From: Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa (Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #1
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-01-13 00:42:47 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 4 Jan 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 1
Today's Topics:
Response to Queries - Computers and the Blind &
MIT Hacker's Dictionary,
Programming - Unix (5 msgs),
Computers and People - Human Memory Capacity (4 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 31 Dec 1982 0104-PST
From: GRANGER.RS at UCI-20A
Subject: Computers & the Blind
Sommers at RU-GREEN asked about micros and the blind. You should get
in touch with Ted Sterling at Simon Fraser Univ. in Vancouver -- he
knows a lot about this.
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 1 January 1983 18:37-EST
From: MROSE@MIT-OZ at MIT-MC
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V5 #111
In reference to a message asking about an MIT hackers dictionary--
there used to be such a thing on MIT-MC in the file gjs;jargon. I
don't know if it still exists.....
martha
------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 1982 1343-PST
From: Henry W. Miller
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V5 #111
I prefer the DEL key to either control-h or control-a
(control-a was the default delete key on our EXEC.) I modified the
EXEC to use DEL, and the users loved it.
-HWM
------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 1982 14:31 EST
From: clark.wbst at PARC-MAXC
Subject: UNIX user interface
It is true that UNIX comes with it's configurable options in a
rather difficult to use state, almost a blank state. It would be
easy to change this, but doing so would tend to bias a given
installation towards that philosophy. This environment may not be
particularly well suited to the installation, but would tend to be
followed because it is a new system, and everyone would adapt to it
because it is new... they expect it. As it is now, when the system
is new, there is an uncomfortable time, but before long it has been
taylored according to the local way of thinking, with additions of
nice ideas from other unix systems; ones that are new to the new
unix users. After that, a new user to our now old unix system may
start with a blank account, but quickly picks up the appropriate
local configuration and lore, again biased by his experience.
The point is that no one is forced into something because it is
there. The only people left out in the cold are the very first
users, and to me, that is to be expected.
As for slow, I don't know what it is that makes distribution unix
slow, but most of my unix work has been on a system that is anything
but slow, with many more than 15 users. I suppose this is not the
place for it, but I would LOVE to hear an explanation of why it gets
bogged down and how it can be fixed.
--Ray
------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 1982 15:06 EST
From: clark.wbst at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Use of keyboard characters and EFFICIENT user interfaces
First, a rebuttal... my general philosophy in a minute...
Control-H playing delete character on input does not
preclude it's use as a backspace character on output.
So why not delete? Well, it has to do with moving your hands... I
am sure you will get the idea from the following:
I have wanted to say this for a long time, this point merely got me
going...
I have done the majority of my editing on an adm3a (no extra keys,
ctrl next to the A) running the RAND editor. The funny command key
strokes were control characters. Why do I like this cryptic
environment ?
I am a touch typist. If I have to move my hand from their 'normal'
position, first, it takes time, and second, I have to realign them.
It slows things down. By using a control character, I can press the
control key and another key simply by wiggling my fingers. I can
edit like crazy, with no wasted effort or delays. It does make a
big difference, and that is why I like it.
As for cryptic, you learn; very quickly. People have done studies
(I would guess that people on this net have seen them) that show
that you can pick almost any random commands, and before long people
learn them. When a person is using a computer, they don't sit there
and think "I want to copy a file... the command for copy is xxx, the
arguments go in this order... etc." Before long, in fact after very
few times, most of this gets routed around. you have barely
realized that you want to copy a file and your fingers are already
moving... something in there does all the processing... it works
sort of like a cache (you forget if you don't use it for a while).
Someone once asked me if I really knew what buttons I was pushing,
or how did I think of what to do so fast. The honest answer was
that I really didn't know what buttons I was pushing.
It does not take long to learn either - a few hours to be usable, a
few days to be pretty good, and a few weeks to almost be a part of
it.
In general, the people who use computers tend to use it on a regular
basis. You want to have as efficient a translation from the first
glimmer of an idea to action as you can. Extra strings, characters,
arm movements don't help. Remember the letters that came to the
conclusion that a real fancy menu type interface is only wanted by
beginners, not old users?
People are much better at adapting to computers than computers are
at adapting to people. Since the idea is to get the job done, you
don't want any extra bottlenecks.
This is not to say that we should not try to make the computer
easier to use, just that we should realize when the efficiency of
the interface is being drastically reduced at the expense of making
it more recognizable to someone totally unfamiliar with the system.
After all, who uses the system, one who never saw it before or one
who uses it every day ?
Perhaps what we need to develop is:
1) efficient interfaces between brains and action.
2) good interfaces to (1) for very occasional users which
are capable of teaching him to use the 'native' mode if
desired, and performing at more efficient, less
'naive-user-friendly' levels in between.
3) The idea of a menu command interface that can be used or
not used or called up when you want it was an excellent
example of this. The beginner used the menu, the veteran
used the command interpreter directly.
4) My RAND editor had a simple keyboard map that could be
called up with one finger wiggle, and put back just as
easily. It was sufficient 95% of the time it was
necessary.
Anyway, to me all these nifty user terminals with all the buttons
all over the place only make my job harder, and craftily designed
rather than concise commands actually just make MORE for the new
user to remember and keep straight, and that extra information is
not really easier to remember, since even though it may look nicer
printed on paper, it is not any easier to guess when you can't
remember. It is fine to make a system easy to use for beginners,
but by definition, beginners do not use a system much.
I would greatly appreciate comments or questions or disagreements
(or agreements for that matter), as I think this is important.
--Ray Clark
------------------------------
Date: 30 Dec 1982 15:37 EST
From: clark.wbst at PARC-MAXC
Subject: One hand
This is to "RWK at SCRC-TENEX", who my machine never heard of...
1) I have two hands. So do that VAST majority of computer users.
There are facilities to change the erase character for those who
do not.
2) I can type all control characters with one hand, all but three
comfortably. With practice I am sure I could get good at it.
BOTH of these points are immaterial to what key is used to delete
characters.
A well designed keyboard/computer combination (varying placement of
keys makes them inseparable) has an erase key which can be easily
typed without large movements of the hands or careful placement of
the fingers, be it control-h, del, or blamo.
It would be nice if keyboard were semi-standard, but that will never
happen because I will always disagree with you and you will always
disagree with me. So, we must modify what key we use according to
what is convenient on our keyboard, since we are the one who has to
type it 859,364 times a year.
--Ray
------------------------------
Date: 2 January 1983 20:41 est
From: Frankston at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Re: DEL vs ^H
If one must resort to ASCII toargument DEL vs ^H, remember that DEL
is supposed to be used to RUBOUT mistakes and paper tape and
therefore the proper interpretation of DEL is to ignore it.
There is NO "delete last character command" in ASCII. Personally, I
prefer ^H (Backspace) because it is closer to the standard
correction function on a typewriter. If you want accented
characters you can use some other method of entering it.
Remember also, that what you type on the keyboard and what appears
in the files has only an accidental relationship.
Systems MUST preempt control characters. Unfortunately, there is a
paucity of shift keys on keyboards and people have resorted to use
the control key as a "code" key. It often works. One shouldn't be
surprised it if doesn't always work.
------------------------------
Date: 30 DEC 1982 1702-PST
From: RTXENM at AMES-67
Subject: "RE BROADCAST OF BEYOND HUMAN MEMORY"
Danny's query (danny at mit-od) about the "size" of human memory
sparks me to pose a number of questions I have recently thought about
at UC Santa Barbara (grad school).
Rather than just looking at the "size" (in bits) of human memory, I
wish to also consider the extensions of human memory in the form of
personal libraries containing books, records, video tapes and disks,
computer media, etc. My motivations are from some discussions with my
grad adviser, Kay and Goldberg's idea of Dynabook, and the movie TRON.
The question is this - How many bits of data does a person need to
keep throughout a life time?
My discussion at grad school consisted of a number of office talks
concluding that 32-bit addressing such as on the VAX might not be
adequate for future "home" needs. Here at the Ames research center,
we are looking for a machine in the near future (ten years) to perform
10 GigaFLOPS (Floating pt. operations) per second (Or about 10,000
times that of a VAX-11/780). The machine must have 256 MBytes of
physical memory and have data transfer rates in excess of 500 Mbits
per second. When might something like this be available to fit in the
palm of one's hand?
Personal computers are flooding the market place (perhaps
prematurely). Many people posit the change from static hard media
such as paper to the Dynabook. I have worked on the "interim
Dynabook:" the Xerox Alto and I concur. In the movie TRON, the
computer characters (sic) carried "disks" which contained all of their
information. If a disk was lost, the character would be "derezed."
Perhaps our personal libraries, stereo recordings, VHS tapes, video
disks, etc. will all fit on a TRON "disk." We might read this disk
using a Dynabook. The question evolves: what is the capacity of this
disk? Is human memory the cache for this disk? What are the
requirements for storage (in bits) for one human lifetime?
An initial simplistic stab at an upper bound might be: suppose human
sight might be a window (from computer graphics) which might be a 1024
by 1024 color raster with a refresh rate of 30 frames per second.
Assume 24 bit color. Assume the average human is awake 16 hours per
day (grad students slightly more!). Times 70 years for an average
life span. This of course does not take into account other senses
(Sight is the primary sense.), forgetting, masking, etc.
The above might interesting in the light that CMU and others are
requiring advanced PCs for attending school. Atari 800s would come no
where near the capacity to adequately satisfy future needs of people.
This is especially important in the light that the GRiD Navigator
executive computer is about the size of the Dynabook. I ultimately
hope that I could reliably store my entire personal library (books,
records, tapes, images) in a small booksized box.
--eugene miya (rtxenm at ames-67)
------------------------------
Date: 31 Dec 82 03:35:35 EST (Fri)
From: Chris Torek
Subject: Re: Human memory capacity
You might note that some people are very good at remembering one
"kind" of thing yet poor at another, e.g. someone who can remember
things like the phone number of some store called once while in
California ten years ago, but who can't remember the name of the
street he/she lives on. I, for example, have particular trouble
associating names with faces.
As an aside, I suspect that those who have eidetic memories are
better off keeping the fact to themselves. While I don't have a
photographic memory, I do have a good one for many things, and I've
noticed that people in general become annoyed with me when I
"remember too much".
- Chris
------------------------------
Date: 2 January 1983 00:14-EST
From: Zigurd R. Mednieks
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V5 #113
The calculation of memory capacity from an estimate of raw data
taken in is very clearly wrong. That data could never get to one's
memory in the first place. There isn't the bandwidth down the optic
nerve. What gets to our brains, from our eyes, is heavily
preprocessed. Our eyes are not only receptors, they are organs for
seeing.
To play back a scene from our memory, we run through our minds the
mind's own coding of that scene. The raw bits were lost as soon as
the eye saw the next thing. Roughly the same thing goes for hearing.
This all has a lot of consequences for AI researchers. In
particular, we may be hoping in vain to "see" using
fourier-transform boxes attached to low resolution TV cameras with
god-awful optics. All sorts of things get done for us by our eyes,
like lighting and color correction, before we even get to
contemplate what it is we are seeing. I am not suggesting that only
humans can process information like humans can, or any mumbo-jumbo
like that. I am suggesting, however, that certain architectural
considerations have not been taken into account in the construction
of systems that hope to cognate.
For more information on this branch of thought see David Marr's
book, "Vision". If you are at MIT and want an interesting terms
worth of the same, take 9.36.
Cheers,
Zig
------------------------------
Date: 2 January 1983 20:41 est
From: Frankston at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Re: Human memory capacity
I tend toward fairly low estimates of memory size because I feel
that the human brain would tend to be relatively efficient. Storing
a lot of information can be better done by storing the information
compiled. One can store a lot more information by remembering "Joe"
than having to keep track of every bit of a visual image.
Marvin Minsky has a good story (I would like to find the original
source) about use of hypnosis to find details. The problem with
such experiments is that no one usually bothers to check the
remembered details against reality. It turns out that a twenty year
old is able to remember his thirty fifth birthday just as well as
his fifth.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa (Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #3
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-01-24 05:47:40 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 20 Jan 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 3
Today's Topics:
Administrivia - TCP Where Are You?
