What this is

These are structured case studies drawn from public ICAC investigative records, documented by law enforcement and released through press releases and task force reports. CaseLinker has processed 2,500+ of these reports across 25 U.S. task forces. The case studies here were selected from that corpus to trace how internet-facilitated crimes against children evolved across four technological eras, from early social media in 2010 through the generative AI period today.

This is not true crime content. It is a historical and analytical record of how this crime has changed — and how law enforcement has responded — told through 20 carefully selected cases.

How these studies are written

An obligation to the subject matter includes an obligation to readers and to one-self: not to unnecessarily expose material or details that causes harm without analytical purpose. Each case study is written across five analytical dimensions: the platform context, the perpetrator methodology, the investigative approach, the prosecutorial outcome, and the relationship to the broader technological era. They do not reproduce graphic details. They do not dwell on the specifics of individual offenses beyond what the analytical argument requires. The goal is insight, not exposure.

Offenders in these cases are not framed as monsters or reduced to moral categories. That framing is understandable — and analytically unhelpful. These cases are treated as evidence of a systemic problem. The landscape is the unit of analysis. Individual offenders are not.

These case studies are forward-facing. The question each one answers is: what does this case reveal about the technological moment, the enforcement response, and the patterns that inform how we protect children going forward?

Who this is for

This site is intended for researchers, practitioners, advocates, policymakers, and journalists working in or adjacent to child safety. If you arrived here from LinkedIn or through a contact in this space — welcome. If you are a survivor or find this content difficult — please take care of yourself first. There is no obligation to read.

If you are a parent, educator, or community member who wants to understand this issue better — you are welcome here too. These case studies were written to lower the barrier to engagement for everyone who wants to understand this landscape but has never had an entry point into it.

A note on source material

All case studies draw exclusively from public, already-redacted records — press releases, annual task force reports, and state open records requests limited to closed adjudicated cases. This research received a determination from the UMass Amherst Human Research Protection Office (HRPO #7668): it does not involve private or identifiable information under federal regulations. No victims, witnesses, or individuals beyond what appears in original published records are identified. Convicted offender names, though available in public records, are omitted from these case studies.

Each study is written with vicarious trauma in mind. Graphic details are omitted where they serve no analytical purpose, and the material is presented at the level of pattern and context, not exposure.

Feedback

Each case study includes two ways to respond. A public notes section for community thoughts — and a private Google Form for confidential feedback, which is the preferred channel for practitioners and investigators who want to share operational perspective without a public record.

If you have worked in this domain and see something that needs correction, context, or careful handling — please use the private form. That feedback directly shapes how these studies are revised before wider release.