From sethf@athena.mit.edu Sun Sep 17 10:01:08 PDT 1995 Article: 12958 of alt.internet.media-coverage Xref: netcom.com alt.censorship:66140 alt.internet.media-coverage:12958 alt.current-events.rimm-study:143 comp.org.eff.talk:64322 Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!sethf From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.internet.media-coverage,alt.current-events.rimm-study,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Greetings from Martin Rimm Date: 17 Sep 1995 08:21:16 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 137 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <43glps$aq3@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: frumious-bandersnatch.mit.edu Status: R [newsgroups added] In article Martin Rimm writes: >Comments, my friends? Plenty. Although I don't think I qualify as your friend nowadays. This is the same sort of sensationalistic tripe that you tried to use to build up your con. Maybe he's better at it than you. But it's not going to rehabilitate or justify you. At best, you'll be thought of as a wanna-be panderer, not a pioneer. New people: check out these URL's for background: Critiques of the Rimm Study: http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu/cyberporn.debate.cgi Record of the debate: http://www.cybernothing.org/cno/reports/cyberporn.html The home site of the study itself: http://TRFN.pgh.pa.us/guest/mrstudy.html > NEWCASTLE, England (Reuter) - The Internet is fast becoming >an electronic red-light district, distributing violent No historical evidence has been presented to justify this conclusion. He seems to suffer from the commonly-seen delusion that the Internet was somehow "pure", before some Great Degeneration (which of course requires massive censorship to Protect The Children). That's fiction. Before GIFs, there was a whole tradition of ASCII art. >pornography and helping organize pedophile rings, a computer >expert said Tuesday. He's just confused here. And BBS's are not the Internet. > But there is still no reliable way of detecting or >intercepting disturbing messages or images to protect vulnerable >users like children, Professor Harold Thimbleby told Britain's >most prestigious annual science festival. What phrasing! There's no reliable way of "detecting" the contents of every message, every book, every magazine, etc? There sure isn't! But this is slipped into the Protect The Children stock cry, which hides its great stupidity. > ``Some people see the Internet and the World Wide Web as an >important step toward democracy, education and peace, and of >benefit to everyone from children to entire nations. They see >Utopia in the electronic 'global village','' Thimbleby said. It's communication, not magic. He's overdosed on the Silicon Snake Oil (but actually this is a strawman setup for what comes next). > ``The reality is rather different from the vision. The >Internet brings pornography and computer viruses; it tells you >how to take drugs and make bombs,'' Thimbleby told the festival >of the British Association, which promotes science in Britain. It doesn't "bring" or "tell" you anything. This is again very stupid. The same thing could be said about learning how to read. "Some people think of reading as something which lets them understand our great laws. The reality is that reading "tells" them heretical ideas". This is really rather reactionary in the extreme. > ``The Internet has been called a global electronic village. >If so, most of it is a heavily used red-light district.'' Outright lie. The overwhelming majority of sites and messages don't have anything to do with sex. > Pornography, much of it far more graphic than that available >in sex shops, was easily available. Well, I haven't surveyed them, but again this seems wrong. The worst stuff I've ever seen in my life was actually at Evils of Pornography lectures. > ``I have found text, film and sound material that I find >extremely disturbing, for example involving instructions for >killing minors,'' the professor of computing research said. And you can order an assassination handbook (er, special forces training tactics handbook) from the US government, In fact, they distributed sabotage manuals as comic books for a while (for the _contras_ in Nicaragua). Great stuff :-). > Paedophiles and other groups use the net to organize rings >and meetings for sexual and other encounters. They also use the telephone and the mails. Pure scare-mongering. > ``Some bulletin boards were supposedly in aid of victims, >but were also used to make new contacts and to share techniques >of, for instance, child entrapment,'' he said. A smooth switch from the Internet to BBS's here. Hmm, who else do we know who used this sort of confusion to trick people? It's becoming a stock tactic. > Thimbleby said the top eight most frequently used ``search >words'' on the Internet related to pornography. Sigh. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to explain this bit of statistical trickery. Anything that ranks highly in these terms means it has to draws interest as an item appealing very widely, to more people than almost everything else. That is, it would have to be something that almost anyone can be interested in. Sex qualifies. All it means is that sex is a common to the human experience. This is not shocking or surprising, no matter how twisted it is stated. > His research also showed that more than 10 percent of shops >on the Internet sold erotica, while around 10 percent of >bulletin boards accessed in a random sample were pornographic. More phony research? What does it take to be a "pornographic" BBS? Having a few sexy GIF's around? These numbers sound cooked (hmm, who was also famous for cooking numbers to hype up results ...) > Current efforts to screen offensive material include self- >censorship by sites on the net, who restrict access to adults, >and software which can be installed on a computer to stop users >like children getting hold of disturbing material. > But none of the systems were foolproof, Thimbleby said. And it's a good thing, too. A foolproof system for controlling information is not something I would want in the hand of censors. Their definition of "disturbing material" typically includes anything relating to gays and lesbians, contraception, or safer-sex practices. And guess what? If a child is taught to read, there's no foolproof way of stopping them for reading what you don't want them to read either! I have no doubt we are going to be seeing a lot of this trash research in the coming Battle of the Net. I just hope it can be exposed for what it is, so it doesn't get taken seriously. -- Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. (and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). From wb8foz@netcom.com Sun Sep 17 10:01:46 PDT 1995 Article: 12967 of alt.internet.media-coverage Xref: netcom.com alt.censorship:66173 alt.internet.media-coverage:12967 alt.current-events.rimm-study:144 comp.org.eff.talk:64339 Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.internet.media-coverage,alt.current-events.rimm-study,comp.org.eff.talk Path: netcom.com!wb8foz From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Greetings from Martin Rimm Message-ID: Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex References: <43glps$aq3@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Distribution: inet Date: Sun, 17 Sep 1995 13:40:16 GMT Lines: 12 Sender: wb8foz@netcom11.netcom.com Status: R In article Martin Rimm writes: >Comments, my friends? Actually, a query: Are you, or are you not, attending MIT? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433