Technology - WorldNet (4 msgs),
Programming - Unix (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 17 Jan 1983 2307-EST
From: Mel
Subject: Administrivia
Hi folks, just wanted to let everyone know that the Human-Nets
digest has made it through the TCP changeover. There are a few
things everyone should know. Persons running on systems that now
support the TCP protocol should continue to use the addresses
HUMAN-NETS@RUTGERS for submissions to the digest and
HUMAN-NETS-REQUEST@RUTGERS for administrative requests. If your
site is still using the old NCP protocol, you'll have to send
messages to me through an NCP-to-TCP gateway. Submissions should be
mailed to HUMAN-NETS%RUTGERS@ECLC - administrative requests to
HUMAN-NETS-REQUEST%RUTGERS@ECLC. During the changeover, some of you
might not have gotten a digest or two. The last issue in December
was Volume 5 Issue 113. If you've missed any issues, just drop me a
note and I'll get those issues to you promptly.
-Mel
------------------------------
Date: 31 December 1982 04:00-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle
Subject: The changing face of Micro-computing...
I make a living writing about that subject (actually, I don't; I
make a living writing science fiction. But I do get paid pretty
well to write about the future of micros) so I won't spend a lot of
time on this, but:
The notion that "It's too late for the parents" is goofy.
Bill and Sibyl Grieb have packed classes at everywoman's Village on
using computers; they teach CP/M and customization and all that.
The problem with adult learners are the ones I had: no one seems to
know how to explain things in English. You have to learn a lot more
than you really need to in order to be able to do much of anything.
Some of us, though, are trying to change that, and a few of us are
not only doing something about it, but getting paid to.
Patience: it took far longer for the "average citizen" to
learn enough mechanics to be able to be comfortable using cars than
it is taking for people to get used to computers. The High Priest
mentality in which one accepts whatever a highly paid computer
technician tells you, is dying away in industry already, and the
micro world ain't going to let it get a foot hold...
------------------------------
Date: Sunday, 2 January 1983, 22:48-EST
From: David Vinayak Wallace
Subject: The changing face of Micro-computing...
Date: 31 December 1982 04:00-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle
(I re-ordered some of your statements)
The notion that "It's too late for the parents" is
goofy. Bill and Sibyl Grieb have packed classes at everywoman's
Village on using computers; they teach CP/M and customization
and all that.
Patience: it took far longer for the "average citizen"
to learn enough mechanics to be able to be comfortable using
cars than it is taking for people to get used to computers.
I think this example shows why it IS too late. You can always find a
few exceptions to the rule; these exceptions are a tiny (>.5%) part
of the actual computer user. I doesn't take mechanical knowledge to
drive a car, it takes mechanical knowledge to modify or repair an
automobile. most people (me included) would rather buy a vanilla
car and just have it work all the time. I change the oil (more than
most people do), but have a mechanic do the real work.
The problem with adult learners are the ones I had: no one seems
to know how to explain things in English. You have to learn a
lot more than you really need to in order to be able to do much
of anything. Some of us, though, are trying to change that, and
a few of us are not only doing something about it, but getting
paid to.
The High Priest mentality in which one accepts whatever a highly
paid computer technician tells you, is dying away in industry
already, and the micro world ain't going to let it get a foot
hold...
I'm biased, but I don't think this will really work. You can't
discuss complex concepts without the proper language. I agree that
there is a bit of High Priest mentality and that there is no good
effort to teach the JARGON, but every "normal language" explanation
of anything having to do with computers comes out muddled,
long-winded, and ultimately, unclear..
Some of us even do it for free.
david
------------------------------
Date: 2 Jan 1983 1738-PST
From: GRANGER.RS%UCI@UDEL-RELAY
Subject: WorldNet Services
I'm a kind of new-kid-on-the block and need to get knowledgeable
about Arpa, WorldNet, and all the neatsy-sounding things you folks
are always talking about on here...so could anyone recommend and
tell me how to get hold of some kind of background document on
everything? Is there something on line on one of these hosts? I
would sure appreciate it.
I have some ideas about services which could be classified in the
pipe-dream category, but would like to withhold them until I gain a
bit more knowledge about the proposed goings-on.
Thank you,
Rob Segelbaum
------------------------------
From: "KENNETH G. GOUTAL at ELMO c/o"
Date: 9 Jan 1983 1503-EST
Subject: WorldNet services poll
Ref: Robert Maas in HUMAN-NETS #5:112
"Consumer information exchange"? Gak! The lawyers will get richer
on that one! Consider all the gut reactions and undocumented
experiences that people would be committing to 'paper', right out in
front of God and everybody; lawsuit city, here we come! A great
idea, though, if we could avoid that problem. I'm not really sure
where I'm getting this feeling, but seems as though it's pretty
dangerous to say what you think about a product (or person or
company) in public. Naturally, if people stick to facts, they'll
probably be okay, but the net as it has been evolving does not seem
to engender sticking to facts -- people happily flame on about
anything and anyone, as if they were sitting in the privacy of their
dens (which they are), talking with friends (which they are).
Unfortunately (?), the network is a glass house. Have I got the
legal picture all wrong? If not, how do we get there from here?
Any legal types reading this?
(Yes, I know, this isn't really WorldNet, but this is where it's
starting.)
(Say, Robert Maas, whatcha doing out at Stanford? I thought you
were at MIT-MC.)
--Kenn
------------------------------
Date: 11 January 1983 12:10-EST
From: Gail Zacharias
Subject: VAX VMS vs UNIX
As far as I am concerned, the major difference between Unix and VMS
is that there are Unix simulators for VMS, and no VMS simulator for
Unix. So if you get VMS, you can take advantage of the features of
either system, and run programs developed for either one.
------------------------------
Date: 11 Jan 1983 2041-EST
From: ZALESKI at RU-GREEN at RUTGERS (Mike Zaleski [Secular Humanist])
Subject: UNIX and the Rest
Re: Comparisons of UNIX and Tops-20
I read the comparisons of UNIX and various other operating systems
on Human-Nets with some interest and would like to add my own
thoughts.
First, I am not sure comparisons of this sort are meaningful. I
view UNIX more as an environment. The OS, shell (command
interpreter), compilers, and tools all interface together in a
mostly nice way. My experience with Tops-20 at two different sites
is that this is not completely true under Tops-20. However, the
fault (if one is to be laid) is that most sites have a variety of
non-Dec standard tools which, not surprisingly, do not always know
about each other.
Second, UNIX differs from other systems I've used in the kinds of
system programs it includes. Programs like "grep" or "find" could
be written for other machines, yet I only see them on UNIX. The
lack of these tools on other machines can be gotten around (like
with PCLs under Tops-20), but the task then becomes troublesome.
(Example: How can you do a directory listing of files with one
specific protection under Tops-20? UNIX provides a number of tools
which make this easy.)
Third, the ever popular UNIX I/O redirection is also something which
can mostly be done with little extra programming effort on other
machines. True, there is a difference between little effort and no
effort, but I have yet to meet a machine which constrained its
output to the terminal. The only aspect of UNIX I/O which I have
not encountered on any other machine is ability to set up
communications "pipes" between two programs. This allows, for
example, the trivial implementation of an Emacs command to run a
program (like a compiler) and save the output (error messages) in a
buffer. (If anyone knows how to do this under Tops-20, please send
me mail about it!)
Fourth, one aspect of UNIX that I do like and which has not
previously been mentioned is that there is not a ton of expensive
documentation. Standard 5.0 UNIX documentation consists of 3
manuals (one of which is a collection of console messages unneeded
by the average user), and a two volume set of "Documents for use
with UNIX" (consisting of memos on the various more sophisticated
UNIX tools). The C book is also handy.
Fifth, regarding the initial-state "problem" with UNIX. At least
UNIX lets the user do something about it, like resetting the erase
and kill characters. This can be done automatically at login.
Tops-20 does not provide any such facility that I know of. By the
way, there are various "editing shells" for UNIX floating around
which would (or should allow) resetting any function to any key.
This, however, is not part of standard UNIX.
Incidentally, UNIX system managers can (and do) custom configure
their systems. There is a file in /etc which is executed on login
time. I am actually quite happy that when I log onto an alien
system, at least I know that the erase and kill characters will be
where I expect them (even if I don't like that location). All
things considered, I don't consider this initial state thing a big
deal.
Some quick thoughts on other UNIX items:
- The Control-D logout is, if I am correct, going to be changed in
an upcoming UNIX release.
- Not all sites have the source code online, contrary to what one
message might have implied.
- Performance of UNIX vs VMS vs ... I'm sure a test can be
generated to "prove" it either way. Supposedly, 5.0 UNIX shows
improvement in this area.
- Berkeley UNIX and Bell Labs UNIX are not identical. When reading
a message from someone flaming about or raving about some UNIX
feature, remember that it may not be Bell (or Berkeley) UNIX.
- To the person who asked for a comparison of VAX VMS and UNIX.
This question could take volumes. One suggestion: Attend a DECUS
conference and look for the UNIX users and VMS users and talk to
them. (My personal recommendation is UNIX.)
UNIX is a trademark of Bell Laboratories. DECUS, VAX, and Tops-20
are trademarks of Digital Equipment Co. (Keep those lawyers happy.)
(Personal opinions of Michael Zaleski, UNIX Systems Development
Dept, Bell Labs, Murray Hill.)
-- Mike
------------------------------
Date: 12 January 1983 05:44-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Re: Unix Initial State / EMACS initial state bad??
I find that the initial state of EMACS is quite usable. With the
freeze-file-version and compare-windows added, it's almost
wonderful, the only major pain being rubout (the most common noise
character on dialup lines) being non-undoable delete-backwards,
requiring customization in a few input characters. Keyboard macros
are very nice and I don't consider them to be system customization
since you can do them at any time without knowing anything about the
internals, and they work completely at the source (keyboard input in
this case) level.
I've used EMACS only here on ITS and there (IMSSS) on TENEX which
doesn't have freeze-file-version (too old a version, it's standard
now) nor compare-windows (I miss it every so often there). When I
refer to initial state I refer to the TENEX version since it has
less than the ITS version, doesn't seem to have any of the extra
packages that have become standard here.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa (Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #6
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-01-27 16:09:01 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 25 Jan 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 6
Today's Topics:
Technology - Combinations of Telephones and Terminals &
WorldNet (5 msgs),
Computers and People - Human Memory Capacity (2 msgs) &
New Interactive Job Search Service
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "REX::MINOW c/o"
Date: 27 Dec 1982 1930-EST
Subject: Touch-Tone to Ascii Conversion
Several recent Human Nets messages have discussed generation of
Ascii by means of a DTMF (Touch-Tone) keypad. I've done a bit of
work on this and hope the following might be of interest:
First, holding multiple buttons down at the same time probably won't
work in the real world. There are several companies offering DTMF
decoders (coupled with FCC approved telephone line interfaces) which
are generally set to reject single frequencies as required by the
AT&T specifications.
Using multiple keystrokes seems to offer the best of a bad situation
(clumsy, but workable). Several such systems have been done. For
example, there is a very nice automated weather forecast system
using synthesized speech and DTMF control done by the FAA. Also,
Lauren Weinstein implemented a telephone interface to Unix at UCLA,
using the Unix speak program (text to speech for a Votrax ML1) and a
Bell 407 telephone line interface. With much help from Lauren, I
implemented a telephone interface to RSTS/E about 3 years ago using
the NRL text- to-speech system. All three systems used essentially
the same DTMF to Ascii encoding method:
Letters are entered by pressing the button containing the letter,
followed by a button indicating which of the three (left, middle, or
right) letters is desired. Thus ABC would be 21, 22, 23. The FAA
system accepted only 1/2/3 for the second button, while the other
systems allowed "any number in that column". Thus, on the UCLA and
DEC systems, "HUMAN" could be encoded 45, 88, 64, 21, 65.
There are two letters missing from the keypad. The DEC system put
them on the '1' key as "QZ" (The other systems used
something similar, but I felt that 11 was a good way to encode
space.)
Digits were encoded in the DEC system by combining them with the
ZERO key. Since I could never remember whether the zero came first
or last, my program accepted either encoding.
Now, the fun begins... The SHARP key was used for control characters:
#1 Z == end of file (CTRL/Z at Dec), #2 C == CTRL/C,
#3 D == Delete (rubout), #6 O == CTRL/O (Cancel output)
#7 R == Retype line (CTRL/R) #7 U == CTRL/U (Delete line)
## == Carriage return.
The STAR key was used for control functions. Lauren and I
implemented case shifts and locks and numeric, control, and 8-bit
octal input. There was also a punctuation mode (courtesy of Lauren)
whereby the next three button pushes were interpreted as a graphic
character. For example, 365 (DOL) for '$', 758 (PLU) for '+', 277
(BSP) for backspace, etc. Many characters had several definitions.
