Stark revelations: Internet porn by numbers.LAST YEAR the U.S. Department of Justice hired Philip B. Stark, a statistician at the University of California at Berkeley (body, education) University of California at Berkeley - (UCB) See also Berzerkley, BSD. http://berkeley.edu/. Note to British and Commonwealth readers: that's /berk'lee/, not /bark'lee/ as in British Received Pronunciation. , to scour the Web for porn. The government wanted hard numbers to bolster its defense of the Child Online Protection Act Not to be confused with Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The Child Online Protection Act[1] (COPA)[2] is a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of protecting minors from harmful sexual material on the , a 1998 law requiring commercial websites to verify users' ages before allowing access to anything deemed "harmful to minors." The American Civil Liberties Union American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), nonpartisan organization devoted to the preservation and extension of the basic rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution. (ACLU ACLU: see American Civil Liberties Union. ) had challenged the law on constitutional grounds, and the Supreme Court had sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. When the trial began last October, the Department of Justice was ready with some shocking revelations from Stark's report, which cost upward of $1 million, required a subpoena to pry private data from Google, and took months to complete. Among them: "The number of sexually explicit websites is huge"; "Search results often include sexually explicit material Sexually explicit material (video, photography, creative writing) presents sexual content without deliberately obscuring or censoring it. The term sexually explicit media is often used as euphemism for pornography. "; and 1.1 percent of the websites indexed by the Google and MSN search engines are sexually explicit. The government ostensibly wanted the numbers to underscore the need for censorship. But it's hard to see how this percentage, or any other, is significant, since Internet space is not for practical purposes limited. It says even less about the average kid's interaction with sleaze sleaze n. A sleazy condition, quality, or appearance: "His record of public service is untouched by any stain of shadiness or sleaze" James J. Kilpatrick. , since the Web is rarely experienced as a random sequence of sites. As the ACLU's Chris Hansen put it in the trial's closing statement, "Some people find [it] a scary number. Some people find it a reassuring number. What it mostly is, is an irrelevant number." And an expensive one. |
|
||||||||||||||||

Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion