The following is a copy of the CMU Committee of Inquiry
report looking into allegations of the Rimm study.
-----------------
 CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
 Internal Memorandum
 TO:  Paul Christiano, Provost
 FROM: George Duncan, Sara Kiesler, Mary Shaw
 DATE:  August 1, 2024
 SUBJECT: Report of Committee of Inquiry on A Study of
 Marketing Pornography via Computer Networks
  Pursuant to your request of July 17, the Committee of
 Inquiry has conducted a discreet inquiry of the research study
 published June 1995 in The Georgetown Law Review (GLJ), volume 83
 number 5, as Marketing pornography on the information
 superhighway: A survey of 917,410 images, descriptions, short
 stories, and animations downloaded 8.5 million times by customers
 in over 2,000 cities in forty countries, provinces and
 territories. This article was authored by Martin Rimm. The
 Committee of Inquiry was formed because many persons have made
 allegations of research misconduct about this study. You have
 received such allegations, and many have been widely disseminated
 both inside and outside the university. Further, you have
 indicated that these allegations could not be resolved by
 confidential counseling and informal means.
  As background, the research study was carried out and the
 article written while Martin Rimm was an undergraduate at Carnegie
 Mellon. Rimm arranged with faculty members to sponsor proposals
 for Small Undergraduate Research Grants (SURG) in Carnegie
 Mellon's Undergraduate Research Initiative program (URI) and to
 supervise independent study courses related to this research. Many
 other people helped him with the study. These included faculty
 members, staff, and students here, as well as other people outside
 the University.
  The Committee reviewed allegations and complaints against
 the research and the study. Persons external to the University,
 members of the Carnegie Mellon faculty, staff, and students, and
 persons listed in the article as contributors have made over 200
 such allegations. In the course of the inquiry, more allegations
 emerged. These allegations, of course, contain duplications and
 overlaps; further, there was wide variance in the degree of care
 in which they were put forward. We distilled the list to 22
 allegations for consideration. To simplify exposition and review,
 we have organized both the allegations and our discussion into
 categories broadly coinciding with the various phases of research.
 Appendix A documents the sources of external allegations. In
 further discharge of its responsibilities, the Committee
 interviewed participants and others with relevant knowledge in
 order to decide whether there are sufficient grounds to
 investigate the allegations.
  The Committee finds that there is sufficient cause to
 believe that misconduct in this research has occurred. It
 therefore unanimously recommends that a formal investigation be
 conducted, in accordance with Organization Announcement 320,
 Policy for Handling Alleged Misconduct in Research at Carnegie
 Mellon University. In the subsequent sections of this report, the
 Committee will identify which allegations of misconduct that they
 consider to be serious deviations from accepted practices in
 proposing, carrying out, or reporting results from the research.
 It also will indicate why it believes that there is reason for
 formal investigation of these allegations.
  The Committee believes a formal investigation will have to
 consider not only serious violations of research standards, but
 also a number of less serious problems in the research, including
 faculty oversight, student conduct, Carnegie Mellon policy
 violations, and adherence to scientific norms.  The nature of this
 research has made this inquiry complex.  The research pertained to
 human sexuality, a topic that is emotionally and politically
 explosive.  As a result of the human, social and political
 implications of the work, it would be given special scrutiny and
 held to high standards of scientific integrity.  At the same time,
 the research concerned interactions on computer networks, a
 relatively new domain where research standards and university
 policy have not been fully discussed and debated. (They should
 be.) Because of this context, and although a few of the problems
 are easily categorized as "serious" or "not serious," many of the
 allegations fall into a gray area.  Since at this point we cannot
 always fully assess them, these issues should be investigated
 without presumption that they are in fact serious.  Consistent
 with its mandate, the Committee has stopped short of resolving all
 questions of fact, assessment of responsibility, and judgments of
 appropriate actions by the University.
 This report has the following sections:
      1. Applicable standards and policies
  II. Contributors to the research
  III.  Chronology of the research
  IV. Findings
  V.      Summary of recommendations
  Appendices
  Public documents that serve as basis for allegations
 1. Applicable standards and policies
  The research was conducted by Martin Rimm while he was an
 undergraduate at Carnegie Mellon University.  Policies applying to
 undergraduate research appear in the CMU Student Handbook (1994-
 1995).  Among the sections relevant to this case are policies on
 Computing and Information Resources (pp. 48-49), on Human Subjects
 in Research (pp. 54-55), and on Cheating and Plagiarism (pp. 7-8).
  Three faculty and at least one staff member are on record as
 having supervised and collaborated in the research.  Other faculty
 and staff may have been involved as well.  Policies applying to
 faculty appear in the CMU Faculty Handbook (1993-1994).  Relevant
 sections include Statement on Individual Responsibility in Shared
 Computing Environments (pp. 35-36), Separation of Individual's and
 Institution's Interests (pp. 33-34), Organization Announcement
 320, Policy for Handling Alleged Misconduct in Research (pp. 31-
 32), and Cheating and Plagiarism (pp. 34-35).  Policies applying
 to staff are stated in the staff handbook, Human Resources: A
 Guide.  A policy on Confidentiality of Administrative Data appears
 as chapter 1, volume 7 of the Carnegie Mellon Policy Library.
 Appendix E collects relevant Carnegie Mellon policies.  These
 policies are relevant not only in their own right, but also
 because they help establish the accepted practices for research.
 Investigators may not determine, themselves, that the research
 carries minimal risk and need not be reviewed.  Institutional
 Review Boards, in reviewing a proposal, evaluate the proposal
 against federal standards and ethical principles in the conduct of
 research with human participants. In addition to Carnegie Mellon
 policy, research and other professional activities are governed by
 codes of ethics of various disciplines, for example the American
 Psychological Association (APA) in Appendix B, the Society for the
 Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS) in Appendix C, and the
 institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) in
 Appendix D.
 II. Contributors to the research
 Faculty advisors and collaborators (1994-5 academic year and 1994
 summer).
  Martin Rimm obtained the help of many people in this
 research.  Some are listed in footnote I of the article in GLJ.
 Some are not listed, the article says, because they requested
 anonymity.  Some, whether listed or not, have disavowed the
 research.  Three faculty members are on record as having
 supervised the research with Martin Rimm, and considerable
 evidence from notes of meetings and e-mail shows that they
 collaborated on the research and the preparation of the article,
 and that they helped Martin Rimm in other ways to obtain a degree,
 apply to graduate school, and so forth.  A staff member provided
 data to Martin Rimm.
 Edward Zuckerman.  Adjunct Associate Professor, Psychology.  From
 Spring, 1994 to August, 1994, he was Martin Rimm's advisor on an
 undergraduate SURG grant.  According to Martin Rimm, he remained
 involved during the rest of the year, giving "management advice."
 Edward Zuckerman and David Banks provided e-mail corroboration of
 Zuckerman's participation in the research through Fall Semester,
 1994.
  David L. Banks.  Associate Professor, Statistics.  He began
 working with Martin Rimm on the research in July, 1994.  He was
 the faculty member on an independent study course to carry out
 this research that Martin Rimm registered for in Fall, 1994.  He
 remained closely associated with the project through spring, 1995,
 except during the period December, 1994 - March, 1995.
  Marvin Sirbu.  Professor, Engineering and Public Policy
 (EPP, GSIA, ECE Departments).  From August, 1994 to late spring,
 Marvin Sirbu was Martin Rimm's unofficial advisor.  He also
 pursued a grant proposal at the Department of Justice (DoJ) with
 Martin Rimm and David Banks.  He also was the faculty member on an
 independent study course to carry out this research that Martin
 Rimm registered for in Fall, 1994.  He is identified by Martin
 Rimm in the Georgetown Law Journal as his "principal faculty
 advisor".
  The principals provided us with corroboration, from e-mail
 exchanges and personal calendars, that David Banks and Marvin
 Sirbu met frequently with Martin Rimm (approximately once a week)
 during the Fall Semester, 1994, that they contributed ideas for
 the research, suggested methods of data collection (Sirbu),
 carried out statistical analyses (Banks), and provided comments on
 drafts of the article.  Martin Rimm and Edward Zuckerman both
 report that Edward Zuckerman was involved less deeply in the study
 after August, 1994.
 Other faculty or former faculty.
  Timothy McGuire and Nancy Melone.  Former GSIA faculty
 members at Carnegie Mellon.  From Spring 1994, they consulted with
 Martin Rimm, since he was interested in the "marketing" aspects of
 pornography.  Nancy Melone was interested in computers and
 marketing.  Martin Rimm says they were involved through the 1994-5
 academic year, giving "management" advice.
  Ronald A. Rohrer.  Wilkoff University Professor.  ECE.
 Academic advisor to Martin Rimm until spring, 1994.  Martin Rimm
 said Ronald Rohrer read the pornographer's handbook (which Martin
 Rimm described as a take-off on Machiavelli).  Martin Rimm said
 Ronald Rohrer encouraged Martin to do the research and that he
 continued to consult with Ronald Rohrer and tell him about the
 pornography study throughout the research.
 Staff.
  John G. Myers.  Systems Programmer.  Computing Services
 Administration (System Software Department).  He gave data to
 Martin Rimm -- archives of newsgroup statistics going back through
 1988.
  Undergraduate Research Initiative staff (Barbara Lazarus,
 Associate Provost for Academic Affairs, and Jesse Ramey, Director)
 and committee.  Approved SURG grants of $1,500.  Gave Martin
 access to office, telephone, fax, etc.
  Also cited in Martin Rimm's acknowledgment footnote are
 Chris Hendrickson and Robert P. Kail, both Associate Deans of CIT.
 Other nonsupervisory persons involved, or said to be involved,
 with the research:
  Patrick Aboyoun, programmer.  Quit project when Martin
 refused to tell him the nature of the data to be coded.
  Hal Wine.  Computer scientist Martin met on the net.  Helped
 Martin write a Perl script and taught Martin Perl.  This person is
 not part of the Camegie Mellon community.
  Melissa Rosenstock.  Did reliability checks on the parser
 software against the data dictionary.  She was paid by Martin.
  Ted Irani.  Junior Math/CS.  He was on the "parser team"
 Also involved later.
  Paul Bordallo.  HSS student. Same as above.
  G. Alexander Flett.  Sophomore Math/CS. (role not
 established)
  Lisa Sigal.  Ph.D. student, HSS (history) student (Disavowed
 the study.)
  Christopher Reeve.  Sophomore ECE. (role not-established)
  CJ (Catherine) Taylor.  Visiting Project Scientist.
 Robotics. (role not established)
  Erikas Napjus.  System Designer.  Network Development.  A
 message he wrote for a network newsgroup was incorporated into a
 footnote.  Exchanged e-mail with Martin Rimm through Fall
 Semester, 1994, and has published portions of it on the net.
  Carolyn Speranza.  Artist/Lecturer, Department of Art.  Said
 to have provided illustrations for "The Pornographer's Handbook."
 Other persons related to the research
  Robert Thomas.  A BBS operator who sold pornographic images,
 and who subsequently was convicted of obscenity, and who now is
 imprisoned and is pursuing an appeal.
  Philip Elmer-DeWitt.  Martin Rimm said he established a
 "relationship" with this reporter from Time, leading to a cover
 story.  Martin Rimm says he gave DeWitt partial results before the
 publication of the Georgetown article.
  Dean Kaplan.  Editor on the Georgetown Law Journal who made
 the initial contacts for
 Martin Rimm.  Two sources told us that Kaplan is Vice President of
 the National Coalition for the
 Protection of Children and Families and suggested that his
 political agenda influenced his editorial position.
  Bob Flores.  An Acting Deputy Chief in the Criminal
 Division, Department of Justice (DoJ).  Discussed with Martin
 Rimm, David Banks, and Marvin Sirbu a proposal for them to analyze
 some data his division had seized from BBS operators.
  Unnamed BBS operator.  When first interviewed, Martin Rimm
 said he obtained customer information from this operator and
 persuaded the same BBS operator to obtain customer information
 from other BBS operators.
 111.  Chronology of the research (sources in parentheses):
 Winter,  Martin Rimm gives his academic ECE advisor,
 Ronald Rohrer, a copy of the
 1993-4  pornographer's handbook, a spoof of
 Machiavelli. (Alternative title: The
   Pornographer King.) Ronald Rohrer advised Martin Rimm
 to turn it into a piece of
   research. (Martin Rimm)
 March 18, Martin Rimm submitted a proposal, with Edward
 Zuckerman as advisor, to SURG. He
 1994  applied for, and received, a $500 grant for the
 Summer/Fall grant period. This grant
   was for a study of pornography that could be purchased
 and downloaded from
   commercial BBS operators using electronic networks.
 (SURG proposal)
 May, 1994 Martin Rimm mailed form to Robert Thomas to join
 Amateur Action as a subscriber, and subsequently did
 subscribe. According to Robert Thomas, Martin Rimm
 kept complaining about how Thomas kept his statistics.
 Martin Rimm quit but later resubscribed (Robert
 Thomas' attorney). Martin Rimm, as a subscriber, was
 able to obtain statisticson which images were
 downloaded most, controlling for date on which the
 image was offered for sale. (Martin Rimm)
 June, 1994 Marvin Sirbu and Martin Rimm met. Discussed
 telecommunications policy, rules and liability of
 sysops (Marvin Sirbu, Martin Rimm).
 Spring/  Enlisting several students and others to help,
 Martin Rimm developed a linguistic perser
 Summer, used to sort captions describing images into one of
 several categories of pornography,
 such as pedophilia, soft core, hard core, paraphilia, etc.
 Students helped test the reliability of the parser.
 This work was supervised by Edward Zuckerman, with
 help from Nancy Melone and Tim McGuire (Ed Zuckerman,
 Martin Rimm).
 Spring/ Edward Zuckerman lived close to Martin Rimm, and they
 saw one another outside of
 Summer, Carnegie Mellon. Martin Rimm told Edward Zuckerman
 that he would obtain customer
 (individual-level) data from BBS operators. They discussed using
 telephone numbers to estimate area codes for a
 community standards analysis. Edward Zuckerman, in
 answer to a query, stated that he understood Martin
 Rimm had obtained the data as a trade for something.
 He understood customers could be identified in the
 database, and assumed Martin Rimm would use the
 telephone numbers to obtain area codes and delete the
 identifying information. He didn't think it was a big
 deal. ( Ed Zuckerman first interview.)
 July, 1994 Martin Rimm walked into David Banks' office, and asked
 him how to analyze downloads. (Subsequent meetings
 July 21, Aug 2, Aug 19, Aug 23, Aug 26.) David Banks
 recalled that Martin Rimm asked him to be his advisor.
  David Banks agreed to be the faculty supervisor of an
 independent study course for Martin Rimm.  He said he
 was unaware of Marvin Sirbu's participation for 2
 months. (David Banks)
 August 10,  Martin Rimm sent e-mail to Robert Tbomas offering to
 help. (e-mail in footnote 1)
 1994
 August, 1994 Martin Rimm proposed an independent study course
 to Marvin Sirbu.  Martin Rimm showed Marvin Sirbu a
 draft of the pornography paper.  Marvin Sirbu arranged
 for a special topics course for Martin Rimm, through
 EPP.  The draft document was to be revised and become
 an INI report. (Marvin Sirbu)
 September 3,  Draft 3 of manuscript, dated September 3,
 1994.(Ed Zuckerman)
 1994
 September  Martin Rimm told his advisors that he was having
 discussions with a friend at GLJ, an
 13, 1994 editor on the review, who would forward a draft of the
 study to the senior editor to consider for
 publication.  The friend was Dean Kaplan. (Edward
 Zuckerman; Robert Thomas' attorney)
 September  Meeting of Martin Rimm, Marvin Sirbu, Edward
 Zuckerman, and David Banks.
 30, 1994 Agreement that Marvin Sirbu would be the main advisor
 of Martin Rimm (Marvin Sirbu, David Banks).
 September (?), David Banks arranged to give a talk to the local
 chapter of the American Statistical
 1994  Association on December 1 about the research.  The
 talk would focus on David Banks' statistical analyses
 of the parser-coded captions, showing the most
 available pornography from BBS operators vs the types
 of pornography that customers downloaded most. (David
 Banks, Martin Rimm)
 September, Weekly meetings of Martin Rimm with David Banks and
 Marvin Sirbu.  Also plentiful
 October, e-mail.  David Banks agreed to provide histograms for
 the draft paper.  Martin Rimm
 1994  asserted he would be sole author.  David Banks
 discussed a second paper that would be coauthored with
 Martin Rimm.  David Banks obtained Martin Rimm's
 agreement that he would have access to the data.
 (David Banks)
 Early  Martin Rimm and David Banks discussed newsgroup
 statistics with John Leong, and
 October, Leong told them how it was done. (David Banks).
 1994
 October,  Martin Rimm sent to David Banks part of a database
 which showed the log files from
 1994  one BBS pornographic service.  The fields included
 name, telephone number, address, driver's license,
 age, dates and times which pictures had been
 downloaded. (David Banks).  In addition to that
 dataset, Martin Rimm also obtained another set of log
 files from a different BBS operator, described by
 Martin Rimm as a friend.  This friend obtained further
 log files of customer-level information from friends
 who were in the same business. (Martin Rimm; also p.
 1862 of GLJ article)
 October  Meeting of Marvin Sirbu, Martin Rimm, David Banks, and
 Rick Carley.  First part of
 14, 1994  discussion was ordinary faculty-student advising on
 such topics as Martin Rimm's graduate school choice
 and GREs.  After Rick Carley left, the other faculty
 discussed with Martin Rimm their previous comments on
 the draft paper. (Rick Carley, David Banks)
 Prior to  Martin Rimm sent President Mehrabian e-mail informing
 him that his group had
 October 15, discovered imagery on the Usenet which had been
 declared obscene by several courts
 1994  of law.  He sent names and descriptions of these
 images. (David Banks)
 October 15,  Martin Rimm sent an outline of the structure and
 findings of the marketing pornography
 1994  research to Erwin Steinberg, Michael Murphy, and Don
 Hale. (Don Hale)
 October 17, Meeting among Martin Rimm, Marvin Sirbu, David Banks,
 Erwin Steinberg, Don
 1994  Hale, and Michael Murphy to discuss sexually-oriented
 bboard trees on the Andrew bboards system. (Don Hale)
 October 26, Martin Rimm submitted another SURG proposal for the
 Spring, 1995 grantperiod. His 1994  advisor on the proposal
 was David Banks. (SURG proposal)
 Early  A former employee of the U.S. Department of Justice, a
 friend of Martin Rimm's, November, proposed to Bob Flores that
 Flores contact Martin Rimm. Flores did so, thinking Rimm
 1994 had data that Flores might want to have re-analyzed
 (Flores). David Banks drafted a proposal to the
 Department of Justice that would use the linguistic
 parser with DoJ files seized in the Amateur Action and
 Pequena Penacha cases. He sent the proposal to the
 INI, which would submit it. (David Banks)
 November, Martin Rimm telephoned Michael Mehta (new PhD, now at
 York University). Martin
 1994  Rimm said he was the principal investigator of an
 interdisciplinary research team of Carnegie Mellon
 faculty and requested copies of Mehta's study of
 sexually oriented images on the Internet. (Michael
 Mehta)
 November Bill Arms decided to withdraw 6 bboard trees (mainly
 alt.sex.binaries) from the Andrew 3, 1994  system. Marvin
 Sirbu syggested that the researchers access AMS.prof files before
 the
   bboards became unavailable (Martin Rimm, David Banks).
 They did so on three occasions in the week prior to
 November 8, 2024. (Martin Rimm)
 November The new bboard policy went into effect.
 8, 1994
 November A rally took place in protest of the Carnegie Mellon
 censorship action.
 9, 1994
 November Meeting of David Banks and Martin Rimm with George
 Duncan concerning the Carnegie 11, 1994 Mellon data. Approx 1
 hour. Martin Rimm told David Banks this would help cover his
   ass (David Banks). George Duncan told them how to
 anonymize the files immediately, and explained how
 they had to aggregate categories to prevent
 individuals from being identified (David Banks, Martin
 Rimm, George Duncan). Martin Rimm agreed to obtain the
 help of an undergraduate to go through the
 confidential data, coding it for blind statistical
 analysis. (e-mail from David Banks) However, Rimm
 informed Banks he would not do this until Spring. (
 David Banks)
 November Martin Rimm informed Edward Zuckerman, Marvin Surbu
 and David Banks that GLJ
  13, 1994 was considering his article, and therefore there
 should be no press release and David
   Banks should not give his talk to the ASA on December
 1. (David Banks)
 November Martin Rimm asked Bill Arms to remove andrew.ms.stats
 from the Andrew system
 13, 1994 because they would identify Carnegie Mellon (a
 university studied) in the subsequent
   article. Marvin Sirbu Reprimanded Martin Rimm (Marvin
 Sirbu). Marvin Sirbu also asked
   Martin Rimm not to tell reporters he was a research
 associate, and not to cut corners.
   (David Banks, Marvin Sirbu)
 November Time magazine published an article, Censoring
 Cyberspace. Subsequently Martin Rimm
 21, 1994 (?) befriended Phil DeWitt, who authored the story
 (Martin Rimm).
 November Martin Rimm informed Edward Zuckerman, David Banks,
 Nancy Melone, Tim McGuire,
 28, 1994 Marvin Sirbu and 20 others that our article had been
 accepted for publication in the
   May, 1995 issue of GLJ. He also asked them to keep
 information about the study from
   others. He said the journal insisted on an embargo.
 Banks reminded Rimm that he was
   giving a talk on the study December 1. (David Banks)
 November David Banks and Martin Rimm argued about the talk on
 Dec. 1. Martin Rimm insisted
 28-30, 1994 David Banks cancel the talk. David Banks asked his
 department head, John Lehoczky, for
   help. David Banks offered to speak with the editor of
 the journal. Marvin Sirbu supported
   Martin Rimm and the journal editor (David Banks, John
 Lehoczky). But also he tried to
   act as a broker and suggested David give a talk on the
 methods without revealing any
   data or labels. (Marvin Sirbu)
 December  David Banks gave his 11 content free" talk. (John
 Lehoczky).  David Banks
 1, 1994   continued to complain during the next week, as
 he had done the statistical work.
  Martin Rimm was angry about the talk also.  Martin
 Rimm subsequently did not communicate with David Banks
 about the study, except to insure Martin's grade would
 not be held hostage by the argument.(David Banks)
 December David Banks complained to Marvin Sirbu that Martin
 Rimm kept pulling
 1, 1994 participants into the research without keeping
 everyone informed.  He complained he did not know
 where the legal footnotes came from or the quality of
 their supplier, or his/her bias.  He also complained
 he knew of at least three undergraduates who might
 have or would have access to sensitive data.  He said
 Martin Rimm needed close supervision.  Marvin Sirbu
 agreed and said he would "get after" Martin Rimm
 (David Banks)
 December, Visit by Marvin Sirbu and Martin Rimm to Bob Flores.
 Discussion of work they
 1994 might do for him: Marvin Sirbu and Martin Rimm
 proposed to do analyses of the files Justice seized in
 two BBS obscenity cases, including the files of Robert
 Thomas. (Flores) Although Bob Flores was sure that
 Martin Rimm was there, Marvin Sirbu's narrative did
 not mention his participation (Marvin Sirbu).
 December, David Banks attempted to rejoin the project, asking to
 direct undergraduates
 1994 working on the data and to work on the proposal.
 Martin Rimm rebuffed him. (David Banks, Marvin Sirbu)
 December, Edward Zuckerman said he read revision L.7 of the
 manuscript (Edward
 1994 Zukerman)
 approx Jan David Banks requested that his analyses and figures be
 removed from the article if
 21-23, 1995 he were not included in the DoJ proposal. (David
 Banks, Marvin Sirbu)
 Feb, 1995 Martin Rimm said he did a major revision of the
 article in February.
 Mar, 1995 Martin Rimm visited with Bob Flores at DoJ.
 May, 1995 David Banks visited Bob Flores about the DoJ proposal,
 learning then that Martin
  Rimm and Marvin Sirbu had already visited with Flores.
 (David Banks; visit
  confirmed by Flores)
 July 3, Cyberporn cover story by Time Magazine. Discussed
 Robert Thomas; calls him
 1995  the Marquis de Cyberspace.
 July 14, David Banks disavowed research study (David Banks).
 1995
 July, 1995 Robert Thomas learned in July, 1995 that subscriber
 Martin Rimm was the same
   person who did the Carnegie Mellon study featuring
 Thomas. (Robert Thomas'
   attorney)
 Chronology not established:
 undated John Myers provided archives to Martin Rimm,
 containing names of Carnegie
   Mellon persons having Andrew accounts (Myers e-mail to
 committee)
 undated Martin Rimm acquired customer log files from Robert
 Thomas (first interview with
   Rimm/second SURG proposal/Zuckerman e-mail to
 committee)
 undated Martin Rimm acquired customer log files from an
 unnamed BBS operator, who in
   turn obtained customer log files from other BBS
 operators (first interview with
   Rimm/second SURG proposal)
 undated  Martin Rimm acquired demographic data on
 Carnegie Mellon individual staff, faculty and students
 (claimed in article)
 IV. Findings of the Committee of Inquiry
  The findings of the inquiry relate to the study as authored
 by Martin Rimm.  Other questions have arisen about the quality of
 participation from faculty advisors (Marvin Sirbu, David Banks, Ed
 Zuckerman), the oversight provided by the Undergraduate Research
 Initiative office, and actions of John Myers of the Academic
 Computing staff. As noted above, the situation is complex. The
 Committee has identified both questions of research misconduct and
 less serious allegations.1
 The Committee's findings are organized in categories reflecting
 phases of the research process, and within each phase in response
 to the allegations.  Sources of allegations appear in Appendix A;
 those that arose during the inquiry rather than from outside
 sources are flagged with an asterisk.
 A. Preparation for research (IRB review, planning confidentiality
 procedures, obtaining organization and institutional
 permissions; deciding responsibilities for oversight)
  The Committee finds that all of the allegations in this
 category should be investigated for
 research misconduct
  A.1 Absence of IRB review;
  An IRB process must be instituted for research involving
 human participants (It is the
 responsibility of investigators who plan to use human subjects in
 research to obtain written consent from the IRB prior to
 conducting an investigation involving human subjects," CMU Student
 Handbook 1994-1995, p.55). The research described in the first
 SURG grant proposal and supervised by Edward Zuckerman does not
 involve human participants.  This research involved creating
 software to automate content analysis of captions of sexually-
 oriented images.
   However, at some point during this research, Martin Rimm
 learned he could obtain individual-level data from BBS operators
 and proceeded to do so.  He said he discussed this with Edward
 Zuckerman and other faculty and staff.  The second SURG proposal
 discusses plans to obtain individual-level data.  An IRB review
 was not performed, nor does it appear that the participants
 discussed whether such a review was required.  Our evidence from
 records of conversations and discussions with the principal
 participants suggests that questions of ethical conduct arising
 from collection of data, risks to persons, or threats to the
 integrity of the scientific process were evaluated (if at all)
 after the data collection or other procedures were performed,
 not beforehand.
  A.2* Failure to institute procedures for faculty oversight of
 student research and to create
  procedures to protect confidentiality of sensitive data.
  Lapses in faculty oversight threatened the integrity of the
 work.  In particular, procedures for protecting
 confidentiality are essential to this kind of work because
 leaks can put people at risk.
