From declanm@netcom.com Thu Sep 28 11:05:27 1995 Return-Path: Received: from po8.andrew.cmu.edu by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id KAA20934; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 10:49:20 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po8.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09790; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:44:16 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:44:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po4.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:41:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcom2.netcom.com (netcom2.netcom.com [192.100.81.108]) by po4.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA14058 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:41:44 -0400 Received: by netcom2.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id KAA24007; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 10:38:25 -0700 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 10:38:25 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh Subject: Rimm's Friend Speaks on Marty and Cyberporn To: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu cc: jch@cs.cmu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: Attached are my notes from a conversation with one of Marty Rimm's friends. He still thinks that Marty wrote a legitimate marketing study and tried his best to be fair and accurate. In other words, my source is still in denial. Even Mike couldn't change his mind. Also, as far as I can tell, his sole information source on much of the following is Marty, so be sure to continue reading with that in mind. ----- ON THE STUDY, ETHICS, AND PUBLICITY ----- * The Committee of Investigation is considering over 200 charges against Marty. The CoI is not investigating Sirbu, and is only calling him as a witness. The investigation has turned into an "inquisition," and is assuming Marty guilty until proven innocent. * The administration is trying to delay the CoI's report. They don't want the results to emerge until December, when students are gone for winter break. (CMU has done this before with controversial committee reports, like the one that defined the suggested -- and rejected -- Usenet censorship policy. -DBM) * Marty had access to private and confidential administrative data regarding network users. Authorization for access came from on high. (This access to private student enrollment and staff/faculty employment records may have violated federal laws -- Mike? -- and CMU's own policies. -DBM) These data apparently are the source of the mysterious footnote 40: "These demographics included age, sex, nationality, marital status, position (faculty, staff, student), and department." * Much of the $2,000 in SURG money went to pay for Marty's team of undergradute research assistants, who spent their time looking for and sorting through dirty pictures in the ECE computer clusters. * Marty's retained an out-of-town attorney to represent him in the CoI hearings and any associated student academic disciplinary hearings. He's worried about losing his degree. (He should be worried. If CMU gives him an F for his research project, he won't have enough credits for a degree and it'll be revoked automatically. -DBM) * CMU gave Marty an office in the PR building to keep an eye on him. Marty was convinced that CMU would *not* start an internal investigation. * My source had never heard of the DoJ grants or any connection with the DoJ. * My source knew about Donna's network being broken into and that Marty was a suspect. He doesn't think that Marty had anything to do with it. * Marty originally wanted to study "marketing on the information superhighway." At the time he wrote his study, the most available form of net-marketing was the a.b.p.e.* groups, so that's what Marty's study concentrated on. Cyberporn was only *incidental* to Marty's study, which really was about marketing. * Marty liked the publicity, but was upset with Ralph Reed (I seem to remember Marty writing "fucking Ralphy" at some point) and Senator Grassley for misrepresenting his study. * Marty despises the anti-porn groups. He's neutral as to pornography. * Marty got a call from Nightline; he didn't call them. Someone else set it up. In fact, Marty didn't ask for the secrecy agreement. The GLJ did. * My source isn't sure how the Pornographer's Handbook ended up in Books in Print, and was surprised that Marty put it there. My source maintains that it was an unpublished satire on Machiavelli. Marty suspects Carolyn Speranza of distributing it. ----- WHAT NEXT? ----- * Marty's living in Pittsburgh and looking for a job. He won't be going to MIT in the near future. However, he has gone home to Atlantic City a few times in the last few months. He'll have to be in Pittsburgh for his hearings in front of the Committee of Investigation later this semester. * MIT's TPP admission committee met again over the summer and decided to revoke not his admission --- but their earlier guarantee of funding for his tuition as a research associate. Probably the professor Marty would work for wants nothing to do with him. Without that guarantee of funding, he's unable to attend MIT. (Remember, as I wrote here on 8/31, his work-study job helped with his tuition here at CMU.) My source said he doesn't think he was duped by Marty since Marty was too earnest and sincere. Even Marty's body language was convincing. He says he knows too much dirt on Marty for our cyberporn researcher friend to try and fool him. ----- IN THE COMPUTER CLUSTERS ----- >From another source, who's a computer cluster administrator in ECE: * Marty has been a topic of conversation in CMU ECE circles for a while. It was common knowledge that Marty would use "literally reams" of paper printing out descriptions of dirty pictures late at night, until the printer ran out of paper. Everyone got a kick out of reading them in the morning when they came to work, added paper to the tray, and watched the printer spew more salacious descriptions. * Marty and his girlfriend, probably Carolyn Speranza, would hang out in the back of one of the Macintosh labs for hours at a time looking at porno pictures. This was common knowledge and a popular gossip topic in Hammerschlag Hall. When Marty and his girlfriend left, the cluster regulars would wander back to the computer the couple used to see if there were any dirty pictures left on it... -Declan From declanm@netcom.com Fri Sep 29 15:42:07 1995 Return-Path: Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id PAA29908; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 15:37:55 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA28267; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 18:34:40 -0400 Received: via switchmail; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 18:34:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pcs6.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 18:33:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pcs6.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 18:33:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mms.4.40.Jun.13.1995.15.25.44.pmax.ul4.MacMail.0.9.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.pcs6.andrew.cmu.edu.pmax.ul4 via MS.5.6.pcs6.andrew.cmu.edu.pmax_ul4; Fri, 29 Sep 1995 18:33:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <0kP7EW600WBKA7uZY3@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 18:33:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Declan B. McCullagh" To: Fight Censorship Mailing List Subject: Rimm's Misunderstood, Says Friend Cc: References: Status: RO X-Status: Today I met with one of Marty Rimm's friends who was close to him during his study. My source initially was very reluctant to speak, but attached is what my source finally revealed to me. -Declan --- * Marty didn't write the Pornographer's Handbook. He was upset that his critics invented the idea that he did. Everyone was asking him for copies. Even the NYT asked him if he wrote it and he told them he didn't. He told my source: "Everyone wants a copy. I don't have it to give to them. I'll write it if they really want." * CMU's really at fault here. They "pushed Marty into the limelight." He was reluctant to go public at first, but they kept insisting. He initially didn't even want to be interviewed, but CMU's PR folks insisted. CMU thought Rimm's study would put them on the map" regarding the Internet. They wanted to be known as "The Internet University." * Marty admits he made mistakes. Everyone knows it wasn't a perfect study. But as Marty said, in scientific research when you're breaking new ground, the first study won't be perfect. It's always attacked. And then improved. * The anti-porn groups saw Marty's study and wanted to use it to justify legislation. Apparently they knew details before it was published in July. * Marty primarily was interested in marketing. He would always talk about "counting numbers" and images, not "proving points" or setting policy. * Marty didn't want anyone on the project to speak to anyone about it. Again, he was reluctant to publicize it, and actually wanted it to be kept private. * He finished the SURG portion of the project early in 1995 but kept going, adding to his study, and cataloging more images at the request of the Georgetown Law Journal. * Marty lost his scholarship to MIT, which was awful and unfair. Marty blamed it on his critics. It wasn't fair for them to dig up his past experiences in high school. It wasn't relevant to his current research. After he couldn't go to MIT, he had two weeks to find a job and a place to live. He was almost homeless. ###