For example '<' was both 522 (LAN) and 535 (LES). Finally, there
were a few predefined messages:
910 Logout
911 MAIL
990 run games:dungeon
While it was a nice toy and a fun demo, and once in a while was very
useful, the amount of button pushing you had to go through was
extremely frustrating. Also, the quality of the Votrax voice was
not satisfactory for anything more than games playing.
I'd appreciate hearing with anyone with ideas on improving this
system; especially someone who would have no other access to a
computer.
Finally, the IBM voice mail system uses the keypad to enter user
names. They use the digits (MINOW would be entered 64669) as a hash
function. On the IBM system, Q is on the 7 key (PQRS) and Z on the
9 key (WXYZ).
Martin Minow
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jan 83 16:42:43 EST (Thu)
From: Chris Torek
Subject: Worldnet & Lawyers
I feel that if there is to be a legal stand on whether computer mail
is to be considered the "written word" or the "spoken word", we're
going to have to call it the latter. I certainly wouldn't write
down a lot of the things that I type in. (But then, I don't like
writing anyway. I type everything -- it's easier [at least with a
computer!].)
------------------------------
Date: 21 January 1983 04:08 est
From: SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Changing face of u-Computing.
I have to agree with POURNE at MIT-MC, it is NOT "too late for
parents" and one of the biggest problems is that a lot of stuff is
not explained in English. Arguing that most of us are not
automobile mechanics is not valid, using a car effectively does NOT
involve knowing how to take it apart, but rather how to make it do
exactly what you want. Anyone who tells me I cannot direct dial to
London because I don't even know if my call is sent via cable or
satellite is incorrect, because I can, just as I can use calculus
with almost NO knowledge of analysis.
As far as language goes I keep finding that I can rephrase things in
English and make myself understood, even when explaining rather
complex issues (e.g. data compression, garbage collection,
inheritance of procedural information). The description often does
sound "funny" and possibly stilted and reminds me of the plain
language automobile insurance policy my insurance company sent me.
Not only did they leave out all the "pursuants" and give the
sections names instead of numbers but they actually made it clear
that they would pay for my new windshield and not stick me for the
$250 deductible. Let's face it, I can tell a carpenter that my door
is off the hinges and let him worry about the gudgeon and the
pintel.
------------------------------
Date: 21 January 1983 04:47 EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle
Subject: The changing face of Micro-computing...
Anything not worth doing is not worth doing well.
Anything worth doing well is worth doing for money
------------------------------
Date: 23 January 1983 03:57 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: changing face of Micro-computing / have to learn too much
Subject: first
It seems to me if information databases were properly structured and
had adequate access methods, one wouldn't have to "learn a lot more
than really necessary" to get some task done. It should be possible
to ask a question "how do I do ...?" and get back a precise answer.
If any terminology is unknown or if the overall frame is unfamiliar,
it should be possible to ask for definitions of the terminology or
for general background information or to ask specific questions
about the frame. It shouldn't be necessary to first learn immense
crud and only then get an answer to the original question.
The world-net should include an information system that includes
everything precisely known by anyone who either published it
traditionally or added it directly to the information database, and
which permits top-down learning, ask the question and get a direct
answer and fill in any gaps immediately later rather than first
learn all the gaps and last the precise answer.
Has anybody experimented with a top-down question-answering
database, on the net or elsewhere? I'd like to see the idea tried.
------------------------------
Date: 23 January 1983 04:05 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: The changing face of Micro-computing / jargon vs. english
Regarding the dilemma, if you use jargon nobody can understand it,
if you don't the answer comes out muddled. The solution is:
(See my top-down answer-to-question message I sent to Pournelle and
humnet.) Answer with jargon when necessary, but plenty of precise
technical language. True hack jargon like half the junk in the AI
Jargon file (glork, jiffie, state-of-the-worldP, etc.) shouldn't be
used, but nice precise words like "algorithm" and "process" and
"pipeline" certainly should be used where appropriate rather than
trying to find common English words to replace them. Then provide
definitions for any terminology (jargon or technicalese) the student
doesn't already know and can't guess at from context. -- It'll take
some training for a student to get used to filling in the blanks by
his/her action of asking a lot of questions, rather than just
accepting the definition as presented without understanding it, but
ultimately this teaching method should work fine.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jan 1983 09:35:16-EST
From: John McLean
Subject: infinite memory
Assuming that memory works by changing a (finite number of) discrete
parts (neurons, atoms, or whatever) of a human in one of a finite
number of ways, then memory must be finite. Further, I'm not sure
how else memory could work. However, neither am I sure what a claim
of finite memory amounts to.
My confusion stems from the fact that I can *in theory* recognize an
infinite number of integers. (Of course the above argument
establishes that, in fact, there are numbers large enough that even
if I could live long enough to compare them digit by digit, I could
not tell them apart). It may be objected that I only memorized a
finite number of rules that enabled me to "memorize" an infinite
number of integers, but that's what conceptualization is all about.
The point might be more convincing if I learned the integers by
being shown all of them and memorized them all by subconsciously
abstracting the rules for myself. But how could I ever be shown an
infinite number of integers in a finite time, given that I need a
discrete amount of time for each one to register? More generally,
how can anyone ever be exposed to an infinite amount of discrete
information that must be memorized?
Since I assume that psychologists must have the concepts of memory,
information, etc. more pinned down than I do, I would appreciate any
response that would clear up my confusion.
Thanks,
john
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jan 1983 0935-PST
From: LAWS at SRI-AI
Subject: Dot Pattern Memory
I have read about a man who has memorized the entire night sky as
visible through powerful binoculars. He scans the sky for hours
nearly every night, and has discovered several comets and other
events. (He regrets one near miss where a patch of the sky just
didn't look right, but he was unable to identify the interloper. A
Japanese astronomer got credit for the discovery.)
I am sure that the variable brightnesses of the stars, and
particularly the visible/normally invisible distinction, were a
great help in learning the star patterns.
-- Ken Laws
------------------------------
Date: 22 Jan 1983 1533-EST
From: "FLOPPY::MRBILL c/o"
Subject: New Interactive Job Search Service
Of course, it was only a matter of time...
A new radio add has been blitzing the Boston area this week,
advertising a new job search service. The adds sparked my
curiosity, and I called up the service for further information.
This new service is a dial-up computer. A job seeker simply logs
into a "large mainframe computer," and starts searching the
"electronic data base" for a dream job. They claim to have listings
from companies ranging from the Fortune 500 to new startups.
Strict confidentiality is guaranteed. To register for the service,
simply call up the service, and they will provide you with an
account number (not name!) and password. From that point on it's
you, your terminal, and their computer. (And $15 for every 2 hours
of connect time.)
When you login, the service is menu driven. You can enter the type
of job that you are looking for. Presumably, it is a "check of the
box(s) that most closely match what you are looking for" type of
thing, but with a menu structure.
Any job descriptions matching your interests will be displayed. If
you have any additional questions on any of the listings, you can
send electronic mail directly to the company that submitted the
listing, and receive a reply "within minutes(!???)" If you are
interested in the job, you can release your resume to the company.
(There are on-line resume creation aids.) Your resume is strictly
your own. It will not be released to any company unless you request
it.
Computers have often been used by job services and headhunters, but
this is the first that I have heard of job seekers allowed hands on
interactive computing. Has anyone out there ever used a service
like this?
-mr. bill
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa (Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #7
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-02-07 23:58:33 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 7 Feb 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 7
Today's Topics:
Technology - EFT (2 msgs) & WorldNet (3 msgs),
Programming - Unix (5 msgs),
Computers and People - Human Memory Capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 5 January 1983 06:39-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: EFT etc.
Tonight I got robbed at knifepoint. They took my wallet with cash
and credit cards after threatening me with the knife and then
punching me in the face giving me a big bloody nose. I yearn for the
days when we'll not have to carry cash or credit cards, when
finances will be done electronically by password, so there'll be no
incentive for street robbery.
------------------------------
Date: 6 January 1983 23:24-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: along the lines of EFT??
Sigh, I got my broken nose fixed up (just a little chip broken loose
near the top) then renewed my driver's license to replace the one in
the stolen wallet. I then went to Macy's to try to buy a new wallet
since it was a pain to keep dollar bills loose in a pocket and coins
in a little paper envelop in another. But with my automated teller
card stolen I couldn't draw out cash, and Macy's wouldn't let me pay
by check (need two forms of ID, one with picture and other a major
credit card) nor by Macy's credit card (by the time initial
footsying around with them was done it was after 5pm so they
couldn't even set me up with a temporary credit card), so I'm still
without a wallet.
I don't like the current system where one must carry around papers
to prove you are a valid person and if you get robbed you are a
non-person for several weeks until your driver's license (6 weeks)
and credit cards (2-3 weeks) are re-issued. Why can't they accept
thumbprints as an alternate way of identifying people? Or why can't
they connect with TRW or other major credit firm and identify I'm
really me by asking me personal questions that aren't known to
anybody except me and the credit agencies? I hope things get better
not worse in the future. Of course like I said before, not having to
carry around cash would reduce the incentive to get robbed in the
first place, and as I'm adding now, if everybody carried around a
little radio transmitter that detected your pushing a button
(explicit emergency) or falling to the ground or losing vital
functions (implicit emergency) and sent out a call for help, maybe
we'd be able to deter crime by catching all muggers immediately when
they try anything.
Anybody want to brainstorm about how such things might be done with
packet radio or whatever, using current technology plus the effort to
create an actual network in various high-crime areas and
high-population cities? Anybody want to warn about some of the
Orwell-style misuses possible with what I claim I want?
------------------------------
Date: 27 January 1983 04:50 EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle
Subject: Changing face of u-Computing.
Well said. My point precisely, stated somewhat better than I put
it. My father owned radio stations most of his life, but he never
knew anything about electronics. I can change sparkplugs without
knowing much about the theory of Kettering ignition and how the
distributor works.
The Epson QX-10 is a case in point. The software isn't
implemented yet, but when it is, damned near ANYONE will be able to
use the machine to do a LOT..
------------------------------
Date: 31 January 1983 02:58 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Worldnet & Lawyers
I'm afraid I have to disagree and say that keyboard entry and CRT
reading is more like written word than like spoken word because it
uses representations of written letters an spelling conventions
instead of representations of spoken phonetics. Of course in
languages that have phonetic written languages this distinction
breaks down, but if we use English and other non-phonetic languages
as testbed we indeed find they all use written language rather than
phonetics. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
------------------------------
Date: 6 Feb 83 17:40:35 EST (Sun)
From: Chris Torek
Subject: Re: Worldnet & Lawyers
From: Robert Elton Maas
I'm afraid I have to disagree and say that keyboard entry
and CRT reading is more like written word than like spoken
word because it uses representations of written letters an
spelling conventions instead of representations of spoken
phonetics. Of course in languages that have phonetic written
languages this distinction breaks down, but if we use
English and other non-phonetic languages as testbed we
indeed find they all use written language rather than
phonetics. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
I think that's irrelevant. The trouble is that keyboard entry is
more like written things since it is easily reproduced. Once you've
said something, then (unless someone has a tape recorder) it's gone.
If you've written it, then it's there on paper, evidence. This
makes (for example) the distinction between libel and slander.
Something you've said can be slanderous, whereas if you'd written it
it'd be libelous. (I could easily have those backwards. I'm not a
lawyer.) You might claim this is splitting hairs, but it's what
makes lawyers rich. Anyway, my point is that while stuff I type is
more like something written than something said, in that it can be
reproduced, it's less like it in that I'm much more CAREFUL about
what I write than what I type in. I'd rather not be charged for
libel against Foobar if I sent e-mail to the net saying "Foobar's
widgets are worthless."
------------------------------
Date: 24 Jan 1983 1136-MST
From: Walt
Subject: Re: TOPS-20 vs VMS vs UNIX
One OS environment that Tony forgot to enumerate is
real-time process control. VMS appears to me to be superior to Unix
for this application. The ideal combination in this environment
would be, as Gail Zacharias pointed out, VMS with a Unix emulator to
keep the hackers happy.
