agency. So it may be easier, and it it may progress the case faster. If it starts out at the local level, it can go to the federal level layer later, but it's very important to enable the local law enforcement to have that capability. I had an extreme frustration. I got numerous frustrations with the tech companies, but the when I discovered Jordan was discovered by his father roughly 07:30 in the morning as a victim of suicide, and it the whole thing transpired in just five minutes and twenty five minutes five hours and twenty five minutes. And I found out that evening that we're dealing with sextortion because the actors had actually sent the explicit images to his girlfriend, and his girlfriend had reached out to us. The following morning, I tried to execute or tried to obtain the records of both Jordan's account and the what was the Danny Roberts account. And under my experience and training, I do not need a search warrant to do that. That is emergency exception. I have a dead 17 year old as a result of sextortion. It is very probable that he is not the only person that they're targeting, and they denied me. And I ended up I just I still can't get over it today, why I was denied that exigent or emergency circumstance to avoid having to get a search warrant. And not only did I have to do a search warrant, I also had to do what's called a nondisclosure. That nondisclosure is I have to tell Meta, do not tell anybody I just wrote you a search warrant for this account because in their user agreements, they tell the person that, oh, law enforcement just executed a search warrant on your account. So I had to get an additional order and spend time drafting that and getting all that set and signed by a magistrate so that I have to force them not to tell the account user that I've executed a search warrant on their account. So long story short, I did do do the search warrant. I did do the nondisclosure, and, usually, it takes up to thirty days to get the results. I kept the pressure up in a and with Meta, and I explained to them my reasons for why I need this information ASAP. I did get a production for my search warrant request the following evening, and we soon learned that it was from Lagos, Nigeria. Now some things that I would recommend, I have not read through your bill. I know it's kind of a work in progress there. I would suggest that you include financial benefit. Like, I believe Brian said, follow the money. In our investigation, we had two prongs. One, go after the people that did this. Two, follow the money. So we need this two prong attack. Now here's what the key is. Once again, why does this apply to Vermont? The money mules, as we will call them, this is the way that it works. When the payment was sent via Apple Pay, Apple Pay does not allow you to, that I know, to send that payment internationally. So that payment has to be sent domestically within The United States, meaning it has to go through someone within the Continental United States or The US proper that has to receive that money. They receive that money, and they are a mule, so they have to be benefited. They financially benefit from that. They take 20% of the money they receive, take the remaining 80%, convert it to Bitcoin, and then they send it to Nigeria via Bitcoin. So, our investigation led to the discovery of six people in the state of Atlanta, in Atlanta, Georgia. And, so here's where Vermont comes along. If you can't get federal, assistance in your investigation, a search warrant in Vermont issued out of the state of Vermont would be good enough to get the details for this the money mules within The United States. A local law enforcement officer could go through Gmail or whatever account that they used to eventually get to the actor that is being the money mule in this situation. I'm fairly confident in the George Demet case had we not been able to get the resources with the DOJ and the cooperation from the Nigerian government on the extradition. I'm fairly confident that we would have got to mister, Jonathan Green in the land of Georgia, with the, using the state of Michigan tools that we had available to us. So I highly encourage you to have something in the law that has prohibitions from anyone financially benefiting from any type of sextortion. I also encourage you to have some type of conspiracy language in there as well. In this case, you had, I believe Jordan's case, was a total of four arrests. Two have been extradited. One has sent set time for a year in Nigerian jail, and another one's still waiting to be extradited. In addition, there was another actor in Atlanta, Georgia. So you have a conspiracy of people working together. So I encourage you to do that. I also encourage you to have enhanced penalty for causing death. In my opinion, this crime is felony murder. Felony murder being if someone commits a felony and someone dies as a result of that felony, they can be charged with felony murder. So, the original federal charges for the Yogashi brothers included production of CSAM, which is child sexually abusive material causing death, and that holds the death penalty with the federal system. We had to guarantee that we would not seek the death penalty to get a successful extradition from Nigeria. But just to show you that the feds are thinking at that level that if you cause the death of somebody in the production of CSAM that you also can be charged with or sentenced to the death penalty. I think we also need to look at exemptions for people that come forward that are a victim of sextortion or exploitation. A big part of my presentations that I give around the country, I touch on why the victims of this horrendous crime didn't reach out for help. Obviously, there's embarrassment, but one of the concerns that I hear is children are scared because they have produced child sexually abusive material or they have exchanged it. So they're afraid of getting in trouble for doing such a thing. And here in Michigan, a few years back, we've changed the laws now, and I haven't looked this up recently. But, basically, if someone's looking for help, we can't prosecute them. Let me give you a scenario. Minor in possession party, a underage drinking party. And all of a sudden, someone drinks too much and they pass out, and they're vomiting, and and it appears that they need some type of medical attention. Years ago, people would be like, don't call anybody because we don't all wanna get in trouble for drinking. But now we've changed the law that, hey. If you're calling for medical attention, we can't prosecute anyone at that site. So, I think that's a good thing. I think that's something that we need to look at. With this law, we wanna make sure that it's not, counterproductive, that they fear that they are gonna get in trouble for the production of the CSAM themselves. So something to think about there. I would, also like to give you this scenario. If I open a bar in the state of Vermont, I'm gonna go through all the permitting. I'm gonna have to follow all the laws and everything like that. I'm operating in your state. Now as the bar owner, I'm just not gonna worry about anything that happens at my bar. I'm just gonna open it up and just let it run. Right? I'm not gonna card people coming in. I don't care how much they drink. I don't care how they're getting home. I don't care what occurs in my bar. I I just keeping the heat on. I'm keeping the taps running, everything like that.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: It's okay.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: We all know that that can't take place. Right? But for some reason, a tech company can do the same thing in your state. They are operating in the state of Vermont, and they have no obligation to follow any of the laws that you have. And I know that's there's a higher level, but I just wanted to reemphasize that it's what's already been brought up. So with that, I guess that's a quick rundown, and happy to answer any questions.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Questions? Ian?