   We also encountered questions regarding relations among
 faculty.  According to at least two of his faculty advisors and
 others with whom the Committee talked, Martin Rimm routinely
 told persons, including co-workers and faculty, different,
 inaccurate, incomplete accounts of his
 1 "Research misconduct", in this case and in accordance with
 Organization Announcement 320, refers to "Serious
 deviation from accepted practices in preparing, carrying out or
 reporting results from research".
 activities and of what was happening on the research project.  For
 instance, in August, 1994, he failed to tell David Banks that he
 had been working with Marvin Sirbu, and he failed to tell Marvin
 Sirbu that he had been working with David Banks. It is possible
 that in the two independent study courses Martin Rimm took during
 Fall, 1994, one with Marvin Sirbu and one with David Banks, that
 the same work may have been used to obtain course credit in each.
 B. Collection of data from individuals
  B.1 Obtaining personal information on private BBS customers
 and not asking for their informed consent
  B.2 Failure to obtain informed consent from Carnegie Mellon
 individuals whose AMS.prof files were accessed for research
  The Committee believes that most of the individual-level
 data in this research were obtained from databases, rather than
 directly from individuals.  Hence allegations B.1 and B.2 do not
 warrant investigation.
  B.3 Deceptive collection of customer information from BBS
 operators
  Data obtained from Robert Thomas and other unnamed BBS
 operators is a different matter.  The Committee was informed by an
 attorney in contact with Thomas that Thomas did not know Martin
 Rimm was doing a study of the sort published by GLJ.  There is no
 record of informed consent from BBS operators or of an "arms-
 length" review of the ethics of the data collection procedures.
 Hence allegation B.3 does warrant investigation.
 C. Collection of data from databases
  The Committee finds that all of the allegations in this
 category should be investigated.
  C.1 Invasion of privacy of home directories and files
  C2* Transferring databases from administrative control to a
 researcher's control
  C3 Misrepresentation in obtaining research data (offering
 marketing help to BBS operators (e.g., the "Pornographer's
 Handbook") in exchange for private information on customers,
 and not explaining the purpose as research)
  During this research project, six different sets of data
 were collected or are alleged to have
 been collected:
  (1) Captions downloaded from (pay) BBS systems, describing
 images available.  Customers must give evidence of age and
 usually pay a nominal fee to access this information.  With
 the captions there is information regarding the date the
 image was made available, and how frequently it has been
 downloaded,
  (2) Brian Reid's Arbitron statistics on Internet newsgroup
 usage;
  customer data from BBS operators including Robert Thomas and
 another BBS operator, who in turn obtained data from
 other BBS operators;
  (4) programs and 1988-1994 monthly archived statistics
 from John Myers on Andrew newsgroups, also containing
 thousands of names of individual faculty, staff, and
 students;
  (5) individual-level data collected on three occasions in
 October, 1994, on Andrew users who accessed newsgroups and
 who had world-readable files (the default for all but
 freshmen and other new accounts as of August, 1994);
  (6) demographic data on Carnegie Mellon staff, faculty, and
 students including age, sex, nationality, marital status,
 position, and department (described in article but probably
 not collected).
  The Committee finds that datasets (1) and (2) do not present
 sufficient problems to warrant investigation as they do not
 contain individual-level data.  The Reid statistics are gathered
 from newsgroup accesses at a variety of sites and are reported to
 him at the aggregate level.  Reid's laboratory confirms that all
 the information transmitted to them consists of aggregated
 statistics and
 no information can be associated with an individual user.
  Dataset (3).  Martin Rimm said he collected these data and
 also claimed, in the article itself, that he collected the data.
 'Me second SURG proposal described the customer-level BBS dataset
 as follows: "'Me records indicate every file that every customer
 downloaded, as well as the on-line activities, for 2,500
 customers... Detailed profiles of 2,500 consumers can be developed
 and analyzed..." Footnote 88 in the article, describing the
 customer-level dataset, says that the team decided to remove
 customer names from the "Carnegie Mellon database." This is
 corroborated by David Banks, who said he saw an excerpt of the
 data, which contained names, telephone numbers,
 images downloaded, etc.
  The Committee does not have direct information about how
 Martin Rimm convinced BBS operators to supply these data.
 Allegations were made to the effect that Martin Rimm offered
 attractive marketing inducements, such as software and analysis of
 customer ordering preferences by region or area code, in exchange
 for individual-level customer data.  Our interviews with the
 principals have not laid these allegations to rest.2 Furthermore,
 the allegations that Martin Rimm misrepresented the research and
 lied to BBS operators are of serious consequence because the data
 contain information that, if provided to law enforcement,
 employers, or relatives, could be harmful to the individuals.
  Dataset (4). The Andrew statistics on popular newsgroups
 from 1988.  John Myers gave Martin Rimm archives of statistics on
 individuals' accesses to Andrew files from 1988.  These statistics
 were gathered monthly (sometimes more often), and for technical
 programming reasons, the statistics included the name of the last
 reader of each newsgroup.  John Myers said he warned Martin Rimm
 that these data were confidential.  However, no assurance was made
 regarding confidentiality. (For example, Myers did not strip the
 names before giving Martin the dataset.)
 2 Robert Thomas' wife gave this copy of an e-mail message from
 Martin Rimm to Robert Thomas to an attorney
 with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In a public posting
 complaining that this message had been released,
 Martin Rimm confirmed that he sent the message.
 -----------
  From : Martin Rimm Number : 205 of 229
  To : Robert Thomas Date : 08/10/94 8: pm
  Subject : Question Reference : NONE
  Read : 08/11/94 9:37am Private
  Conf:  : 000 - Amateur Action
 I'll tell you, Robert, in spite of my few comments, I still think
 you're a fucking genius.  Every time I run your
 list through my computer I learn new things that no one else in
 the business ever thought of.  I'd like to help in
 any way I can.  I hope you count me among your friends.
 Martin
  John Leong, the technical director of computing services,
 told the Committee that it is the policy of Academic Computing
 never to provide information on individual users to anyone except
 on direct instructions from the university attorney.
  Dataset (5).  AMS.prof data on Andrew accesses.  In October,
 1994, after the release of information to the press that obscene
 images could be accessed by Carnegie Mellon students from
 newsgroups, the administration decided to remove alt.binaries
 newsgroups from the Andrew bboard system.  At Marvin Sirbu's
 suggestion (according to Banks and Rimm, though not corroborated),
 Sirbu, Banks, Rimm and Zuckerman decided to capture data on
 Carnegie Mellon faculty, staff, and students before the new
 Carnegie Mellon policy went into effect.  They had one week to do
 this, and quickly wrote (with help from others) a Perl script to
 capture the data.  They collected data three times in one week in
 October, ending in a dataset with each person's name and last
 access before the program captured the file.  These, files were in
 users' home directories.  It is against Carnegie Mellon policy to
 access files of persons without their permission. ("All files
 belong to somebody.  They should be assumed to be private and
 confidential unless the owner has explicitly made them available
 to others." CMU Student Handbook 1994-1995, p.48). However, the
 similarity in the mode of data capture at some of these sites to
 that used to capture dataset (5), plus the fact that this
 collection scheme has been used for some ten years without
 complaint by users, may weaken any case that the capture of
 dataset (5) was in itself an abuse of privilege.