------------------------------
Date: 24 Jan 83 09:13:38 PST (Mon)
From: sdcsvax!sdchema!donn at Ucb-C70
Subject: VMS emulation on UNIX
Speaker-to-Animal's point (Vol 6, #5) that no one would want to use
VMS facilities when they had UNIX is not quite enough to explain why
VMS has never been emulated under UNIX. There are in fact some
utilities that VMS has which users miss under UNIX. One of these is
VMS's highly optimizing FORTRAN compiler. Unfortunately DEC is much
more secretive about source code than Bell is, so much so that it is
close to impossible to buy machine-readable source for most VMS
programs. Hence the route which most UNIX emulations on VMS follow
fails for VMS emulations on UNIX: you can't get the source. Our
group at UCSD has coveted the FORTRAN compiler for some time and at
one point we proposed to DEC that we would write a program for UNIX
which would take VMS object modules and convert them into UNIX
modules which we could then load with a compatibility library and
run under UNIX. This would allow DEC to sell VMS FORTRAN and other
compilers to UNIX sites which they would otherwise fail to make any
money off of, and it would specifically let us dump VMS on the only
remaining machine here which runs it. DEC in its infinite wisdom
foresaw that they would make less money from sales to UNIX sites
than would cover the costs of many sites dumping VMS (like us), so
they have refused to give us objects or even symbol table layouts.
So much for VMS emulation.
Donn Seeley UCSD Chemistry Dept. RRCF ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdchema!donn
(619) 452-4016 sdamos!donn@nprdc
------------------------------
Date: 27 Jan 1983 1937-PST
Subject: VMS vs Unix
From: Mike Leavitt
Why would I want to run VMS under Unix? Well, I would like it
because there is commercial applications software that I need that
is not (yet) available under Unix, and the systems types (pace JB)
who make such decisions for our agency's leaders have determined
that Unix running under VMS is "just too slow." Give me one or the
other -- that's not too much to ask!
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 1983 2306-PST
Subject: [Michael C. Greenspon : Re: RSTS
Subject: dies?]
From: Ian H. Merritt
I received this interesting tidbit this evening, and thought it
relavent to the recent discussion on the subject of UNIX vs VMS vs
TOPS-20 vs ...
<>IHM<>
---------------
Return-path: @MIT-MC:ZZZ.MCG@MIT-OZ
Date: 29 Jan 1983 2321-EST
From: Michael C. Greenspon
Subject: Re: RSTS dies?
To: NCP.EGK at SU-GSB-HOW at STANFORD-GATEWAY
cc: gutfreund.umass-coins at UDEL-RELAY, info-rsts at MIT-MC,
merritt at USC-ISIB
Hey, watch it! I'll be the first to admit that RSTS is old,
generally ugly, and very stupid about lots of things, but it IS
hackable. UNIX is equally, if not more, ugly, stupid, etc., and is
also hackable. The difference is that in order to get UNIX to do
ANYTHING even REMOTELY USEFUL it MUST be hacked. Of course, if you
like case significance and an operating system designed around the
same mindless philosophy, go ahead and use stock UNIX. For now, on
PDP-11s, I'll stick to hacking RSTS.
Flame, flame, MCG
P.S. I suppose when the [rest of the] world gets color workstations,
someone will hack up a UNIX shell that is not only case significant,
but font significant, color significant, etc... Lotsa luck.
------------------------------
Date: 30 January 1983 16:57 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: TOPS-20 vs VMS vs UNIX
Funny how the meaning of "hacker" changes from day to day according
to the needs of the person writing the message or article that
contains that word. By some standards I'm a hacker, yet I don't
spend lots of time modifying my user interface (HACTRN and init
files here on ITS). I wonder if there's any real concensus what the
word "hacker" means? Does it mean:
- Somebody who spends long hours modifying the user interface?
(Used this way in the message I'm replying to)
- Somebody who learns the innards of programming systems in
order to take advantage of optimizations and special methods
that aren't described in an documentation? (A favorite MIT
definition I've heard.)
- Somebody who likes computers and dislikes humans so much he
avoids all social contact? (Used this way in an article in a
trade journal last summer.)
- Somebody who writes programs by hook or crook to make them
work without necessarily organizing the programs in clean ways
and without conforming to any programming standards or using
standard algorithms for solving the tasks? (My favorite
definition.)
Meta comment -- A common way to lie is to have a word defined two
different ways. First we prove one definition fits the circumstance
at hand. Then we start using the word without reminding people
which definition we're using. Finally we start slipping to the
other definition, "proving" things based on that definition. I fear
this practice, already common in politics, may slip into our
discussions if we aren't careful.
So, I'd like to hear from you all, what you think the best
definition of "hacker" should be. Send your replies directly to me
and if I get enough of them I'll edit a summary and send it out to
the list.
------------------------------
Date: 30 January 1983 1649-EST (Sunday)
From: Alex.Rudnicky at CMU-CS-A
Subject: human memory
Some time ago, someone on this list stated that the ability to
memorize large random-dot patterns provides evidence that humans can
store large amounts of (visual) information. In fact, there is
considerable doubt that this is the case. The experiment in
question is reported by Stromeyer & Psotka [Nature,1970,v.225,
p.346]. The experiment involved the binocular fusion of Julesz
patterns ( two slightly different random-dot patterns are presented,
one to each eye, the disparity is such that viewers see a
(binocular) three-dimensional figure emerge from the pattern. Same
principle as 3D movies, only a meaningful image cannot be extracted
from just one pattern.) "Normal" viewers can integrate such
patterns presented in temporal sequence, but only if the patterns
follow one another within about 150 msec. The individual described
by Stromeyer&Psotka claimed to fuse patterns presented up to 3 days
apart (depending on the number of dots involved). The experiments
have never been replicated. I have also been told, by someone
acquainted with the individuals involved, that there is a good
chance that the young woman in question, by all accounts
exceptionally intelligent, may have been able to bluff her way
through the whole thing (in any case, shortly after the experiment,
she claimed to have "lost" her ability). Even if no deception was
involved, it is by no means clear that the amount of information
retained by the viewer is equal to the number of dots in a pattern.
In his own work, Julesz reports that fusion effects can be obtained
even when the patterns are substantially blurred (ie, every single
dot need not be remembered, low-frequency information is
sufficient.)
Incidentally, several people have described memory capacity in terms
of the number of (eg) pixels in a glance, etc. This is not the
correct way to describe how humans gather information. Think about
it. You do not perceive the world in terms of pixels. You are not
aware of the individual receptors on your retina, nor of the
impulses traveling along the optic nerve. Human processing is
highly selective, it does not retain the raw products of sensation.
You experience and remember objects, ie meaningful entities, but not
their meaningless (and much more numerous) constituents.
In a slightly different vein, I find that discussions of "how big is
human memory" are essentially beside the point. Mere capacity is
not what makes human memory interesting. How is it organized, how
is knowledge stored and retrieved, how does forgetting take place?
These are the questions that need to be answered.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa (Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #8
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-02-11 01:42:54 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 8 Feb 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 8
Today's Topics:
Queries - CrossTalk,
Technology - Networking (2 msgs),
Computers and People - Turing Test (3 msgs) &
Information Systems & Definition of Algorithm,
Humor - VALGOL & Real Programmers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 31 December 1982 04:01-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle
Subject: CrossTalk
I have heard that CROSSTALK was originally written by Larry Hughes.
I have no confirmation of this. Anyone KNOW the situation?
JEP
------------------------------
Date: 22 January 1983 04:23 EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle
Subject: Personal computers used now in newspaper writing
I can now send in my BYTE columns by computer, although it is a bit
cheaper to send them by mail, given the distance to Hapshire even at
middle of night 300 baud slowness costs....
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jan 83 13:11-EST (Tue)
From: Steven Gutfreund
Subject: ScienceNet
Does anyone know about ScienceNet? It is due to come up this spring
with many universities and government institutions (NASA, etc.)
It is a mail-only system based on TelNet. I guess my query really
is: Will it be possible to talk to them via ARPA or the CSNET/TELNET
gateway?
- Steven Gutfreund
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jan 83 19:27:13 EST (Mon)
From: Bruce Israel
Subject: Turing Test finally met!
As you are probably all aware, TIME magazine normally reserves its
year-end issue for its man of the year issue. This year, TIME has
chosen the computer for this honor. Since the editors of TIME have
chosen the computer as their ' "man" of the year ', they obviously
cannot distinguish between a computer and a human being. Therefore,
the basic conditions of the Turing test (that an intelligent human
finds a computer indistinguishable from a human being) has been
satisfied.
------------------------------
Date: Fri 7 Jan 83 19:56:56-PST
From: Richard Treitel
Subject: Re: Turing Test finally met! :-)
Well, I take exception to Bruce Israel's claim, on rather obvious
grounds (see the penultimate word of the penultimate line of his
message). Moreover (treading on thinner ice here) it can hardly be
claimed that the Turing test has been passed, if there is one human
who cannot be distinguished from a computer by other humans (though
I admit this wasn't what Time magazine was saying ...)
- Richard
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jan 83 10:47:09 EST (Sun)
From: Andrew Scott Beals
Subject: Re: Turing Test finally met!
Who says that the editors of TIME are intelligent humans?
------------------------------
Date: 24 Jan 83 14:42-EST (Mon)
From: Steven Gutfreund
Subject: EPCOT and WORLD-KEY information system
I recently visited Disney's EPCOT (Experimental Planned Community Of
Tomorrow) and I recommend taking the time to go there. There are
many things of interest to a Computer Scientist, (or just your
average human-type). But, of particular interest to WORLD-NET
enthusiasts among HUMAN-NETS readers will be the information system:
WORLD-KEY.
WORLD-KEY was designed by "the BELL system" and it basically looks
like there has been some heavy borrowing from DATALAND type systems
like Negraponte's and Christopher Herot's.
All information is basically pictoral and organized as a network.
One can browse via four different perspectives: keyword, context,
physical location, or category. For instance: In physical location
mode, one can wonder around a map of the physical grounds, enter a
pavilion, find a restaurant in the pavilion, then choose to look at
the menu. If one likes what one reads, you can then get a human
operator on the screen and ask her for a reservation, (or any other
questions you may have).
Interface is via a touch sensitive screen. There are many terminals
scattered through EPCOT, all are tied via fiber optics to videodisks
and central computer (honeywell). Videodisks are used because of
their fast random access seek time, and the need for exciting
animation. The Introductory lesson on WORLD-KEY usage is a typical
Disneyism: A Yellow square with a cute voice, no face or body but
big hands, says "TOUCH-ME", and zings around the screen telling you
about the WORLD-KEY features. This sort of animation would have been
very tough if it had to be computer generated. The Video disks allow
them to have high-quality graphics and animation and still support
many terminals.
For many years I have been "soap-boxing" and preaching the DATALAND
approach. So, technically I did not find WORLD-KEY that novel.
Indeed I could see the Bell engineers have a lot to learn, and would
probably benefit greatly by reading WORKS.
Nevertheless, it is extremely satisfying to actually see this
approach out in the public and being used. Indeed, I got many
opportunities to watch people (long lines would form near them).
And even I was impressed at how quickly and skillfully people of all
ages (including a hefty percentage of florida retirees) could master
such a system and were regularly using it for practical purposes.
------
Most of EPCOT is now finished. There still remains some
international exhibits to be built (and HORIZONS: and exhibit about
about space colonies). Some of the exhibits are your typical sit
down and listen while GM tells you how great wheels are. But there
are many standouts: Kodak has computer assisted do-it-yourself
artwork and design, Kraft was into novel agricultural experiments,
etc. and international exhibits like China and Japan are bound to
attract (though they tend to be made mostly of imported stores
staffed by native employees).
All-in-all I heartily recommend the trip, especially if you mix in a
trip to Daytona Beach or the Kennedy Space Center. (Orlando is your
typical burgeoning high-tech area. I went there 4 years ago on a
plant interview and things have skyrocketed since then, I was most
impressed).
Steven Gutfreund
------------------------------
Date: 15 January 1983 03:24-EST (Saturday)
From: _Bob
Subject: Definition of 'Algorithm'
There is a local BBoard on RU-GREEN called ENGLISH, which tries
to track down the source and meaning of computer-related natural
language. The following entry there might be of general interest to
the readers of HN.
_Bob
The following is the OED entry for 'algorithm.' An attempt is
made here to reproduce in ASCII the typographic content of the
original, using the conventions of SCRIBE. Special pronounciation
key characters and Arabic characters are omitted. Two special
Anglo-Saxon characters are shown as 'th.'