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah. Hi, overseer.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Thank you very much, for all the testimony we've heard this morning. Just one quick question. Does the Michigan law laws around this have an aggravated penalty for, sextortion with a minor?

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: I'm not sure, because I I never really got into the Michigan law. We, because I've I was always been focused on our federal law.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: But, also, one thing I'd like to bring up too, a lot of times we focus on children, but I guarantee you many of adults have fallen victim to this, and there's been a lot of suicides of adults because you can't tell me that, anyone over the age of 18 is, not participating and exchanging nudes with, some unknown person.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yeah.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, under sheriff. Good Samaritan laws aren't aren't forward to us. We we've used them before in in some other situations. So I'm I'm sure we'll take a look at it here too. But I'm I'm thinking about money, the money mules.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Are are

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: some of those potentially being being used same way the kids are to get money? Are are they being used and and forced more or less into being money mules, some of them? I'm sure some of them are very complicit in just looking at, you know, looking at the the 20% or whatever.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: But

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: Right. Right. From my experience, it's it's been, mainly for financial benefit. I'm sure there's the, situations where that they have maybe extorted themselves, and part of the extortion scheme is to convert them to be a money mule. And but yes. So that would be something that you would want to add in your protection to make sure that we don't go after them. But it's gonna have to be carefully worded because

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: They could use that as a as a defense.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: And I'm not even necessarily necessarily looking for that in in the bill. It was just something I had in my mind. So through through the work that you did, you you found six money mules in Atlanta?

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: Correct.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: And how does that spread across The United States? Were was were they handling the whole country or or?

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: No. They're just a small cell. In fact, that small cell that was studied, and I don't have the time frame. Only one of those individuals was involved in the Jordan Demet case, but the investigation into that individual led to the discovery of the five others in the Atlanta region, I guess I'll call it. And that small cell trafficked a $180,000 through them with most sextortion schemes where people actually pay money being less than a thousand dollars. So, that shows you how rampant it is for one small cell Right. To to traffic a $180,000.

[Brian (Parent witness)]: Can I ask can I ask a question? Yeah. To under sheriff. Hey.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Go ahead, Brian.

[Brian (Parent witness)]: So just as a I think for our state, I'm gonna think about this and it's something I just thought of. But are you guys how are you educating the rest of the law enforcement communities throughout the state? One of the major issues that I have when we when we encounter a kid that has been attacked is he I mean, we sent him we sent him to to make the report, goes to the FBI database, and I think it goes to a black hole because nobody's really hurt. You know, it's a it's a low level, you know, what they consider a low level injury, so it really doesn't go anywhere. I'm sure that there's cross references to that database larger crimes but the problem is like local police and sheriff departments, man, they just do not have the, in our experience, do not have the resources to understand how to how to pursue just an average kid that was attacked and you know, that that low level attack is where all of these started, you know? So, I guess question for you, two things. The comment is that in the bill, I think a funding category for local law enforcement would be phenomenal and, I'm sure if how are you guys accomplishing that in the state or if you are. Yeah.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: Well, you know, the frustration with law enforcement, is, you know, every almost every scam we deal with goes outside The United States. So we we get very frustrated when we get these calls because we know we you know, we you generally assume that you can't do anything about it. For instance, I've I I just had I had another scam shortly after this one where a a company lost a quarter million dollars, and the and the feds wouldn't bite on that one. And and I was kinda dead in the water, but we did have a money mule on that case within The United States. So I guess it's encouraging when I give my presentation to other law enforcement is basically I encourage them to run the case as far as they can. One, especially following the money and verifying that it is outside of The United States. Another thing I like to bring up is a comparison to sexual assault cases where you may have a victim that doesn't want to come forward and they have a known offender, and they don't wanna get a sexual assault kit. And we always encourage them to get a sexual assault kit because that same offender may be an unknown offender to another victim, and we may be able to make that match through CODIS or the DNA match. So what I'm saying there is if even though you may have a lower level attack and someone there wasn't a a death involved with it, I still encourage law enforcement to still still pursue the case because although it it it didn't involve a money payment, it didn't involve a death, that working that case may unveil evidence for someone else because this person is is doing it to hundreds and thousands of other people. That investigation may be fruitful to someone else trying to work another investigation with the same offender. So that those are the those are the type of bridges I try to build with local law enforcement that seem to be overwhelmed with these cases that come in.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: K. Great. Thank you.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Karen, can I

[Mary (Parent witness)]: just add one little launch?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Course.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah. Go

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: ahead, Mary.

[Mary (Parent witness)]: Everything they're talking about is so great. And it's also the boots on the ground that that police officer does not go in and say, I could arrest you for sending child sexual abuse material. We have to educate those cops who are the first one to go into that vulnerable family and they have a chance to say, it's not your fault. This was designed by child psychologists and professionals to trap you. This is a grown criminal, and this is what that is, and I'm here to help you. You're a victim. These are victims of crimes, and we must be sure that our law enforcement, even if they don't know how to do what these guys are taught, I understand, but it's so important in that first moment that you go see that vulnerable child that you do not place blame on that child. They're a victim. And so are their parents, and they're not bad parents. They're working two jobs for their kid to have that damn phone.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you. Karen and Tom.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah. Thank you, under sheriffs, for being here and really going above and beyond to share this message and recommendations. I really appreciate your piece about trying to make sure that we are creating that exception for youth who share. And I think, Mary, you're just speaking to that too. But not only the folks that receive it, but acknowledging that they're kids, and they might share it without fully understanding the consequences and then have a realization like, shoot, this is getting big and in trouble, but I don't want to say what I did. And I think that it's important because it's acknowledging that their kids, they're navigating things that they shouldn't even be having to navigate, and we want them to come forward and share this information. Just letting you know, So I appreciate that piece of it, and I think that's important one.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: How come?

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yeah. This would be for the under sheriff. Retired under sheriff. I'm still employed in that in that realm, some of what you've been talking about has actually caused a lot of thought on something I'm seeing, and I wasn't quite sure why I was seeing it. And it it goes to the the financial movement of the money on The United States side. Is that something you're comfortable getting more into the method of how it's done, or would that be something you'd rather talk about in in private?

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: It's it's pretty straightforward. Okay. So the the money mule will have a Gmail account or whatever type of email account. The sextortionist already has the then they'll have multiple accounts that money can get filtered through. So once the once the extortion starts and they tell them that they're gonna send money, they said, okay. Send it to this Gmail account. That Gmail account or whatever email account is then tied into the Money Mule. The Money Mule then receives it via whatever pay payment platform they get, and then they just simply, in Jordan's case, then converted and then just sent 80% of that to the what what the feds have called them the plug because there's even a conspiracy, you know, and it kinda unorganized crime over in Nigeria, a person that was kinda running the Ogashi brothers. So the yeah. They converted to Bitcoin. And once that once the kind of the password for those accounts is sent to the the sextortionist, then they got the money.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Are they converting it to cash at any point and then back to Bitcoin?