  Dataset (6).  Demographics on faculty, staff, and students
 at Carnegie Mellon.  This dataset would not be an issue except
 that, as is explained in footnote 40 of the article, the team
 planned to merge such data with the dataset on newsgroup accesses,
 in order to study "detailed demographics of the university
 population of computer pornography consumers." Use of databases
 for purposes other than those for which they were originally
 collected raises delicate ethical problems involving the
 expectations and vulnerability of data subjects.  This is of
 particular concern when two or more databases are linked, because
 the resulting richness of the data aggravates the problem of
 maintaining confidentiality.  Thus it is especially important in
 such cases to have an arms-length review that establishes (1) that
 the intended use serves an important social concern, scientific
 issue, or significant public policy issue, (2) the intended
 analyses require the proposed data, and (3) that the intended
 analyses would not compromise the dignity or personal freedom of
 the data subjects or providers.  Footnote 40 cites "several
 privacy experts" as the reason the team "opted" not to report the
 results of this analysis.  However, there is no mention that the
 combined database was destroyed.  Complicating this whole issue is
 the fact that the Committee of Inquiry has unresolved questions
 about whether this dataset ever existed.  If it did not, the
 discussion of this linked dataset in the article is misleading,
 tending to falsely inflate the perceived capabilities of the
 author and research team.  On the other hand, if it did exist, the
 release of demographic data release (either by making it
 accessible to any user, as claimed. or by direct release to Martin
 Rimm) would violate the Carnegie Mellon policy on confidentiality
 of administrative data.
 D. Storage and 'cleaning' of data
     D.1 * Failure to strip datasets of information that could be
 used to identify individuals
  The Committee learned through its interviews that
 individual-level identifying information was not removed from any
 datasets.  This allegation should be investigated further.
  Dataset (3) - Edward Zuckerman, in an initial conversation
 with the Committee by telephone, said that in the summer of 1994,
 he and Martin discussed Martin's obtaining individual level
 information on customers from BBS operators in "exchange for
 something." Martin told Ed that the data contained telephone
 numbers, and that he was going to use these to obtain area codes
 so he could do an analysis of community standards.  They discussed
 doing this work to study community standards. (Community standards
 are not mentioned in the GLJ article.) Edward Zuckerman said he
 assumed that Martin would strip the phone numbers out of the
 dataset as soon as he obtained the area codes.
  Dataset (4) . The Andrew statistics on popular newsgroups
 from 1988.  John Myers did not strip names from the archives he
 gave to Martin Rimm.  Martin Rimm told the Committee he did
 not strip the names away either.
  Dataset (5). On November 11, 2024, after the AMS.prof files
 were collected, George Duncan advised Martin Rimm and David Banks
 that names in datasets must be replaced by id codes in a manner
 that would ensure the persons in the datasets were anonymous.  He
 also explained that this might not be sufficient to ensure
 anonymity if demographic data on each person put them in very
 small groups.
  Martin Rimm, after the discussion regarding AMS.prof files
 with David Banks and George Duncan, told David Banks" that he
 would hire an undergraduate to strip individual-level information
 from that database and substitute codes.  He did not do so.
 Martin Rimm told Marvin Sirbu and David Banks that he was too busy
 and would do so in the Spring Semester, 1995.  However, in talking
 with the Committee, he said he did not do this and said he
 destroyed the AMS.prof files "last week" (i.e., the week of July
 9, 1995).
 E. Sampling, coding, analyzing, and interpreting findings and
 literature
  E.I. Strong, unmistakable bias in the sampling, collection,
 coding, and interpretation of the data, misinterpretation of
 the literature, and bias in the writing of the article
  With respect to E.1, the Committee finds the external
 criticism credible and believes the allegation should be
 investigated, since it bears on the scientific integrity of the
 research, on the faculty oversight of the research. and on the
 research conduct of Martin Rimm.
  The Committee agrees with allegations that serious scholarly
 flaws mar the GU article, suggesting inadequate faculty oversight
 and failure to obtain peer review.  Any one of these flaws might
 show up in a piece of research, especially one by an
 undergraduate.  However, the sheer number of problems and the
 polemic tone of the article bespeaks serious lack of oversight,
 and reflects the secrecy which characterized the publication of
 the article.  Further, the Committee was unable to dispel the
 criticism that some of the bias amounts to deliberate
 misrepresentation in support of a political agenda.
 E.2 Poor methodology (e.g., misinterpretations, statistical flaws,
 absence of clear statement of
 methodology)
  Much of the external criticism, especially from the academic
 community, addresses shortcomings of the work itself.  The
 following examples illustrate the methodological flaws.  This list
 is not intended to be exhaustive or comprehensive, but only
 illustrative.  Appendix A contains more detail, and the detailed
 critiques are appended as a further resource.
  1. Inadequate and, in some cases, misleading, description of
 methods of data collection.  For
  instance, on page 1895 the GLJ article refers to obtaining
 customer data through various methodologies developed by the
 research team programmers."
  2. Misrepresentation of other literature.  For instance,
 a causal connection between pornography and other illegal
 activity has never been established, yet in the footnotes of
 the GLJ article a strong connection is alleged based on this
 literature.
  3. Absence of discussion of sampling and coding biases.
 For example, the sequential coding scheme (detailed in a flow
 chart in the article) and method of aggregating data may well
 have inflated the relative frequency of pedophilia and
 obscene material in images.
  4. Misleading presentation.  The title and other sections
 of the article obscure the difference between customers of
 pornography (who have provided proof of age and a payment)
 and downloaders of images obtained freely on the Internet.
 This aspect of the article increased the likelihood that the
 press and readers would conclude that obscene material is
 widely available via the Internet.
  5. Footnote 30, since it implies that individuals whose files
 were not world-readable could be pedophiles.  In August,
 1994, Carnegie Mellon changed the defaults for new accounts,
 making the AMS.prof files unreadable by others.  A criticism
 of the Rimm article referred to Dmitri Schoeman, who
 collected statistics about files on the Andrew system.
 Dmitri Schoeman said that as of October, 1994, after the new
 policy [defaults] was put into effect, there were 15074
 accounts on the Andrew system.  Of those, approximately 13236
 accounts (~ 87.8 %) had publicly readable configuration
 files.  So the 11% unreadable files discussed in the footnote
 would be entirely accounted for by the fact that in August of
 1994 the default protection of new accounts, including those
 of freshmen, was changed to make them unreadable.  If this
 fact were known to Martin Rimm, as it seems plausible it
 would have been, the interpretation in footnote 11 would be
 deliberately misleading.
  6. Failure to acknowledge or explain baserates, which would
 greatly change a reader's
  interpretation of the results.3
  7. Absence of a discussion of limitations of the research,
 statistical artifacts, unsubstantiated causal statements,
 misuse of statistics, and alternative explanations of the
 data.