Note that 'algorithm' means something quite different from what
is intended in common usage: A numbering system that employs zero.
It is a man's name. And it is usually mispelled because of
conflation with the root of 'arithmetic.'
@b{Algorism} ... Forms: @g{a.} 3-6 @b{augrim(e, 4 -ym, 5 -ime,
-yme, awgrym, algram, 6 agrym(e, -ime, 7 agrum, algrim.} @g(b.)
4-6 @b{algorisme, 5 -ysme, algarism, 6 algorosme, aulgorimse(e,
augrisme, 7-9 algorism, algorithm.} [a, OFr, @i{augorisme,
algorisme, aurgorime}; ad. med. L. @i{algorism-us} (cf. Sp.
@i{guarismo} cipher), f. Arab. ... @i{al-Khowarazmi}, the
@i{native of Khwarazm Khiva}), surname of the Arab mathematician
Abu Ja'far Mohammed Ben Musa, who flourished early in the 9th c.,
and through the translation of whose works on Algebra, the Arabic
numerals became generally known in Europe. (Cf. '@i{Euclid}' =
plane geometry.) @i{Algorisme} being popularly reduced in OFr.
to @i{augorime}, the English also shows two forms, the popular
@i{augrime}, ending in @i{agrim, agrum}, and the learned
@i{algorism} which passed through many pseudo-etymological
perversions, including a recent @i{algorithm} in which it is
learnedly confused with Gr. @g{arithmos} 'number.']
The Arabic, or decimal system of numeration; @i{hence},
arithmetic. @i{Numbers of algorism}, the Arabic or Italian
numerals. @i{Cypher in algorism}, the figure 0; a 'mere
cipher,' a dummy.
c@b{1230} @i{Ancr. R.} 214 [He] maketh therinne figures
of augrim, ase theor rikenares doth the habbeth muchel uorto
rikenen. @b{1340} @i{Ayenb.} I The capiteles of the boc..
byeth ywryte..by the tellynge of algorisme. c@b{1391} @c{Chaucer}
@i{Astrol.} (1872) 5 Ouer the wiche degrees ther ben nowmbres
of augrym. @b{1393} @c{Gower} @i{Conf.} III. 89 Of arsmetique
the matere Is..What algorisme in nombre amounteth. @b{1399}
@c{Langl.} @i{Rich. Redeless} IV. 53 As siphre..in awgrim,
That noteth a place and no thing availith. @b{1483} @i{Cath.
Ang.}, Algarism (@i{v.r.} Algram); @i{algarismus, abacus}
@b{1530} @c{Palsgr.} 476/2 I cast an accomptes with counters
after the aulgorisme maner. @i{Ibid.} 684/2, I reken, I
counte by cyfers of agrym. @b{1532} @c{More} @i{Conf. Barnes}
VIII. Wks. 1557, 772/1 Mysse-prytynge those fygures of
Algorisme, because the figure of .9. and the figure of .6.
be in all maner one, if thei be contrary turned. @b{1542}
@b{Recorde} @i{Gr. Artes} (1575) 40 Corruptlye written..
Augrim for algorisme, as the Arabians sounde it. @b{1549}
@c{Chaloner} @i{Erasm. Moriae. Enc.) L iij b, Other men
stande for no more than Ciphres in Algorisme. @b{1561}
@c{T. N[orton]} @i{Calvin's Inst.} (1634) Pref. 3, I have..
quoted the Sections also by their due number with the
usual figure of Algorisme. @b{1553-87) @c{Foxe} @i{A.&M.}
III. 265 As a Cypher in Agrime. @b{1566} @c{Drant} @i{Hor.
Sat.} ii. B 2 As well by augrisme tell the gravell of
the sea. @b{1591} @c{Garrard} @i{Art Warre} Good knowledge
in Mathematikes specially in Algarosme, Algebra, and
Geometrie. @b{1593} @b{Peele} @i{Edw. I}, 84 Neither one,
two, nor three, but a poor cypher in agrum. @b{1625}
@c{L'Isle} @i{Du Bartas} 140 The treasures hoard of Algrim
mysteries. @b{1699} @i{Phil. Trans.} XXI. 262 The Indian
Algorism (or Calculation by the Numeral Figures now in use).
@i{Ibid.} 263 The Algorithm or Numeral Figures now in use.
@b{1774} @c{T. Wharton} @i{Hist. Eng. Poetry} 46 The first
who brought the algorithm from the Saracens. @b{1837}
@c{Hallam} @i{Hist. Lit.} I. I. ii. Sec. 30. 114 Matthew
Paris observes tht in Greek..any number may be represented
by a single figure, which is not the case in Algorism.
@b{1852} @c{R. Grant} @i{His. Phys. Astron.} Introd. 9
The ingenious algorithm of the Indians. @b{1861} @c{T. Wright}
@i{Ess. Archeol. II. xv. 70 The figures of the algorismus
are identical in every respect with the characters of the
abacus.
@i{Attrib.} @b{algorism-stones}, counters.
c@b{1386} @c{Chaucer} @i{Millere's T.} 24 His augrym
stoones, leyen faire apart. @g{a} @b{1535} @c{More}
@i{Let.} (J.), I send now to my good daughter Clement her
algorisme stone.
* * *
@b(Algorithm), erron. refashioning of @c{Algorism}.
The Oxford English Dictionary ('OED') is a revision of ''A New
English Dictionary on Historical Principles Founded Mainly on the
Materials Collected by the Philological Society,'' published between
l884 and 1928. It is the principal research dictionary of the
English language. The Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary, 1st
Ed. (basis for the 2d. Ed. and the current 3d. Ed.) is essentially
an abridgement of the OED.
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jan 1983 at 0852-PST
Subject: VALGOL
From: zaumen at SRI-TSC
Re: Ondrya Wolfson's message about VALGOL
It would appear that VALGOL is the first computer language based on
a content-free grammar, as opposed to the more common context-free
grammars.
------------------------------
Date: 3 February 1983 01:47 EST
From: Richard P. Wilkes
Subject: Real Programmers
Thought that you all might find this interesting...
'Real Programmers' Don't Eat From Vending Machines
by Jean Tricebock, ComputerWorld Nov 1, 1982
We are all aware now, thanks to the book by the same name,
that Real Men don't eat quiche.
The premise of the book is that a Real Man is the male
individual who successfully copes with all the assaults of
modern society on his sanity, private life, personal space, and
wallet.
Well, all that's fine, but how does all of this relate to
the Real Programmer?
At one time, the Real Programmer worked quietly in his own
provate world, unhindered by the necessity to maintain
congenial interpersonal relations or to explain his work to
some interested party (such as an analyst).
But now the programmer must cope with group leaders,
quality assurance analysts, walk-throughs and performance
reviews, not to mention structured specifications, time-sharing
services, interdepartmental communications, dress for success
and recalcitrant soda machines.
Are you a real programmer?
- Real Programmers don't number paragraph names
consecutively.
- Real Programmers do not grumble about the disadvantages
of Pascal when they don't know any other language.
- Real Programmers print only clean compiles, fixing all
errors through the terminal.
- Real Programmers are kind to rookies.
- Real Programmers are secure enough to write readable
code, which they then self-righteously refuse to explain.
- Real Programmers don't play video games; they write
them.
- Real Programmers do not eat breakfast from vending
machines.
- Real Programmers punch up their own programs.
- Real Programmers have read the standards manual, but
won't admit it.
- Real Programmers don't dress for success unless they are
trying to convince others that they are going on interviews.
- Real Programmers do not practice four syllable words
before walk-throughs.
- Real Programmers argue with the systems analyst as a
matter of principle.
- Real Programmers drink too much coffee so that they will
always seem tense and overworked.
- Real Programmers always have a better idea.
- Real Programmers can do octal, hexadecimal and binary
math in their heads.
- Real Programmers do not write memos.
- Real Programmers do not utter profanities at elevated
decibel levels.
- Real Programmers do not apply DP terminology to non-DP
situations.
- Real Programmers do not read books like Effective
Listening and Communication Skills.
{Tricebock is a systems analyst}
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa (Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #9
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-02-16 22:25:16 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 14 Feb 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 9
Today's Topics:
Queries - Intelligent Interfaces to Operating Systems &
PC Uses for the Handicapped & Unix on Burroughs,
Response to Queries - Crosstalk,
Programming - Unix (5 msgs),
Computers and People - Information Systems (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 Feb 1983 at 1322-CST
From: KM<
Subject: Reply to: human-nets digest v6 #8
I am compiling a bibliography of intelligent interfaces to
operating systems (intelligent help systems, programmer's assistants
at an OS level, self adapting user interfaces, command language
"coaches", etc.). A pointer to your favorite work in this area would
be appreciated. If there is enough response, I will summarize and
post the results. Thanks-
Kim Korner
korner at utexas-11
cc.korner at utexas-20
------------------------------
Date: Fri 11 Feb 83 10:59:49-PST
From: Guillermo A. Loyola
Subject: PC uses for the handicapped.
I'd like to hear from anybody doing work in the area of Personal
Computer uses by handicapped persons. We have a coworker with
cerebral palsy. Some software has been written for him using a
speech synthesizer but a lot more is needed. The guy who wrote the
software (who has no access to the net, but I can set up the
contacts) would really start a dialog with people working in this
areas.
Please replay to me directly with a U.S. Mail address and/or phone
number. Thanks.
Guillermo.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Feb 83 0:07:46-EST (Wed)
From: Randall Gellens
Subject: Unix on Burroughs?
I've heard, at various times, rumors of attempts to get some sort of
Unix running on Burroughs (large) systems (B5000, B6000, B70000).
Anyone know of any actual attempts?
------------------------------
Date: 13 Feb 83 17:00:26-EST (Sun)
From: the soapbox of Gene Spafford
Subject: CrossTalk
Les Freed and Bob Strong wrote the first version of CrossTalk in
1978 for a Northstar computer. The first CP/M version was circa
fall 1980. The current version of CrossTalk runs on over 80 CP/M
machines, and a major revision is currently underway, principally
for 16 bit micros. Les has been the maintainer of CrossTalk for
years.
Les Freed's company which markets CrossTalk is
Microstuf
1845 The Exchange
Atlanta, GA 30339
(404) 952-0267
Larry Hughes is the author of C-Link, another terminal emulator for
micros.
-- Gene
------------------------------
Date: 7 Feb 1983 12:46:20-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: re VMS vs UNIX
I'm not sure what you mean about real-time process control; I've
just spent a weekend tying up several terminals on a VMESS because
even the hacker who wrote a chunk of the typesetting system I was
using couldn't get stuff to run in the background (the way I
trivially can on UNIX).
Also, I don't think of myself as a hacker (if I did, the people I
work with would soon correct me) and I found several other
disfeatures about VMESS---very limited typeahead, poor choice of
editors and the best of those subject to unpredictable hangups (on
cmd typos instead of just beeping that they don't understand), etc.
This seems true even on VAX VMESS as run at a DEC plant.
------------------------------
Date: 7 Feb 1983 1114-MST
From: Walt
Subject: Re: re VMS vs UNIX
I had specifically in mind the type of automated warehousing systems
I built for five and a half years. The main requirement was that
the behavior of the system be highly predictable AFTER the software
development phase was finished. Features such as demand paging and
"fairness" schedulers tend to make a system less predictable. Thus
if the system is required eg. to divert a pallet moving on a
conveyor belt within N milliseconds, having to share the processor
or main memory with an unpredictable software development load may
cause the pallet to be mishandled. This type of error can be
extremely expensive. Of course, the limited typeahead, bad editors
etc. also raise costs, specifically software development costs.
Hence my vote for a highly predictable OS with a better user
interface and utilities.
------------------------------
Date: 7 Feb 1983 14:43:16-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: re VMS vs UNIX
In response to your message of Mon Feb 7 13:17:24 1983:
I see we stumbled over the meaning of the word "process"---you
were speaking of mechanical processes rather than computer ones. I
would have thought that control on that level would not involve a
high-level OS at all, given the general trend toward distributed
processing (obviously different companies have different ways of
attacking CAM, but this is what I got from interviewing with
Gould-Modicon, which was specifically pushing programmable boxes to
replace hardwired relay setups).