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: I doubt it. It's just, yeah, just like in our world right now, we we we don't in general payments, we they they don't convert it to cash that you can just it's just online transfers.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: If if they converted it to cash in in one theater, so to speak, and then remove that and go somewhere else and convert it to another form of payment that would also disconnect traceability.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Correct?

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: Yeah. It it would be helpful. But, you know, I I kinda don't wanna give a playbook of the way to do to do it.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yeah. That's that's why I guess that's what I was

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Right.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Maybe we need to talk. Yeah. Alright. Thank you, sir.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: And and one other point I wanted to bring up, kind of to, you know, there was a question earlier about, you know, should we require PSAs? It's, that's a touchy subject. One, know, I've also worked on our local school board, and and sometimes the requirements that come down from the state aren't really meeting the needs. And and I don't know if really we have enough unified exactly what to look out for for sextortion. But a point I wanted to bring up is and I tell everybody this in my presentations is one of the reasons I believe that kids don't come forward is because they fear they're going to lose access to this device right here if they bring that forward. And I I like to tell parents to think about it differently. You know, how would you react right now if your 17 year old child came to you and just said, I'm being extorted over sexual images I sent? Are you gonna immediately lose your mind and tell them no more cell phone for the next year or the rest of your life or how you know, whatever your overreaction is gonna be? And I think people need to change that thought process to we need to congratulate that child for coming forward and having the maturity to know when they need help. So a lot of people's knee jerk response to online predators is to just we're just gonna do away with all Internet access. We know that's not even really feasible anymore. We really need to send a message that if someone comes forward to you for help, you need to show your appreciation for how mature they are in bringing that forward. Just like you had the conversation with your child, if you go out drinking I don't I don't want you drinking, but if you do and you need a ride home, I will come and get you. We'll talk about it later, but I will come and get you, and it's not gonna be a big scene. So just a thought I wanted to share.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Any other questions? Angela? I just want to say thank you, Undersheriff, for being here. And just as Brian and Mary are doing, more folks are willing to talk about their experiences with these types of crimes from all aspects, all involved parties, I think it really goes a long way to helping policymakers and parents and schools and everyone just understand these emerging problems and challenges. And so I really appreciate all of you using, for parents, what is the deepest anguish I can imagine, and for law enforcement, walking into these horribly tragic events for families. So I just thank all of you for turning that pain into advocacy helping us grapple with it here, all the people that I know you've spoken to and helped. I just want to say thank you.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: You're more than welcome.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, thank you. All right, so we'll turn to somebody in three dimensions. Charlie, if you could join us.