  Marvin Sirbu, David Banks, and Edward Zuckerman read
 revisions and drafts of the article through at least December,
 1994, and some of them may have read the February 1995 revision.
 These were all occasions in which flaws could be corrected.
 Marvin Sirbu told us that he told Martin Rimm to re-write the
 methods section, but Martin Rimm did not do this.
  Many of the specific methodological flaws are the sorts of
 things that not uncommonly occur in student, especially
 undergraduate, work. They should certainly be evaluated and
 reviewed with the student.  However, this should be done by the
 faculty advisors, not by the institution.  The work was not
 problematic as a student project; it became so only when it was
 widely and publicly disseminated.  The problems of dissemination
 are another matter, addressed in allegations under heading F. To
 the extent that the pattern of flaws amounts to deception,
 however, the allegations fall under E. l.
 3 For example, readers and posters m newsgroups have thousands of
 specific interests (quilting, behavior problems of  dogs.  Sam
 Smith fans, C++ programming, Pittsburgh restaurants, and so
 forth).  When access to these newsgroups are counted, the apparent
 popularity of sex-oriented material as well as the "top-forty,"
 are seen to be a minor percentage of the activities of all persons
 reading newsgroups.
  F. Preparing manuscripts, submitting to journals, consultation
 with colleagues, and dissemination (including giving appropriate
 credit and attribution to persons and literature, identifying
 specific sources at the point of reference and more generally)
  The Committee finds that some, but not all, of these
 allegations should be investigated
  further.
  F.1 Manipulation of publication and dissemination process
 (conspiracy with an editor of the
  Georgetown Law Journal (GLJ) who is an official of a political
 group), to use the research for political aims
   The Committee felt that investigation of this allegation is
 not properly within the purview of
 Carnegie Mellon.
   F. 2 Absence of peer review
   F. 3 Absence of open communication and review of the research,
 through agreement to an
  "embargo" by the GLJ
   In mid-November, Martin Rimm informed his co-workers and
 faculty advisers that the GLJ was seriously considering
 publication and therefore no details, press releases, or talks
 should be given.  He told David Banks not to give a scheduled
 and pre-publicized talk to the local chapter of the American
 Statistical Association.  Subsequently, Martin Rimm and Marvin
 Sirbu agreed to the embargo, and no public discussion of
 substance took place.  Although the December 1 talk took place,
 David Banks was upset at having to give what he viewed as an
 empty talk, and Martin Rimm cut off contact with David Banks for
 a period of weeks because he felt David Banks had revealed too
 much.
  F. 4 Plagiarism and misuse of other persons' research, along
 with misrepresentation to obtain information from research
 "competitors"
   Plagiarism does not appear to be an issue, since there is
 no evidence that text is essentially identical in both papers.
 Misrepresentation and failure to acknowledge sources should be
 investigated.
   There was a prior study of content analysis of sexual
 material on the network, known to Martin Rimm, that does not
 appear in the references in the article. 4 According to the
 first author of this study, Michael Mehta, Martin Rimm contacted
 hint claiming to be the principal investigator of a team of
 faculty researchers.  Assuming Martin Rimm was a professional
 colleague, Michael Mehta discussed his work with Martin Rimm at
 length, and suggested to him the idea of comparing commercial
 vs. noncommercial images and perhaps other ideas. (see Student
 Handbook regarding giving credit and attributions to others'
 work).
 4 Michael D. Mehta & Dwaine E. Plaza, York University's Department
 of Sociology, "A content analysis of pornographic images on the
 Internet.  Martin Rimm called  Mehta in September. 1994.  Mehta
 has reported that Rimm claimed to be the principal investigator
 directing a team of faculty members at Carnegie Mellon.  Mehta
 interpreted this to mean that Rimm was a senior faculty member.
 Rimm said he was going to publish a book and would consider
 including Mehta's research.  Mehta sent  the paper, and never
 heard from him again.
 The Mehta-Plaza paper is on the same topic as the Rimm paper.  For
 example, the content analysis is done on images not captions, and
 reports reliability coefficients, reports what is in pictures
 rather than calling them "pedophilia." hebephilia, etc.,and it
 examines alternative perspectives, for example, pointing out that
 in none of the so-called pedophilia was there any depiction of sex
 with children.
  F. 5 Failure to separate the contributions of the individual
 author from the institution; inappropriate use of
 institution's prestige to lend credibility to the study
 (references in the article to: "Carnegie Mellon research team,
 Carnegie Mellon study, Carnegie Mellon database, etc." and use
 of "Carnegie " as private publisher)
  This allegation should be pursued.  The GLJ article does not
 differentiate between the individual investigators and Carnegie
 Mellon University.  In interactions with others about his
 research, Martin Rimm failed to identify himself as a student and
 used the name of Carnegie Mellon University in inappropriate ways
 to further his own agenda.  He failed to identify himself as an
 undergraduate student in the GLJ article (although it could be
 inferred from a footnote that he was a student, but not an
 undergraduate), to fully import the sources of his financial
 support, and to acknowledge the specific roles in the research of
 the persons listed as advisers and contributors.  Throughout the
 article, the research was described as a Carnegie Mellon study;
 the databases, as Carnegie Mellon databases, the author and
 contributors, as a Carnegie Mellon research team The author
 apparently misrepresented himself to a reporter with Time Magazine
 as a "research associate."
  In addition to these misrepresentations with respect to the
 report, Martin Rimm caused an entry for "The Pornographer's
 Handbook; How to Exploit Women, Dupe Men, and Make Lots of Money"
 to be listed in Books in Print.  This entry lists the publisher as
 "Carnegie", allegedly with an address that matches a Pittsburgh
 address for a Martin Rimm.
  F. 6 Misrepresentation of sections of the article as written by
 the author or contributors, though actually written by others
  This allegation should be pursued.  Information received in
 private communication from EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation)
 sources and from David Banks raise questions about whether the
 legal footnotes were written by Martin Rimm. Also, Carolyn
 Speranza has suggested that she was incorrectly identified as the
 illustrator of "'The Pornographer's Handbook."
  F.7 Failure to cite the work of others
  This allegation should be pursued.  Martin Rimm apparently
 used Michael Mehta's ideas and drew from his paper, and did not
 cite him or give him credit.  In addition but more ambiguously,
 Erikas Napjus claims he wrote footnote 137 in exchange for
 specific credit, and was not given this credit, though he was
 cited as a contributor to the study.  Although neither of these
 justifies a charge of plagiarism, both appear to support the
 allegation of failure to grant credit.
 G. Other aspects of preventing and minimizing risk and harm to
 research participants
  The Committee believes that these allegations warrant
 further investigation, although it would be difficult to pursue
 G.1, G.2, and G.3 without further harming individuals or
 subjecting risk to them.
  G.I Revelation-of harmful  information about a BBS operator
  G.2 Breach of confidentiality of identified files o BBS
 customers
  G.3 Breach of confidentiality of Carnegie Mellon files,
 causing rumors and damage to
  faculty, staff, and students
 The datasets (1), (3)-(6) were kept on Martin Rimm's home machine.
  According to David Banks, and corroborated by e-mail he sent to
 Marvin Sirbu, at least three undergraduates might or would access
 these data. The undergraduates were not supervised by faculty or
 staff.
  With regard to G.3, the Committee has heard rumors that some
 undergraduates searched the database for information about their
 instructors' use of sexually-oriented newsgroups.
  G. 4 Exploitation of research participants--using analyses of
 data they provided against them (i.e., Robert Thomas and
 customers)
  This allegation is very serious, indeed.  It should be
 pursued.  Every ethical standard we know of prohibits using
 research data against research participants.
  With regard to G.4, Robert Thomas is currently imprisoned
 for distributing obscene materials in a community.  He is
 appealing the verdict.  According to his attorney, the research
 report and Time article, describing Thomas' BBS as the "Marquis de
 Cyberspace" seriously damages Thomas' chances of a successful
 appeal.  His attorney says that Thomas did not know, until two
 weeks ago, that the Martin Rimm subscriber was the author of the
 Carnegie Mellon study described in Time.
  Even more serious is the proposal to the Department of
 Justice.  The DoJ learned about Martin Rimm's research from a
 former employee who referred Martin Rimm to Bob Flores, Acting
 Deputy Chief of Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal
 Division.  Martin Rimm and Bob Flores talked by phone, and
 subsequently, Martin Rimm, Marvin Sirbu, and David Banks proposed
 to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice to analyze
 files seized in two obscenity cases, one of them being the Thomas
 files.  David Banks wrote a draft proposal in the fall of 1994.
 Marvin Sirbu wrote a cover letter to the proposal when it was sent
 to the Division in the spring of 1995.  The proposal offered to
 analyze data at the DoJ, including customer files seized from
 Robert Thomas and another BBS operator.  The analyses would, among
 other things, compare the level of obscenity of Thomas' images
 with those of other BBS operators, and would identify his "top
 100" customers.  The researchers said that they knew, from their
 Usenet contacts, that they could obtain download histories for
 each customer data.  Both of these analyses could have very
 negative consequences for Robert Thomas and his customers, from
 whom, and about whom, the researchers had collected research data.
  Bob Flores told the Committee that he was interested in this
 proposal.  He said he discussed the analyses with the group on at
 least three occasions.  He discussed the options of using them as
 expert witnesses, hiring them as consultants to re-analyze his
 datasets, or sending them to another division, if he decided the
 DoJ should fund some research.  Bob Flores made it clear to the
 Committee that his interest was both general, since there was not
 much research on the topic, and specifically prosecutorial.
 However, he would not be able to fund research, only specific
 analyses related to prosecutions.  He asked the group not to give
 him findings before publication of the GLJ article, lest they
 would be exposed to the discovery process.
 V. Summary of Recommendations
  The picture that emerges is of a single student project that
 got seriously out of hand.  It is not clear now, and may never be
 clear, to what extent Martin Rimm evaded, ignored, and
 circumvented his advisors and to what extent they actively
 participated in various aspects of the work. We recommend that a
 number of the allegations be investigated.  A few may lead to
 charges of research misconduct.  Others will be relatively less
 serious violations of university policies.  We are not able to
 clearly separate these in all cases, so we simply recommend
 investigation of 13 of the 22 allegations (as we have organized
 them).
 A. Preparation for research (IRB review, planning confidentiality
 procedures, obtaining organization and institutional
 permissions: deciding responsibilities for oversight)
  A.1 Absence of IRB review:
  Should be investigated
  A2* Failure to institute procedures for faculty oversight of
 student research and to create
  procedures to protect confidentiality, of sensitive data,
   Should be investigated
 B. Collection of data from individuals
  B.1 Obtaining personal information on private BBS customers
 and not asking for their informed consent
   Does not warrant investigation
  B.2 Failure to obtain informed consent from Carnegie Mellon
 individuals whose Ams.prof files were accessed for research
  Does not warrant investigation
  B.3 Deceptive collection of customer information from BBS
 operators
   Should be investigated
  C. Collection of data from databases
   C.1 Invasion of privacy of home directories and files
  Should be investigated
     C.2* Transferring databases from administrative control to a
 researcher's control
   Should be investigated
  C.3 Misrepresentation in obtaining research data (offering
 marketing help to BBS operators (e.g., the "Pornographer's
 Handbook".) in exchange for private information on
 customers, and not explaining the purpose as research)
  Should be investigated
  D. Storage and 'cleaning' of data
  D.1 * Failure to strip datasets of information that could be
 used to identify individuals
  Should be investigated
  E. Sampling, coding, analyzing, and interpreting findings and
 literature
  E.I. Strong, unmistakable bias in the sampling, collection,
 coding, and interpretation of the data, misinterpretation of the
 literature, and bias in the writing of the article
  Should be investigated
 18
  E.2 Poor methodology (e.g., misinterpretations, statistical
 flaws, absence of clear statement of
  methodology)
  Should be re-evaluated by advisors and reviewed with
 student
 F. Preparing manuscripts, submitting to journals, consultation
 with colleagues, and dissemination (including giving
 appropriate credit and attribution to persons and literature,
 identifying specific sources at the point of reference and
 more generally)
  F.1 Manipulation of publication and dissemination process
 (conspiracy with an editor of the Georgetown Law Journal (GLJ)
 who is an official of a political group, to use the research
 for political aims
  Not within the purview of Carnegie Mellon
  F.2 Absence of peer review
  Should be investigated
  F.3 Absence of open commi4iiication and review of the
 research, through agreement to an embargo" by the GLJ
  Should be investigated
  F. 4 Plagiarism and misuse of other persons' research, along
 with misrepresentation to obtain information from research
 "competitors"
  Does not warrant investigation
  F. 5 Failure to separate the contributions of the individual
 author from the institution; inappropriate use of
 institution's prestige to lend credibility to the study
 (references in the article to: "Carnegie Mellon research team,
 Carnegie Mellon study, Carnegie Mellon database, etc." and use
 of "Carnegie" as private publisher)
  Should be investigated
  F. 6 Misrepresentation of sections of the article as written
 by the author or contributors,
  though actually written by others
  Probably cannot be pursued by Carnegie Mellon
  F.7 Failure to cite the work of others
  Should be investigated
  G. Other aspects of preventing and minimizing risk and harm to
 research participants
  G.1 Revelation of harmful information about a BBS operator
  Probably cannot be pursued without risk or harm to
 individuals
  G.2 Breach of confidentiality of identified files on BBS
 customers
   Probably cannot be pursued without risk or harm to
 individuals
  G. 3 Breach of confidentiality of Carnegie Mellon files,
 causing rumors and damage to
  faculty, staff, and students
  Probably cannot be pursued without risk or harm to
 individuals
   G.4 Exploitation of research participants--using analyses of
 data they provided against them (e.g., Robert Thomas and
 customers)
  Should be investigated