------------------------------
Date: 7 Feb 1983 1456-MST
From: Walt
Subject: Re: re VMS vs UNIX
Good point. The company I worked for installed a number of such
distributed processing systems. However the big payout of the
systems that I worked on came from keeping inventory records
literally up to the millisecond. The micros attached to the
material handling machines were attached by fairly fast
communications links to the machine that maintained the inventory
database. The database machine in turn made all the material
movement decisions that required inventory information as either an
input or an output; for example, if a pallet of widgets was to be
detected and diverted down a conveyor spur, the inventory records
needed to be consulted to determine that pallet NNN was the one with
the widgets, and then the inventory records for widgets in stock had
to be updated as soon as the divert had taken place. If it seems
hard to understand why anybody would do things this way, the reason
is simple: money. One of the major costs in a material handling
operation is the cost of the uncertainty in how much inventory you
have, and where it is. Thus if you need to have quantity X of a
part to run your factory, and your material handling method
introduces an uncertainty of deltaX when it starts to move your
parts around, then you have to buy and pay for X+deltaX parts. The
system I described reduces deltaX by a factor of about ten over
manual methods, ie. it saves about .9*deltaX of your inventory.
This translates into a payback period as short as eighteen months in
some multiM$ systems that we put in. However, note that the whole
thing hinges on the CPU's being able to respond quickly and
predictably to the demands of the industrial process.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Feb 83 00:03:15 PST (Wed)
From: UCBARPA.fair@Berkeley (Erik E. Fair)
Subject: Fortran under VMS vs Fortran under Unix
The Computer Systems Research Group at UC Berkeley (The
people who brought you 4.? BSD Vax/Unix) were or are working on a
version of f77 which is supposed to be comparable to Fortran under
VMS. The last I heard about it was 6 months ago, and it was (I
think) in beta test, but it was supposed to be just a shade slower
than VMS Fortran. For info, contact David Mosher, Technical Manager
for CSRG at mosher@Berkeley, ucbvax!mosher or (415) 642-7780.
Besides, this gives me the chance to relate my VMS horror
story. I was trying to use a tape drive to change a 600' tape in
1600 bpi, into two 600' tapes in 800 bpi. I came out with one 1/4
full 600' tape in 800 bpi, with half the data that was left on the
tape being trashed. I have never touched VMESS since.
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@Berkeley
------------------------------
Date: Mon Feb 7 1983 18:27:23-PST
From: Lauren Weinstein
Subject: EPCOT and UNIX
I'm not too sure where the big Honeywell computer fits into the
EPCOT framework, but...
I had a phone conversation fairly recently with one of the Bell Labs
persons who worked on the EPCOT information display systems that
were discussed in a previous digest. He told me that they were
controlled by a large number of VAX 11/750's, all running Berkeley's
flavor of UNIX. There was also a presentation regarding the EPCOT
systems at the most recent UNIX ("Unicom") conference, so it appears
that UNIX is well entrenched in the Experimental Prototype Community
Of Tomorrow.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: 8 Feb 83 05:52:01 EST (Tue)
From: Mark Weiser
Subject: WorldKey at EPCOT.
World Key was cute, and it did help me find a place to eat one night
when my family was very hungry and every place was supposedly
closed. But it had a crucial flaw: it was a hierarchical menu
system, and some of the menu trees were rather deep, and there was
no way to get quick access to deep in the tree even if you knew
where to go. One could not walk up to one of these things with an
interest in an exhibit and get information about it without
wandering through a bunch of irrelevant questions first.
Furthermore, it had the classic problem that has been exhibited
experimentally in the British teletext systems: no multiple
pathing. The teletext experiments (Maguire, pp. 350-354,
conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems, March 1982) cite
the case of someone looking for the Red Fox Inn. Early in the
teletext menu they had to choose between looking for restaurants or
looking for hotels. It turns out that the Red Fox Inn was known to
some people as one and some people as another, but could only be
reached down the hotel path. (Looking again at the proceedings I
notice that this anecdote is only hinted at, so it is something I am
remembering from the talk.) World Key had the same problem. One
could not simply scan everything at a given geographical location,
but had to decide between entertainment and food (and some third
category) early on.
But it was fun to use the first couple times.
------------------------------
Date: 12 February 1983 23:33 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: EPCOT and WORLD-KEY information system
Return-path: <@MIT-AI,@MIT-MC:gutfreund.umass-coins@UDEL-TCP>
Date: 24 Jan 83 14:43-EST (Mon)
From: Steven Gutfreund
[Reply to message on WORKSTATIONS digest, re the "WORLD-KEY"
information system available at EPCOT:]
One can browse via four different perspectives: keyword, context,
physical location, or category.
I have long been aware that neither category (tree-structured
subject classification) nor keyword methods of access are sufficient
in themselves, and that physical location is often a useful third
access method or limiting method. In an integrated system, citation
links and reverse links are also useful. XANADU's approach of being
able to create citation links to segments of quoted text instead of
only to complete quoted documents, seems to be a winner, and I hope
other systems adopt it. When you refer to context, what do you mean,
citation links and the like, or something totally different?
[I took the liberty of CCing to HUMAN-NETS instead of WORKSTATIONS
because I'm discussing the information-retrieval aspect instead of
the fancy-display aspect.]
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa (Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #10
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-02-17 04:34:50 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 15 Feb 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 10
Today's Topics:
Technology - EFT (6 msgs),
Humor - Systems Analyst & Valgol
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 Feb 1983 0158-EST
From: ZALESKI%RU-GREEN@RUTGERS (Mike Zaleski [Secular Humanist])
Subject: EFT as a Crimestopper?
I am prompted to write by Mr. Maas' recent experiences with the
criminal element and his expressed interest in Electronic Funds
Transfer (EFT - the so called "cashless" society), and in some sort
of emergency signaling device that people could use in the event of
similar attacks.
First, noting that it is not reasonable to expect every candy
machine and video game is going to accept a universal master credit
card, let us instead examine the idea of a "less cash" society.
Now, I don't argue that less cash might lead to less crime, but I
have serious doubts that EFT is likely in the near future. Three
reasons: (1) The cost of setting up and maintaining such a system.
[Who will pay and why should those who pay - merchants and bankers -
be motivated to do so? After all, they pay a large initial cost for
a rather small gain.] (2) The technology for an UNQUESTIONABLY
reliable nationwide network is simply not there. [This is money,
not network mail that will be lost or stolen.] (3) The public does
not seem to have much demand or interest in such a system. [In
fact, we would be well advised to be wary of any system with the
potential for monitoring our every expense, our spending habits, and
ultimately our every movement.
Second, the emergency signaling device idea. The technology may be
available for this, but again I am wary. Again, something that can
monitor my every movement makes me nervous. But even a transmit
only device has its problems. First, the technical one of
monitoring and sorting out all the distress signals. The 911 number
in New York has problems with this now and I see no reason to expect
that any emergency paging system would have different results.
Second, unless the long arm of the law is right around the corner,
signaling for help will serve no purpose, as the perpetrators will
probably flee quickly. Finally, without some way of indicating some
detail about the emergency situation (i.e. auto accident, fire,
heart attack, crazed killer) such a device is unlikely to be of much
value. Just reporting "emergency at 7th Avenue and 34th Street"
isn't enough.
What I found most interesting about Mr. Maas' message is his
interest in the use of technology to make us less vulnerable or less
attractive to the criminal element. Yet, even if he had no cash,
Mr. Maas might still have been a prime target because he had a fancy
watch, an expensive jacket or some other article which cannot be
electronically filed away. Or, perhaps to the urban psychopaths
with whom he tangled part of the joy of the criminal act was simply
in beating him up. If I read the original message correctly, there
must have been at least two people taking on Mr. Maas - one armed
with a knife. Presumably under such circumstances little resistance
was offered and the only explanation for the bloody nose is that the
urban psychopaths enjoy beating people up. (Perhaps my analysis of
this particular incident is wrong. Nevertheless, there are
criminals out there who enjoy hurting others.) So what am I leading
up to...???
I suggest an application of 19th century technology is required
here. A rope, with a noose at the end, placed round the neck of
anyone convicted of three violent or armed criminal acts. Note that
the noose is at a height somewhat higher than the neck of the
multiply convicted criminal. This ultimately leads to the permanent
reform of those criminals who present the violent menace to our
society. I do not argue that this idea will reform, nor do I argue
that it will deter the first and second time offender. But what it
does - unquestionably - do is permanently remove a repeat offender
from society. And if repeat offenders are responsible for most
crime, every one that is executed makes society just a little safer.
Awaiting the backlash, -- Mike^Z (Zaleski%Green@Rutgers or
..mhtsa!pwbcc!mzal)
------------------------------
Date: 8 February 1983 22:42 EST
From: Thomas L. Davenport
Subject: EFT etc.
Robert, I understand how awful being robbed is. I have also been
robbed. However, I don't ever want to see the day that I can't use
cash, and must use some form of EFT. I don't want my identification
tacked on to every transaction that I make. Three cheers for the
underground economy!
-Tom-
------------------------------
Date: 9 Feb 83 00:06:09 PST (Wed)
From: UCBARPA.fair@Berkeley (Erik E. Fair)
Subject: EFT Theft
Around here, there is a new columnist in the paper, who
recently did a column on EFT theft. Modus Operandi: Thief comes up
to you (behind you, from side, etc), with some lethal weapon, and
says "Yer money, or yer life!". You, being a non-confrontational
soul, hand over your wallet. You, also being no dummy in \this/ part
of town, have no cash. Thief espies your Automatic Teller Machine
card, and demands your secret (password, number, ID, etc). You tell
him. Highly (intelligent, experienced, lucky, etc) thief takes you
to the nearest branch of (your bank here), up to the ATM, puts in
your card, and punches in your number. What you told him had better
be right, since your life depends upon it right now. Thief can now
draw on LOTS of money in $20 increments, up to your limit, whatever
that may be, until you can get to the bank, and cancel the card.
Point: EFT isn't really safe either.
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@Berkeley
------------------------------
Date: 10 February 1983 00:00 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: EFT etc.
No, I don't want to outlaw cash, I just want another option, doing
95% of my transactions using non-cash. Currently only about half my
transactions can be done by written check, which is time-consuming
and uncomfortable, and works only at stores that know you, and
almost none can be done by credit card. (Ever try to buy groceries
on Mastercard or VISA or any of the less common credit cards?)
------------------------------
Date: 8 Feb 83 23:50:00-EST (Tue)
From: Randall Gellens
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #7
In order to reduce crime, no one uses tangable instruments of
negotiation, relying instead on validated access to central credit
information and financial processing centers? Sounds awful to me.
Sure, we can eliminate crime to an arbitrary extent by
correspondingly eliminating personal freedoms, privacies, and
perogatives; sacrificing these to a powerful central authority.
I think too much has already occurred along these lines. If
victimless crimes were legalized, most of their ill effects would
vanish. If drugs could be freely purchased in pharmacies, assuring
the customer of standards of quality and price, then the violent
crime, disease, etc now associated with their present illegal use
would be gone. If prostitution were a legal, licensed, professional
practice, then the current conditions of exploitation, corruption,
and disease could be eliminated.
On the other hand, if someone gives me a check, I have trouble
cashing it (even at the bank on which it is drawn) without
presenting id and answering irrelevant questions. Supermarkets,
department stores, apartments, etc, all refuse to establish
accounts (check cashing cards, credit accounts, leases) without
disclosure of my social security number. Even though all
information necessary for the account (bank account, bad check
history, previous credit, lease etc handling) can all be verified
without it, they insist on it.
In a society such as REM desires, there would be no easy way to make
a private transaction (buying certain substances, publications, or
services) nor prevent disclosure of virtually all private
information (bank balance, credit history, transaction history, etc)
form persons both authorized (the "authorities") and not (clerks
etc). [Hey, Senator Sam buys "Orgies in the Casbah" magazine, buys
$850 of booze a week, and transfers $5k to "Jack Armstrong" every 2
weeks!]
------------------------------
Date: 13 Feb 83 17:35:14-EST (Sun)
From: the soapbox of Gene Spafford
Subject: Mugging
I finally saw the news item about your mugging.
I don't think EFT is going to take the place of cash, nor do I think
it will decrease the incidence of the type of crime you experienced.
First of all, there are so many types of transactions which depend
on pocket money I doubt that any form of EFT would meet with enough
approval to be successful. For instance, think of the whole class
of people who live on gratuities. With EFT they would be less
likely to get "keep the change" tips. They'd even have to account
for it to the IRS!
