Update on "Fabricated" SmartFilter / Secure Computing Web Porn Study

Latest development in the story where SmartFilter / Secure Computing Web Porn Study is "Fabricated", from ZDNet Australia:

While the company's original statement claimed that no pornographic pages had ever existed in the .nu space, Semich conceded that sites featuring adult content using .nu domain names did still exist. "I admit some pornographic Web pages using the .nu domain name probably do occur, just not in the extremely inflated number given by Secure Computing," he said. Sites which hosted adult content would be deregistered when their current term expired, he added.

The approach taken by the Secure study has also been criticised by other market observers. "It's not helpful to characterise the size of the problem by the number of pages," said Chris Disspain, chief executive officer of .au Domain Administration. "They are not a valuable, sensible or helpful measure of what's going on." Like Semich, Disspain is concerned that confusion will arise between the registration of a domain name and where the site is actually hosted.

Secure Computing told ZDNet Australia it stood by the methodology used in the study.

Now, here's my question: WHAT METHODOLOGY?

Where is the data to be examined? Where is any ability to review their assertions? To do an independent examination?

"Studies" done on secret data are inherently suspect.

Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog (Wikipedia, Google, censorware, and an inside view of net-politics) - Syndicate site (subscribe, RSS)