Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 14:02:08 -0400 From: "Carl M. Kadie" Quotes from Rimm From the alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk archive ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/batch/nov_06_1994 ============= From caf-talk Caf Nov 4 23:52:14 1994 From: Erikas Aras Napjus Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: CMU: Additional Censorship Information Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 23:44:57 -0500 Message-ID: Excerpts from netnews.comp.org.eff.talk: 4-Nov-94 Re: CMU: Additional Censors.. by Carl M Kadie@hal.cs.uiuc > This is a bit strange. A "research project" to judge the law? Who did > the research? Is their report available or is it secret? Was their > methodology sound, for example, did they talk to experts? This study was conducted by a research group either under the Department of Engineering and Public Policy or under the Information Networking Institute. It looks like they are attempting to have their information published, but haven't entirely had a lot of luck. They study, according to some people, was commissioned to find interesting resources on the Internet. According to other people, it looks like a witch hunt designed to force the University's hand into restricting access and, by precident and the wide publicity generated by both the restrictions and the study, restrict access to sexually explicit material throughout the National Information Infastructure (NII), the successor to the Internet. INI has worked on quite a bit of research regarding commercializing the Internet including beginning the creation of a MasterCard-like service for Internet shoppers and looking into charging on a packet-by-packet basis for Internet access, so this doesn't seem entirely implausible. Here's a copy of a message that Sam Minter tracked down a few layers deep and posted to the local CMU bboard discussing this issue: > From: Martin Rimm > Subject: Internet-Pornography Study > > I am part of a team of researchers at Carnegie Mellon University. We > have completed a large, systematic study of pornography on the > Information Superhighway, to include both the Usenet, and adult BBS. We > have developed powerful software to analyze 917,410 images which were > downloaded 6.4 million times. We are looking for a journal (preferably > academic) which can publish our findings in a relatively short period > of time. Could someone please recommend a journal which deals with > Internet public policy issues? > > This is a broad study and it has been quite a challenge to reduce it to > a single discipline, which is the downside of most journals. We raise > many legal, privacy and first ammendment issues, but we also deal with > the sociology of sexual deviance and the (possible) degradation of > women, which could be gender studies. > > Martin Rimm > Carnegie Mellon University > > Note: Someone will likely examine the above numbers and challenge them > without listening carefully to our methodology. I would respectfully > ask that you assume for now that our methodology is sound, until you > have a chance to examine it upon publication. On the other hand, the advisor for the project, Marvin Sibru wrote a rather extensive article to Sam on the subject material of the study. My interpretation here, from their legal research, is that wide distribution of the study will necessarily force systems administrators to remove sexually explcit material by law. Basically, before the study, it was possible for people to ignore the material, but this study brings the material into the spotlight and necessarily forces people to act such as the University has done. This is where this issue could begin to go well beyond Carnegie Mellon and into forming future regulation of the NII, something which truly scares me. Maybe I'm reading too much into these things, but it seems like the first major battle of the "new" Internet might be fought out at Carnegie Mellon. >I have been supervising an undergraduate research project exploring the >scale and scope of sexually oriented material being distributed over >Adult Bulletin Board Systems and Usenet. > >What is on the bboards: > >In the course of the research we uncovered the following: > >1. Two images from Usenet found on the CMU bboards were declared >"obscene" by a jury in Tennessee in July, 1994. The distributor of these >images was convicted on eleven obscenity counts and is appealing. > >2. We also obtained from Usenet via CMU computers several hundred >images from the same distributor which are similar in content to, and >which are the subject of, a ten count indictment of child pornography in >Utah. > >3. We also obtained from the Usenet via CMU computers more than 300 >images which depict bestiality. 