Investigative journalism is not "making" news as much as "finding" it, and I think that's a substantive difference. Lewin did not create the log file, nor did he manipulate it in order to allow himself or other students to see what was in it. Students other than Lewin had seen the file, and the tremendous potential for blackmail was acknowledged by almost everyone involved.

Lewin legally could have revealed the file as soon as he found out about it. Instead he notified Harvard authorities and agreed to wait until the file was supposed to have been closed before he ran the story. He also legally could have revealed the names of those whose activities he tracked, but did not.

This was not for fear of lawsuits but out of respect for The Crimson's community of readers. True, some readers might have wanted to know names and specifics. In fact a majority of readers probably would have been interested in that kind of information.

But the real issue was Internet privacy. The story itself, because it emphasized the sexy sub-topic of Internet porn so early and at such length, did not make its point as clearly as it could have.

Computer privacy was and is the main issue, one which has also been recently addressed by other papers. An article on the cover of the business section of Feb. 22's New York Times says the Internet is almost hopelessly insecure. The story warned readers that they should consider nothing which they send to be truly private. This was exactly what Lewin's article illustrated.

The Crimson showed its readers a picture of a situation which some might not have wanted to see. Because of the story and Lewin's personal follow-up with Steno, the file was closed.

All of the users involved said they believed this was a good and necessary step. They also said they appreciated the fact that The Crimson alerted them to some real dangers on the Internet. Sharing valuable information with Harvard students is the reason The Crimson exists. I think that's what it did with this story.

The more important overriding issue of Internet privacy could have been better presented. But there was no foul play in the reporting of this story. And unlike some of what The Crimson prints, this story scored points with me because it did make a difference.