Rimm's Index Sources

People who have distanced themselves from the study:

  1. "This was not a report I would have written; this was Marty Rimm's report".
    Dr Marvin Sirbu (Department of Engineering and Public Policy, CMU), NYT 7/16/95.
  2. "Probably too little attention was paid to ethics as this went along".
    Dr David Banks (Department of Statistics, CMU), NYT 7/16/95.
  3. ``Ron Rohrer, an electrical and computer engineering professor [...] said he had nothing to do with Mr. Rimm's pornography study''. NYT 7/16/95
  4. "Many of his conclusions about that pornography [...] remain problematic, because of biases in the research which results from the purposes of his study".
    Lisa Sigel, "Critique of Rimm Article on Online Pornography"
  5. "If I had been aware of its nature, I certainly wouldn't have had anything to do with it".
    Adam Epstein
  6. "...I decided his study has critical flaws, rendering it near useless".
    Christopher Reeve (source)
  7. "My main ``contribution'' to the study was a couple brainstorming sessions".
    C.J. Taylor (source)
  8. "I was not involved in obtaining any data for the study, reviewing or editing any part of the study outside of the three footnotes, or supporting any information contained in the study".
    Erikas Napjus (source)
  9. "I was not asked, nor did I request to review any part of the report".
    John Gardiner Myers (source)
Rimm has also said he should have thanked Dr George Duncan (Heinz School of Public Policy and Management, CMU). Duncan, however, said: "I had no official role in the research study that was conducted by Martin Rimm" (NYT, 7/16/95).

Finally, Rimm (ab)uses the results of Brian Reid, who said: "Every professional is going to vomit when they see this study." and "It stretches the limit of credibility in every direction."

Number of weeks before Time distanced itself:

On A Screen Near You: Cyberporn, Time cover story, July 3.
Fire Storm On The Computer Nets, Time, July 24.

"The Pornographers Handbook":

Martin Rimm, The Pornographer's Handbook; How to Exploit Women, Dupe Men, and Make Lots of Money, published by Carnegie, March 1995, ISBN 0962547654.

Handbook Illustrators:

Caroline Speranza has stated for the record that she never worked on "The Pornographer's Handbook", and that her name was used without her knowledge or consent. Books In Print has also removed her name from their listing of the book.

Number of hours Rimm was off:

"The thing is about to blow, probably by Friday at noon."
Martin Rimm, talking to Brock Meeks

CMU University Statement on Rimm Study, issued on Friday at 5:44pm.

CMU ethics experts:

``Dr Duncan, an expert in statistics, specifically in the area of ethics and privacy of data gathering, [...] said he had no substantial concerns about the gathering of private student data because, he said, anyone using the university's computer system ought to have known it was "open".''
Dr George Duncan (Heinz School of Public Policy and Management, CMU), NYT 7/16/95.

"The user must presume that the contents of any other user's directory are his or her private property just as one would presume that the contents of someone's apartment or office are personal."
CMU Statement on Individual Responsibilities in Shared Computing Environments

Number of critiques:

From the Vanderbilt page I'm counting
  1. "The Case of the Two Cybersex Studies", Declan McCullagh
  2. "Unpublished letter to the editor of Time Magazine", Survey Working Group of the Internet Research Task Force
  3. "The Ethics of Carnegie Mellon's 'Cyber-Porn' Study", Jim Thomas
  4. "Time Waited for No One (Or At Least Not For Me): Why I Picked a Fight With The Newsmagazine That Fed The Great Internet Sex Panic", Mike Godwin
  5. "Critique of the Rimm Study", Brian Reid
  6. "A Detailed Analysis of the Conceptual, Logical, and Methodological Flaws in the Article, 'Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway'", Hoffman and Novak
  7. "A Detailed Critique of the TIME Article: 'On a Screen Near You: Cyberporn (DeWitt, 7/3/95)'", Hoffman and Novak
  8. "A Preliminary Discussion of Methodological Peculiarities in the Rimm Study of Pornography on the 'Information Superhighway'", David Post
  9. "Criticisms of the Time Article and the Rimm Study", Jim Thomas
  10. "Critique of Rimm Article on Online Pornography", Sigel and Sauer

Number of web sites:

  1. Critiques of Time magazine and the Rimm "study"
  2. Cyberporn Fear Storm
  3. He Says / She Says
  4. Journoporn: Dissection of a Scandal
  5. My Friend Marty Rimm
  6. The CMU Censorship Page
  7. The Cyberporn Debate
  8. The Cyberporn Report
  9. The SunSITE SMUT Page

Number of online newspaper articles:

From the Vanderbilt page I'm counting:
  1. "Cyberporn Researcher Linked to A.C. Pranks", The Press of Atlantic City, 8/30/95
  2. "Time magazine's bogus cyberporn cover - and censorship", San Francisco Examiner, 7/21/95
  3. "How Time Magazine Promoted A Cyberhoax", Media Beat, 7/19/95
  4. " Pornography in cyberspace poses dilemma", Houston Chronicle, 7/21/95
  5. " A Gross Distortion of the Porn Picture", The Globe and Mail, 7/14/95
  6. "Time's Story on Cyberporn of Questionable Validity", San Francisco Chronicle, 7/13/95
  7. "Is Rimm's Porn Study 'Cyberfraud'?", The Press of Atlantic City, 7/12/95
  8. "Internet is not awash in filth", Winnipeg Free Press, 7/12/95
  9. "Internet Porn Survey Raises Debate", Associated Press, 7/10/95
  10. "The porn polemic", San Francisco Examiner, 7/6/95
  11. "Debate continues to heat up over sex on the Net", San Jose Mercury

    and also

  12. "Indecent Research", Detroit News editorial, 8/5/95
  13. ""A Flaming Outrage", The Washington Post, 7/16/95
  14. "CMU's Rimm Won't Testify At Senate, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 7/22/95
  15. "Senator Grassley's Surf Police", New York Times editorial, 7/28/95
  16. "Safety Net", In These Times article, 7/8/95

CMU Committee of Inquiry:

"[Provost Paul Christiano] will soon form a committee of distinguished and knowledgeable faculty to examine in more detail the issues that have been raised about the study."
CMU Statement on Rimm Study, Friday 7/14/95

"The Committee of Inquiry has 30 days to conduct the inquiry. If the inquiry cannot be reasonably completed within 30 days, the Committee may request a 30 day extension from the provost."
CMU Policy for Handling Alleged Misconduct in Research

I am assuming that the committee was formed on Monday 7/17/95. However, its composition and activities were secret.