[Carly Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Morning. I'm Carly Lisserman. I'm the policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. And I appreciate the opportunity to testify in strong support of H-six 26. I'm also grateful to Brian and Mary and the other sheriff for speaking today and sharing their stories. Image based abuse includes creation, distribution, and threat to share images of a person without consent. And this bill addresses three forms of that abuse. So as Michelle discussed, video voyeurism, images or recordings that are taken without a person's consent in a private setting, like a fitting camera in a restroom. Nonconsensual disclosure of explicit images, these are images that may or may not have been originally shared with permission and are later shared without permission. And Vermont's statute on nonconsensual disclosure encompasses what's often called revenge porn. It also includes digitally altered or AI generated images. And then sexual extortions, extortion, which we have been discussing with the last couple witnesses. This is when a perpetrator threatens to disclose a real or synthetic explicit image unless a victim complies with demands. And this can occur in a number of different contexts. It can include context like online scams. It can also occur in the context of a domestic violence situation or in trafficking. As technology advances, this harm has become more common and more severe, and we feel it's essential that our laws be updated to protect Vermonters in this new reality. Once an image is shared online, it can spread instantly and be nearly impossible to remove. And that means that survivors face a chronic sense of threat, that their abuse will continue no matter what they do because the image will remain accessible online. These consequences are wide ranging. It impacts the survivor's safety, their reputation, their relationships, their job prospects, and their physical and mental health. And as you've heard, image based abuse disproportionately affects young people and it can shape the rest of their lives. Research shows that victims of image based abuse experience higher rates of PTSD and depression than even other forms of domestic and sexual violence alone. And so it's important that we have civil and criminal law responses that appropriately address this harm. On the civil side, H-six 26 strengthens remedies for victims of video voyeurism and non consensual disclosure of explicit images. It allows survivors to file a lawsuit against a perpetrator for the harm they caused, and they can do so at any time. The bill also clarifies that a diagnosis of a trauma related disorder, such as PTSD, meets the requirement of actual injury in a civil claim. As Michelle noted, this provision is informed by a 2025 Vermont Supreme Court decision, Kilnburn v. Simon, and involves harm caused by video voyeurism. This was a concurring majority opinion where Chief Justice Riber and Justice Waples emphasized that Vermont's tort law has not kept pace with our understanding of PTSD and psychological trauma. And they urge the development of this area of court law to bring us closer to parity so we can ensure that those who are harmed psychologically as well as physically are heard and compensated, and we couldn't agree more. On criminal law responses, H. Six twenty six shifts the statute of limitations for video voyeurism and non consensual disclosure of explicit images to align with how these crimes actually unfold. Current law gives victims three years from the time the crime was committed, and many victims don't discover that an explicit image or recording of them is online until years later, sometimes after it's been viewed by millions of people. Under current law, their opportunity to pursue criminal charges may have expired before they even know they were harmed, and we have worked with survivors who where this has been the case. This bill proposes to start the clock at the time of discovery and close it six years afterwards, and other states, including Connecticut, Louisiana, have taken this approach to ensure survivors have a meaningful path to justice. And lastly, H-six 26 creates penalties for criminal threatening involving explicit images or sexual conduct. Threatening to disclose an explicit image is a deeply coercive act, and it can be used to compel victims to provide many kinds of things from money or labor or to engage in a sexual act against their will. It's an element of cursive control in domestic violence, sexual violence and trafficking, and it should be recognized in Vermont's criminal statutes. We are working with a survivor who's been deeply impacted by image based abuse, and we hope the committee will have an opportunity to hear from her directly in the coming weeks. Thank you for your consideration of this film and your time, and I would be happy to answer any questions. Questions?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So do you have an opinion on whether the statute of limitations, an issue that Michelle brought up, of whether instead of doing the notice just having a very long statute of limitation for the criminal offense. Do you have any viewpoint on that?

[Carly Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I would welcome any thoughts from practitioners who may speak on this bill, potentially from the criminal division of the attorney general's office. But I do not have an opinion on that.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And I know there's a few additional issues that were raised by the under sheriff, Larson, as far as if you have any comment on some of that at this point, or we may be looking at that a little bit further. There'll be opportunity certainly down the road to, for instance, the enhanced penalty, conspiracy language, the financial benefit, and then the exemptions for victims if you come forward. You don't have to have a comment on that now, but if you do

[Carly Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yes, I'd love some time to think a bit more about that, and I'm happy to come back to the committee.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Maybe respond to actual language.

[Carly Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: That would be terrific. You.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That would give me the opportunity, though. Any have any questions? Yeah.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Can can I if the sheriff is still there, can I go can we go back to the sheriff for a minute?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Under sheriff Larson, are you available still? We

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: will see if he pops back.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. If he comes back after our next week.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: He's on.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, there we are. Okay. So we have a question for you. Go ahead. Yep.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: Sorry. I was on the phone.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yes. Okay. Good morning, sheriff. And and first, my condolences to the family. While while the testimony has been going on, I've been reading up. And when you brought up this other name of of the young man that you were involved in, I've just been trying to catch up to everything. So so this money laundering and all this stuff, the the Nigerian brothers, they're out of country and probably not much goes on with them, but there was a total of five people in The US, three from Georgia, from, was it one from Michigan and one from Louisiana involved in this with the money laundering? Is that correct?

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: I don't have all the specific locations down, but, the FBI ended up finding a total of six.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Total of six?

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: In money laundering operate, sex torsion operations, with one of them being involved with the Jordan to make case.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Okay. So, so I'm just going over this and then I see how the money, you know, it's been talked about the Bitcoin and and broken down and used by Apple Pay, Cash App, and Zelle or Zally, whatever that is. I I'm not Zelle. I'm too old for all that crap. But anyway, and and I know this is the Internet stuff, but also wouldn't they when's how this is being paid for? Wouldn't they be held with some some sort of accountability also? Or is that out of your preview?

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: I guess I don't quite understand the question. You mean that they'd be held accountable through other laws?