How about vending machines? Is it going to be worthwhile to set up
electronics and communications for each soda machine and every
cigarette machine? Doubtful. How about phone booths? Here in
Atlanta the trains and buses are entered with coins, not tokens.
How about all those nice tollway booths on the roads in NJ and
Virginia and the like (if you've never travelled up I-95 then you
may not be aware of how many quarters it takes for all those cars).
We also have our alternative economic forms to worry about. How are
pushers and pimps going to deal with electronic funds? Fences? Car
strippers? Politicians taking bribes?
This is just a first reaction. I'm not sure how many people would
feel secure knowing that their life savings have been reduced to
magnetic bits on disk somewhere. I realize that this is the current
state for some, but it is not the general case. And even if all our
funds and finances were to be done electronically, you would still
be worth mugging. There will always be types out there who will not
be able to afford your clothes, your watch or your shoes. There
will always be some who will covet your escort and want to take out
their hostility on you. In fact, if all you were carrying was
credit cards you might have been killed; that way, they could do a
little shopping spree without you reporting the cards as missing.
You made a suggestion about some kind of emergency beeper. I don't
think it is practical. It might be someday, or for very high-risk
individuals, but I doubt it. How would you determine if somebody
was eligible for one? Who would pay for it? If I were after
somebody with something like that, I'd just have four or five
friends in the area have theirs go off by "accident." By the time
things were sorted out, I'd have scored. I also know 20 or 30 ways
of incapacitating someone so they couldn't press a button, but they
wouldn't have any change of vital signs to trigger an implicit
alarm.
Crime is a problem that we need to solve, and not by minimizing our
losses, but by minimizing the criminal element. We don't do much in
this country to deal with the rage and frustration of people in
their 20's and 30's with families and no job. We spend billions on
weapons we never hope to use to "protect" them. We spend billions
more to prop up petty dictatorships in other countries. And our
poor see that their benefits shrink, more of them are unemployed,
their funds for education are cut, and their is talk of taxing what
little they are given.
I'm sorry you got mugged, and I hope you suffered no lasting damage.
I don't believe there is any excuse for one person to do damage to
another. I believe that our funds might be better spent eliminating
the things which drive people to crime, rather than developing
systems which would minimize our losses.
------------------------------
Date: 8 Feb 1983 2106-EST
From: John S. Labovitz
This was from some issue of ComputerWorld between July and November
1982, in another column by Jean Tricebook. I don't know how
applicable it is to the `hacker world,' but I think it's amusing.
*****
`REAL ANALYSTS' DON'T LOST SLEEP OVER WALKTHROUGHS
The person who was once a Real Programmer and is now struggling
to become a Real Analyst has a difficult transition to make. Like
it or not, he must organize and plan projects, attempting to please
such diverse groups as operations, programming and users. He's
probably already noticed that yelling at a programmer elicits a
response he never experienced when cursing at a terminal.
If he's been an analyst since the days when his work was
mysterious and his word was law, the analyst needs new guidance now.
In this age of structured walk-throughs, standards manuals and tech
bulletins, how is an analyst to cope?
Guidance is here. The suggestions below should help the
systems analyst get his act together -- and they are listed in
unstructured format:
- Real Analysts speak English.
- Real Analysts have read at least one Yourdon book (with
which they did not fully agree).
- Real analysts are not baffled by complex equipment, such
as the copier or telephone.
- Real Analysts do not lose sleep before a walk-through.
- Real Analysts say ``I don't know'' when they don't.
- Real Analysts understand the more exotic Cobol verbs,
but cannot get a simple WRITE statement to work.
- Real Analysts write in English.
- Real Analysts know who does what in operations.
- Real Analysts do not read code.
- Real Analysts always leave the user smiling.
- Real Analysts know what they are doing.
- Real Analysts know each of the unique names by which
operations, programming, users and management refer to the same
system.
- Real Analysts lack facility with TSS commands.
- Real Analysts can maintain a cooperative relationship
with quality assurance.
- Real Analysts can install a software package without
psychiatric treatment for hostility and anxiety.
- Real Analysts are not intimidated by contractors.
- Real Analysts can attend a meeting of the Technical
Standards Committee and still work the rest of the day.
- Real Analysts don't work on weekends.
- Real Analysts can't write JCL.
- Real Analysts don't tell war stories about the good old
days.
- Real Analysts are kind to programmers.
- Real Analysts dress for success when they have a walk-
through.
- Real Analysts read books like ``Effective Listening and
Communication Skills.''
------------------------------
Date: 9-Feb-83 11:52 PST
From: WBD.TYM@OFFICE-3
Subject: The TRUE History Of VALGOL
From: Don Andrews (dia.tym@office)
VALGOL I and II were developed by Val Shorre about the ed
Compilers). The VALGOL's were ALGOL-like languages implemented in
Val's Meta II compiler writing system. All were revealed in "A
Syntax-Oriented Compiler Writing Language", D. V. Shorre, but my
hardcopy does not have the name of the publication on it!! Ah,
here we go-- it's the Proceedings of the 19th National Conference of
the ACM, 1964. --Don
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #11
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-03-27 01:28:39 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 25 Mar 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 11
Today's Topics:
Queries - BYTE Issue on Handicapped &
Devanagiri Text Editor,
Computers and People - Human Memory Capacity &
Hackers and Bit Memory
Computers and the Law - Computer Crime
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Feb 1983 14:25:08 EST (Monday)
From: Roger Frye
Subject: BYTE Issue on Handicapped
The September issue of Byte was devoted to computer aids for the
handicapped. Does anyone else have further information,
specifically for quadriplegics. I am trying to help a college
educated man who was paralyzed in a car accident. He controls his
wheelchair and phone with a sip-and-puff device.
Roger Frye 617-497-3155
------------------------------
Date: 17 February 1983 1914-EST
From: Vijay Saraswat at CMU-CS-A
Subject: Devanagiri Text Editor
I am interested in developing a system to input , process and
display Devanagiri characters and running text . Essentially , I am
interested in developing a text editor for a language based on the
Devanagiri script, like Hindi . The system will input characters
from a standard keyboard , process them for display (on a bit-mapped
screen ) which may involve superposition ,subscription and
superscription of characters and also convert them into a press file
suitable for printing on a device like the Dover. Since I am not
happy with the current SANSKRIT10 font on the Dover , this may also
involve the design of a new Devanagiri font .
Since I do not want to reinvent the wheel , comments , advice ,
pointers to existing work are solicited .
Thanks in advance .
Vijay.Saraswat@CMU-CS-A
------------------------------
Date: 12 January 1983 11:57 mst
From: RSanders.Pascalx at DENVER
Subject: re: Dynabooks with all my memory in them.
No thanks - I would rather have real books around (even LP's and
analog video-disks) until someone comes up with a sure-fire method
of backing up all my (off-line ?) memory. I've been around
computers too long to believe in the infallibility of disks, tapes,
core, semi-conductor memory, etc. Can you imagine what a few good
alpha or beta particles could do to a Dyanbook crammed with a few
gigabytes of storage? Especially if you live next door to a nuke
plant or MX missile warhead factory?
What happens if someone steals my Dynabook? Will it self-destruct
without my retinal patterns staring at the display? Will it
accidentally self-destruct when I get a black eye in a barroom
brawl? (Boy, aren't fantasies great!)
What about historical records? What will happen to history when
everyone's thoughts are recorded on an ancient form of silicon (or
whatever) memory that no-one uses any more? Who can say that the
rocks in your backyard aren't the Dynabook memories of ancient
astronauts, scattered around for us to decipher. (I think I'm going
off the deep end).
My main point is I won't trust all my life's records to a 8 1/2 by
11, 3 pound device of any nature. Maybe I'm getting old and cranky.
-- Rex
------------------------------
Date: 17 February 1983 06:57 est
From: SSteinberg.SoftArts at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: hackers and bit memory
I always thought that being a hacker was a matter of attitude and
behavior. A hacker is curious and playful and will try things out
to see what happens. Hackers will then use their knowledge to make
their work easier. Unlike most people, hackers tend to stay awake.
The industrial revolution would have been impossible without
hackers. The presence and importance of hackers has been at the
center of almost every great civilization. Homer appreciated a good
hack; Jesus did not. Zorba the Greek and Roger Bacon were good
hackers. Hacking certainly antedates computing and might antedate
mankind.
I doubt that it is reasonable to put a specific number on the bit
equivalent of human memory. How many bits does it take to ride a
bicycle? If you want to discuss how many bits a person can recall
then it might be easier, but remember, a lot of memorizers don't
have full random access.
Memory is really strange stuff. An acquaintance of mine is
dyslexic, but has an eidetic memory and can remember several pages
of a book and then struggle through reading them hours later. I do
this with sounds. Often when I can't understand something I had
just heard I find that repeating the sounds out loud will make the
words understandable.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Feb 1983 1711-CST
From: Clive Dawson
Subject: Texas Legislature to consider a Computer Crime Law
Texas State Rep. Lloyd Criss from Galveston has introduced a bill
which will add a new category of computer crime to the Texas Penal
Code. The bill is currently in committee.
A transcription of this bill, together with a news release and
summary, can be found at the end of this message. (I understand
that some recent changes to the bill will raise some of the offenses
listed as Class B misdemeanors to Class A.) What bothers me most
about this bill is its definition of a "computer system". If the
bill passes in its present form, somebody could theoretically be
prosecuted for erasing the memory of my microwave oven or even for
pushing one of the buttons on my digital watch.
I'd like to suggest a better definition, but coming up with one is
not easy. If you have any comments on the bill, particularly about
how a computer system should be defined FOR PURPOSES OF THIS BILL,
please send me mail at Clive@UTexas.
Thanks,
Clive
====================================================================
Texas House of Representatives
NEWS RELEASE FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
December 15, 1982 GREG ENOS (512) 475-5749
Today's computer whiz kids may be less likely to group up into
tomorrow's computer criminals if a bill introduced by State
Representative Lloyd Criss is approved by the 68th Legislature.
Criss has prefiled a package of computer related bills including
a computer crimes law. "These bills are designed to catch state
law up with the advances in technology," Criss said.
Criss' House Bill 193 adds a new category of computer crimes to the
Texas Penal Code. "Computer crimes cost American government and
business an estimated $1.5 billion last year," Criss said. He
noted that the average computer crime loss is $500,000 compared
to $3,200 for the average bank robbery. "Many kinds of computer
abuse would be extremely difficult to prosecute under existing
penal statues written before the microchip was invented," Criss
said. House Bill 193 also empowers the Attorney General to
assist local prosecutors and law officers in investigating
and prosecuting computer crimes.
House Bill 66 by Criss would apply the state sales tax to the
sale of computer programs. "Sales tax on computer programs is a
perfect example of how law often lags behind technology," Criss
said. "The Comptroller collected sales tax on computer programs
until the Texas Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that programs are
intangible and so exempt from the tax." "So now no tax is
collected on millions of dollars worth of computer programs and
records and cassettes," Criss said. "This is not a tax
increase but rather an instance of the Legislature
correcting an unfortunate judicial decision."
Criss' house bill 114 specifically defines computer programs as
goods under the Texas Commercial Code. "This will extend legal
protection to consumers and especially businesses who contract to
buy computer programs," Criss said.
Criss predicts his computer package will be supported by banking,
insurance and business groups. "Those people depend on computers
and will want the legal protection my bills provide," Criss said.
-------------------------
BILL ANALYSIS
House Bill 193 By: Criss
Background Information:
Considering the great reliance of government and
business on computers, the potential for criminal abuse of
computers is great. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that
losses resulting from computer crime amount to $100 million per
year. One study states that the average proceeds from a computer
crime are $450,000 while the average bank robbery results in a
$10,000 loss. Eleven states have adopted computer-crime laws.
Problems the bill addresses:
Many computer crimes can be prosecuted under existing laws
relating to theft, fraud, etc. However, certain crimes such as
unauthorized access or destruction of data do not fall easily
into traditional categories of crime. For example, students at a
New England prep school recently used their school's computer and
a telephone to penetrate the computer memories of several Canadian
insurance companies. Millions of dollars worth of information
was destroyed. Had such a crime occurred in Texas, it is
doubtful any convictions would have resulted. Local law
agencies and prosecutors typically lack the training and
experience to investigate and prosecute technically complicated
computer crimes.
