Dr. Frank Thomas asked what made Rimm's study unethical. Several things. First, readers may review some aspects of the study in an article by Fowler in AAAS's Professional Ethics Report (Fowler, A. (1995), CMU Pornography Study, Professional Ethics Report, 7(3), pp. 1 and 6.) The 'controversy' started with Martin Rimm's report of a study published in the Georgetown Law Journal. Rimm was an undergraduate EE student at Carnegie Melon University and was funded by 4 CMU grants. The purpose of the study was to determine how pornographers use computer system to market their services. As part of the study, Rimm tracked on-line activities of CMU students, staff, and faculty to determine the amount of pornographic material downloaded. Rimm did not obtain or receive consent, nor did he (apparently) have explicit permission from his faculty mentor to carry out these aspects of the study. The report was considered the first "egregious" example of "cybersnooping," and many saw it as a clear violation of privacy rights. (I filed my outline and notes in my ethics/privacy folder). I don't know if this study is infamous, nor if it has been published in a peer reviewed journal other than the Georgetown Law Journal. Other readers in this group can probably cite sources and web sites that discuss the study. Stuart I. Offenbach Department of Psychological Sciences Purdue University