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Well, it would it would seems like this this money laundering scheme, right, which is basically organized crime to me. It seems like there would be they would be involved in this to where where they would be held accountable for something.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: Correct. Yep. And they were they were all sentenced in federal court. Yep.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: No. Not that not not that the guys that did it. The the the apps, the the like the Apple Pay and and Oh, I got you.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: Cash App. Yeah. I I got you. The accountability for, like, Apple Pay or Zelle or anything like that.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: Yeah. That may be maybe a little bit more difficult to hold them accountable because they don't have quite as much information. They don't know why money was sent from Jordan to May to Jonathan Green, via Apple Pay. They don't know if it's because of his birthday or a sextortion. So, I guess they would have limited information, and so I I would assume that they would have less accountability.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Okay. Thank you for that. The other thing is it it looks like the people that were involved from The United States that that did this

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's right.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: They didn't really get anything for a sentence for for

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: Correct.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I I wanna use for murdering innocent young victims.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yeah.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: It seems I like they paid nothing for what they did.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: I was very disappointed in that as well. Most of them just got probation. In fact, I don't I don't think any of them got actually any jail time.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Quite frankly, I'm I am very angry about this. This is just shows how how our lack of judicial system is just so messed up. And I have one more thing and I can't remember what it is, but do our homework on this. Thank you.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: All the federal indictments on the case and everything are all available online to get more information.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Oh, I'm saying it. I'm trying to keep up with everything, but thank you.

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: You're welcome.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you. So anything else, Charlie, or any other questions for Charlie? Thank you very much. So we'll go to, is it Bella? Did I pronounce that right?

[Belle Torrek (Safety Net Project, NNEDV)]: Hi there, everyone. It's Belle, like the Disney character.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, Okay. Well, I added the silence asylum. I apologize for that. But thank you for identifying yourself for the record, which I guess you just did, and then proceed. So thank you very much for being available.