15 of these came from a Mexican BBS >whose operator was extradited last month on four counts of child >pornography. Several of these images appear to match one of the >descriptions in the indictment: "YOUNG GIRL SPREADS ASS TO LET FRIEND >INSERT A DOG'S DICK" > > >The law governing operators of computer bulletin boards is still >evolving as more cases work their way through the courts. Most bboard >operators take the position that they are like a "common carrier"; they >merely carry content posted by others, and disclaim any responsibility >for the content. Thus they cannot be held liable if illegal, stolen, or >fraudulent material is posted. > >Responsibility of system operators > >In a recent Supreme Court ruling involving stolen copyrighted materials >found posted on Compuserve, the Supreme Court analogized Compuserve to a >bookstore. A bookstore owner cannot be expected to have read every book >in his store, and therefore should not be held liable if a particular >book includes plaguerized passages or libel. >However, the case law holds that _if_ the bookstore operator has >knowledge of the contents and continues to sell the book, then the >bookstore owner becomes liable along with the author/publisher. > >As a result of the study currently underway, CMU can no longer claim >ignorance of the contents of the bboards, and thus cannot use the >Compuserve defense. > >Minors > >Moreover, the laws governing dissemination of sexually oriented >materials make a distinction between "obscene" materials which are >always illegal, and merely "indecent" material which is not illegal for >adults, but may not be legally distributed to minors. > >The Internet is the precurser to the future National Information >Infrastructure. Accordingly, with support from NSF, NTIA and other >funding agencies, CMU faculty and students have been actively engaged in >widening access to the Internet. In several cases this means arranging >for school children in grades K-12 to gain access to the Internet >through CMU (e.g. by arranging to supply them with Andrew userids.) >Since anyone with an Andrew UserID has access to all AMS bboards, this >means that minor children would gain access to bboards carrying content >which it is illegal to disseminate to persons under 18, even if legal >for adults. Interpret everything however you may. . . --- Erikas ======================== From caf-talk Caf Nov 5 22:49:46 1994 From: kadie@hal.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M Kadie) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship Subject: The CMU administration has not read the report! Date: 6 Nov 94 03:46:11 GMT Message-ID: Email, posted with the author's permission (and with one requested change): ============================================================ Excerpts from netnews.comp.org.eff.talk: 5-Nov-94 CMU bans alt.sex: Intellect.. by Carl M Kadie@hal.cs.uiuc > If CMU makes policy based on unrefereed reports written by nonlawyers, > I suggest they make it based on *my* unrefereed report. :-) You're a good guy, Carl. I'm the principle investigator of the study, "Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway." It is being refereed and had the assistance of a lawyer who has argued obscenity cases before the Supreme Court. The only catch is, the CMU administration never even saw the report. In fact, they don't even know the name of the report. Go ask them, they won't have an answer. They are connecting themselves and their actions to our study as an excuse to do what they did. They did not commission the study nor did they have any involvement in it. What we did was inform [a member of the administration] that we discovered imagery on the Usenet which had been declared obscene by several courts of law. We gave him the names and descriptions of these specific images. We had no involvement in any policy decisions. In fact, our report is empirical, and does not advocate or endorse such a policy. We merely report the availability and demand of various classifications of imagery on BBS and the Usenet. Lots of hard work, lots of fascinating findings. Sex is fascinating. We informed them of the obscene imagery as a courtesy because we were concerned that when the study is published the media would have a circus with headlines such as "CMU Students High on Cybersex." The scandal would be, CMU students spend half their time on the sex boards. We conducted a serious study and did not want that, and felt it would be unfair to implicate CMU merely because we had statistics about CMU bboards. Martin Rimm ========================================================================= -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = Email: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = = URL: Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 17:30:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Excerpts from mail: 29-Jun-95 The Martin Rimm study featu.. by "Carl M. Kadie"@eff.org > This study was conducted by a research group either under the Department > of Engineering and Public Policy or under the Information Networking > Institute. Wrong. EPP and INI are graduate only programs. While Marvin is in both Departemnts (and GSAI and ECE) neither department is properly associated with this study. Martin Rimm has been accepted to neither Department at this time.