[Belle Torrek (Safety Net Project, NNEDV)]: Thank you so much, everyone, for having me, and apologies in advance for my voice. I'm getting over a bout of the flu, but as everyone in this room knows, online abuse doesn't take sick days, so neither do we. Chair LaLonde, Vice Chair Burditt, and members of the Vermont House Committee on Judiciary, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify this morning. My name is Belle Torrek, and I am an attorney by training and a technology safety specialist with the SafetyNet Project at the National Network to End Domestic Violence, otherwise known for short as NNEDV. NNEDV, as many of you know, is the national membership organization representing state, territorial, and tribal domestic violence coalitions and their local member programs across The United States. We work to create a social, political, and economic environment in which domestic violence no longer exists and in which survivors and their families have access to safety, justice, and healing. NNEDV's SafetyNet project in particular is the nation's leading initiative focused on the intersection of technology and survivor safety. Under the leadership of our director, Audees Garnett, and our assistant vice president, Erica Olson, we work with domestic violence and sexual assault advocates, attorneys, courts, law enforcement, the tech industry especially, and policymakers across the country to address technology facilitated abuse and to ensure that legal frameworks keep pace with rapid technological change. I personally began working on issues of non consensual intimate imagery and online sexual exploitation long before there was widespread public recognition of these harms and well before there was legal or cultural consensus that this is conduct as opposed to, you know, speech worthy of First Amendment protection and that it constitutes a serious form of sexual violence. During a time when survivors were often blamed and told that the law had little to offer them in terms of recourse, I worked alongside advocates and victims to push for legal recognition of these harms, a shift away from stigma towards survivors, and most importantly, meaningful, actionable remedies at the state and federal levels. Much of that work has, occurred with the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, the preeminent organization in the world dedicated exclusively to supporting victims of nonconsensual intimate image abuse and advancing legal reform in this area under our president, doctor Mary Anne Franks, and executive director, Michelle Gonzalez. I now serve on its advisory committee in the company of some of the most esteemed privacy scholars and advocates of this moment and continue to work with them to advance survivor safety and privacy. Much of SafetyNet's portfolio today centers on addressing challenges of image based sexual abuse, including sextortion, nonconsensual intimate imagery broadly, and AI generated nonconsensual intimate images, often termed digital forgeries. I often provide legal and technical assistance to survivor advocates and attorneys, advise state and federal policymakers on, legislative and regulatory responses, and we co chair with the Center for Democracy and Technology, the leading multistakeholder working group on the topic. So we do so much of this work around image based sexual abuse because we are responding to the urgent need of the moment, we are meeting the moment, because this is one of the most urgent and rapidly evolving forms of tech facilitated abuse that we address. Image based abuse is not merely a privacy violation. It is a form of sexual violence and coercive control. Survivors experience devastating, long lasting, and often irreparable harms, including stalking, threats to families, loss of employment, housing instability, reputational destruction, severe emotional and psychological trauma, and as under Sheriff Larson correctly noted, suicide. For many survivors of domestic and sexual violence, intimate images leveraged to silence, to isolate, to wield control, undo, undue control, occur long after a relationship has ended. So while nonconsensual intimate imagery is not itself new, generative AI has dramatically expanded perpetrators' capacity to inflict harm. In recent years, AI has fundamentally transformed both the scale and ease with which this abuse can be carried out. Today, a perpetrator no longer needs an authentic, intimate image or even the Photoshop savvy of yore. A single photograph scraped from a Google search can be inputted into a Notify app, or if you've kept track of recent news, even certain, tech companies, major generative AI systems to generate hyper realistic, nonconsensual, intimate photo and video content within a matter of minutes. As organizations like CCRI describe, these are digital forgeries. They are synthetic, but they are profoundly real in their impact, which means that anyone can be targeted, including any member, any participant in today's hearing. This growing recognition, of course, led to the passage of the Take It Down Act, which became federal law last year with overwhelming by support and the first time that congress meaningfully addressed the nonconsensual distribution of intimate imagery at a national level, including certain forms of AI generated intimate imagery. This is a noteworthy first step, but state laws addressing image based sexual abuse are still absolutely critical in order to ensure that victims and survivors have the full range of remedies to protect their safety, their privacy, and their dignity. First, of course, survivors experience and report harm locally. They seek help from local police, local prosecutors, and state courts. State law determines whether an officer can open a case, whether a prosecutor can file charges, whether a judge can issue a protective order, whether a survivor can obtain civil relief. State law offers civil causes of action, restraining orders, injunctive relief that are faster, more accessible, tailored to survivors' individual needs in ways that federal law might not be able to meet so easily. They're also the forum by which definitions can be most clearly modernized, which is all the more important in a realm like this where we're seeing technology evolve constantly. So finally, it's important to note that federal and state law operate in complementary, not substitutive, rules. The existence of federal sexual assault law, for instance, doesn't eliminate the need for state statutes, and the same is true here. Strong state image based abuse laws reinforce federal protections, and they ensure that survivors aren't left without recourse while federal processes move slowly or might be less available to them. Vermont has a strong history of leadership in survivor centered policy and in recognizing the dynamics of tech facilitated abuse. Updating and strengthening legal protections related to image based sexual abuse, particularly to explicitly encompass AI generated and digitally altered imagery and sextortion ensures that survivors in the state are not left without meaningful recourse as the tools of harm evolve. I appreciate the committee's diligent attention to this issue and Vermont's continued commitment to protecting survivors in the digital age. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Questions? Not seeing any initially. Everybody's thinking about their questions. Do you have any particular input on the language we have in the bill itself? Have you had a chance to review that and if you have any suggestions or recommendations. And if you don't have those right now, if you do wanna look at that and provide that to us, because we're gonna probably have some more testimony on this some tomorrow and then some early next week. And then we will kind of incorporate some of the suggestions we've had at that time sometime during next week. So if you do have the chance to do that, we'd appreciate any input. I gave you all a chance to come up with your questions. Angela?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: It's just enough time. Thank you. Vamping, is that what we use technology to overcome that?

[Lowell Larson (Undersheriff, Marquette County, MI)]: I

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: don't know if you were listening earlier, and I may not have this exactly right, but I think that it was suggested by, and I think Charlie might have mentioned it too, suggested by our legislative council that perhaps we shift to the forty year statute of limitations, something really long, rather than

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: the discovery. Yeah. And

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I just wondered if you had thoughts on that specific piece, the Statute of Limitations post discovery.

[Belle Torrek (Safety Net Project, NNEDV)]: So I'm going to do something that may get me into a little bit of trouble with my bosses later, where my take may differ a little bit from my organization's. As a general rule, because NNEDV is a membership organization, we do stand behind state coalitions and their recommendations. My personal recommendation as Bell Torrek, the image based sexual abuse survivor advocate, is that there isn't harm in I'm thinking of all of the range of harms that can exist from expanding that statute of limitations. I don't really see a harm that can occur from allowing survivors that reasonable time for discovery, especially because we know that so many nonconsensual intimate images, you know, worst case scenario, they show up on a major social media platform and are known to the world immediately. Think of things like the Taylor Swift, deepfake incident in very early twenty twenty four. But one of the aspects of the federal Take It Down Act that is a little bit challenging is that while it is responsive to nonconsensual intimate imagery that takes place across major social media platforms, one of its oversights, a little bit of a blind spot, is that it doesn't apply the same way to curated deepfake sites that are not interactive computer services, where there are lots of members uploading content. So a bad faith actor who has, their own dedicated non consensual intimate image, website might not be as easily discoverable. Now I do think that there are certain things that may change that. For instance, there are technologies like face check ID that allow a user to basically upload an image of themselves and see instances where their image exists on the Internet. However, I'm not sure that it's going to be accessible in the same ways, and I think that there are increasing ways to evade even systems like that.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? I don't see you right now. Oh, Angela, go ahead.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I have several question marks next to this one subdivision. Do you have the bill in front of you by any chance? I was gonna go page and line number, but I could just read it as well.

[Belle Torrek (Safety Net Project, NNEDV)]: Would you be able to read it to me, please?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes. So this is existing law, And I just wanted You just mentioned interactive computer services. So I'm sure that you're familiar with the term and the definition. So in existing law, it says that we are exempting interactive computer services as defined in 47 USC two thirty or information services or telecommunications services from 47 USC section 153 for content solely provided by another person. It does say this subdivision shall not preclude other remedies available at law. And I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on that as we, I hope, reconsider the culpability and responsibility of platforms? Do you see any issue with explicitly exempting them?

[Belle Torrek (Safety Net Project, NNEDV)]: So, the challenge here that you aptly point out is Section two thirty of the Communications Decency Act. Known by many as the 26 words that created the internet, Section two thirty is the idea that an interactive computer service, an information provider So this let me back up a little bit, forgive me I'm having a little brain fog. This was back in 1996 when the Internet looked very different. Think about, like, those really old school, online forums, which are nothing like the social media platforms that we see today. It was against this backdrop that section two thirty came into existence, and it was designed to promote free speech. The idea being that if you make a a forum liable for the speech of individual users, then we're creating a world where forums have to, basically pre review users' content before allowing it to be published in a way that is anathema to the First Amendment, anathema to free speech, discourse, like all of these democratic values that we care about. Of course, section two thirty hasn't meaningfully changed since then, and our online landscape definitely has. I understand wanting to not run afoul of Section two thirty, but I would encourage everyone in the room to read the scholarship of Doctor. Marianne Franks and Danielle Citron, two of the leading scholars who are at the helm of efforts to reform Section two thirty in ways that may be a little more protective of survivors.

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes, thank you. Mean, as someone who hopes that we will actually repeal Section two thirty, I'm wondering I'd love to know. Yeah, I just want to get at hear legal perspectives on how we might not run afoul, but still recognize and work in the present day that the current reality. Always interested in hearing legal opinions on this matter.

[Belle Torrek (Safety Net Project, NNEDV)]: Thank you so much. Always happy to work with with Charlie and and all of you to, support any subsequent efforts.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you. Any other questions? I don't see any. So I see that you came back up. Mary, I can give you the final word for this morning, if you wish.

[Mary (Parent witness)]: I've been listening. That was so great about Section two thirty. It's not free speech because that's when it was made when everything was put on a chat board in the chronological feed. It and so I said something. You could argue back with me. And but as other people contributed, down would go the first two. But now when they choose the feed based on them receiving 97.5% of their trillions of profits from advertisers, that's not free speech anymore because you chose to send the teenage girl a Maybelline or diet pill ad right after she deleted a selfie because a kid searched self help affirmations. And in three swipes, he was in how to die by suicide. That's not free speech. Thank

[Carly Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: you.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Thank you to all the witnesses. Really appreciate that. And we will be working on this bill for a bit, and then we'll certainly work to get it over the finish line, as we say. So we're gonna be adjourned until, but before we go off live, we'll go till 01:15 today because we only have one witness at we have one of the other witnesses. Jennifer Pullman's going to be next Tuesday instead of this afternoon on this bill. And then we are going to do a walkthrough of H589 at 02:00.