How H. B. 193 solves the problem:
H. B. 193 clarifies the Penal Code, making virtually all
computer crimes prosecutable. H. B. 193 also empowers the
Attorney General to assist local law enforcement agencies and
prosecutors in the investigation and prosecution of computer
crimes.
Section by Section Analysis:
Section 1. Amends Title 7 of the Penal Code by adding a new
Chapter 33 which:
1. defines terms
2. makes access of a computer system for a fraudulent
purpose a class A misdemeanor
3. makes breach of a computer security system a class B
misdemeanor
4. makes unauthorized or harmful access of a computer
system a class B misdemeanor
5. makes intentional interference with a computer system a
class B misdemeanor
Section 2. Amends Article 4410b of Chapter 4, Title 70,
Revised Statutes, mandating the Attorney General to assist local
agencies in the investigation and prosecution of computer crimes.
Section 3. Act takes effect September 1, 1983.
Section 4. Emergency clause.
-------------------------
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the creation of offenses involving computers.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Title 7, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Chapter 33 to read as follows:
Chapter 33. COMPUTER CRIMES
Sec. 33.01 DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(1) "Computer security system" means the
personnel, procedures, computer software, equipment, or other
means used by the operator of a computer system to restrict
access to a computer system, its software, and its services to
authorized users.
(2) "Computer software" means instructions or
statements that permit a computer system to perform a useful
function.
(3) "Computer system" means a device or set of
devices that stores data in an intangible form, or that, in response
to instructions or data given to it, analyzes data, converts data
from one form into another, or produces new data.
(4) "Computer system services" means providing or
using a computer system to perform work of value, allowing another
person to use a computer system, or storing, analyzing, converting,
or producing data on a computer system.
(5) "Operator," with respect to a computer system,
means the person who manages, controls, or directs the operation
and use of the system.
Sec. 33.02 ACCESS FOR FRAUDULENT PURPOSE.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally uses or
allows another to use a computer system for the purpose of devising
or executing a scheme or artifice to obtain property or services
with intent to avoid payment for the property or service.
(b) In this section, "property" and "service" have
the same meanings as are given those terms in Section 32.01 of this
code.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Sec. 33.03. BREACH OF SECURITY SYSTEM.
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective
consent of the operator of the computer system, he intentionally:
(1) uses a computer system in order to breach a
computer security system;
(2) breaches a computer security system; or
(3) gives information concerning a computer security
system to another person.
(b) An offense under this sections is a Class B
misdemeanor.
Sec. 33.04. UNAUTHORIZED OR HARMFUL ACCESS.
(a) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) users a computer system in a manner not
permitted to him by the operator of the system;
or
(2) without the effective consent of the operator
alters, damages, or destroys a computer system,
computer software, or data contained or provided
by a computer system.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.
Sec. 33.05. INTERFERENCE WITH COMPUTER SERVICE.
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective
consent of the operator of the computer system, he intentionally
interferes with or interrupts computer system services to one
authorized to receive the services.
(b) An offense under this section is a class B misdemeanor.
SECTION 2. Chapter 4, Title 70, Revised Statutes, is
amended by adding Article 4410b to read as follows:
Art. 4410b. ENFORCEMENT OF COMPUTER CRIMES
PROVISIONS. The attorney general shall assist state and
local law enforcement and prosecuting agencies in informing
computer users of the provisions of Chapter 33, Penal Code, and
in investigating and prosecuting violations of Chapter 33, Penal
Code.
SECTION 3. This act takes effect September 1, 1983.
SECTION 4. The importance of this legislation and the
crowded condition of the calendars in both houses create an
emergency and an imperative public necessity that the
constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on three separate
days in each house be suspended, and this rule is hereby suspended.
====================================================================
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #12
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-03-27 03:00:35 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Saturday, 26 Mar 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 12
Today's Topics:
Queries - Network Protocols &
Electronic Mail Resource Usage Statistics,
Technology - EFT (2 msgs) & WorldNet (2 msgs),
Computers and the Law - Stay-Home Ankle Bracelet (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri 7 Jan 83 03:41:54-EST
From: Marc Shapiro
Subject: Request for info
I need info on the following topics:
* Are there any implementations of either TCP/IP or TCP alone
*above* X.25 for DEC-20 and/or Vax/unix
* all possible info on Ethernet/X.25 gateways, supported
protocols and what they are worth.
Thanks. Please reply directly to SHAPIRO@MIT-XX.
------------------------------
Date: 9-Mar-83 16:42 PST
From: WBD.TYM@OFFICE-3
Subject: Electronic Mail System Info Wanted
Does anyone have a list of references for EM system usage? Has
anyone done any studies on electronic mail usage and comparisons of
mail systems? Thanks, --Bill
------------------------------
Date: 14 Feb 83 23:28:39 EST (Mon)
From: Ron Natalie
Subject: EFT
Charles Osgood (CBS News) tells a story of a man who gets angry at a
malfunction 24-hour teller machine and starts beating on it. A
couple of days later the police come and arrest him for criminal
damage of property (or something like that). The moral being...
...Before you hit a machine, make sure it doesn't know where
you live.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Feb 83 10:59:13 PST (Tuesday)
From: Poskanzer.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Bleeding-heart Libertarian objection to EFT.
Please don't object to EFT of the basis of Big-Brotherism /
infringement of personal freedoms. The current non-cash systems
(checks, credit / debit cards) are far more prone to mis-use and
error than any reasonable EFT system would be.
It is certainly true that EFT systems will leave audit trails for
all transactions. However, these audit trails \need not/ be
available to {insert favorite bogeyman}. The crucial element is a
proven trapdoor encipherment scheme. Here is a scenario:
You pull into the Mustang Ranch for some good clean fun. Since
you're on the board of directors of the Moral Majority, you don't
want your "indiscretion" to become public. But not to worry -
you're carrying the American EFTpress card. The card contains an
encrypting circuit, your private key Ypri, your bank's public key
Bpub, some storage, a clock, and a numeric keypad. You punch the
amount of the transfer into the card: $50.00. It composes an inner
message saying "pay bearer $50, the time is 030015feb83 and this
is transaction #5678". It enciphers that using Ypri, and adds a
preamble saying "this is from Jef Poskanzer and the time is
030015feb83". This message it saves, enciphers with Bpub, and
adds another preamble saying "send me to DataBank of Kansas". Now
you're ready - you plug the card into the appropriate receptacle.
The card transmits its message, which is basically equivalent to a
$50 check made out to CASH. Now the whorehouse's computer
enciphers and sends the message to its bank, Clearinghouse of
Nevada. (I'm leaving out some steps now.) That bank deciphers,
verifies the whorehouse's identity, and sends to your bank. Your
bank deciphers with Bpri, sees your name and the date, deciphers
with Ypub, checks that the two dates match, checks that your
transaction #5678 has not already been used, and then debits your
account and transfers $50 to Clearinghouse of Nevada. There the
$50 is credited to the Mustang Ranch's account and a confirming
message is sent back to the ranch, where a little green light
comes on. All in less then ten seconds.
Now, note that \no-one/ knows both who you are and where you are.
The ranch and its bank know that someone with an account at the
DataBank of Kansas likes a little fun. The DataBank knows that you
just paid $50 to someone with an account at Clearinghouse of Nevada.
Of course, the banks could conspire and pool their information, but
then why are you banking with a company you can't trust? And
remember that the point is not to achieve perfect security and
privacy, but to have \better/ security and privacy than we have
right now.
And if you're still not happy, you can always use cash! As long as
you don't worry about fingerprints...
Jef
------------------------------
Date: 7 February 1983 07:35 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Re: Worldnet & Lawyers
I think the way of distinguishing libel slander and free-speech will
have to change. (I.e. I want it to change.) Instead of the
distinction being on whether it was spoken, handwritten, typed,
typeset, or computer-mailed, the distinction should be on whether
the utterer allows the victim reasonable redress.
If I send out a message to HUMAN-NETS saying "John Doe is a rotten
programmer and shouldn't be trusted to write a 10-line program", and
if John Doe is on this mailing list and has the ability to reply to
rebut my claim, then he has been offered reasonable redress and
although my statement might be nasty and unsociable it's within the
range of free discussion.
But if I print up 10,000 leaflets and distribute them around town,
making the same statement, and I don't offer John Doe a chance to
rebut my statements in the same manner, or if I broadcast my
statement on television or radio and the station or network doesn't
offer John Doe a chance to speak in rebuttal, then I'm not offering
reasonable redress, and it's slander or whatever.
If I broadcast my statement on nationwide TV, but then offer a
chance to reply, it's borderline, because the harm to his reputation
may have been already done by the time he can reply.
Perhaps on future networks the law can be that anyone making a
derogatory claim about anyone else is subject to slander suit unless
he first offers the slandered person a chance to reply. If the reply
is given, ten counter-reply is allowed, etc. until one or the other
passes. Then all the back and forth stuff is put in the public
domain at the same time. Like bills to be signed by the President,
if the offer to reply isn't answered within a prescribed time (2
working days?) then it's an automatic pass.
------------------------------
Date: 8 February 1983 04:43 EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky
Subject: Do we really want a worldnet?
Robert,
I read your message with interest, but I don't think my attitude is
quite the same as yours.
From: Robert Elton Maas
"Anybody want to warn about some of the Orwell-style misuses
possible with what I claim I want?"
I spent five (5) minutes listing all the abuses I could think of. I
have let my fantasy run wild, so please do not mail me responses of
the form "THIS CAN'T HAPPEN HERE." Thank you.
In all fairness I should note that most of the abuses listed here
are the result of improper control of the information capability
which might be offered by worldnet. Of course, proper control can
never QUITE be guaranteed.
"I don't like the current system where one must carry around
papers to prove you are a valid person . . ."
Instead we can create a system where you must have a worldnet
account to be a valid person. What if you lost your worldnet card?
You'd be the worst kind of unperson without the proper worldnet
validation.
What about people who haven't been able to join worldnet for legal
(undocumented aliens) or practical (illiteracy, poverty) reasons?
Are these people unpersons in the worldnet economy? This also
brings to mind an interesting way to screw people over in the
worldnet economy -- just delete their accounts.
". . . not having to carry around cash would reduce the
incentive to get robbed in the first place . . ."
Have you ever had trouble with your bank account? It's not pleasant
even today, but with worldnet it could prevent you from eating. In
the cashless society, credit problems are serious business.
What good does the cashless society do about crime anyway? Someone
can always force you to transfer money to them. Do you intend that
credit transfer outlets are to be restricted? I can just see having
to visit the bank to lend a friend money. Also, people can still
take your car, or break into your home. Or do you intend that major
expensive objects would be inventoried in worldnet as well?
(Clearly all major objects should be equipped with location tracers
to assure against theft.)
It has been pointed out before (in HUMAN-NETS, I think) that there
is great potential for tracing the everyday activity of an
individual (or perhaps I should say, "account-id") when all
transactions are EFT. I'd like to also note the wonderful potential
for regulation and planning of the economy. Why fill out tax
returns when the IRS can simply assess charges against your worldnet
account? They can surely do a better job than you can -- they have
all your records!
And what better method for enforcing the law than a computerized
record of what you've been doing recently? There are already laws
about the amount of cash you can take out of the country in one
year. What about enforcing the minimum wage laws for a change? How
about really cracking down on illegal gambling? Which reminds me,
who needs a search warrant? Why should the police need to ask
anyone about looking into your personal effects, when everything
anyone would want to know is available on file?
"Why can't they accept thumbprints as an alternate way of
identifying people?"
Why not voiceprints, for that matter? This sounds like another
excellent way of keeping track of everyone's personal movements.
And if fingerprint and voiceprint identifying equipment is
sufficiently widespread, there is no need to carry ID. There's also
no way to hide your everyday movements from anyone, either.
"Or why can't they connect with TRW or other major credit firm
and identify I'm really me by asking me personal questions that
aren't known to anybody except me and the credit agencies?"
Here you must mean "aren't known to anybody except me, TRW, and
people who can connect with TRW to read this information."
"if everybody carried around a little radio transmitter that
detected your . . . losing vital functions . . ."
Do you really expect to be rescued in time? Instead of creating an
incentive for people not to rob you, rather they will shoot first
and remove your wallet later! Of course, equipment like this makes
all the previous computer work at finding your location rather
useless, as all the data is right there for the taking.
Making medical data available on-line makes for some interesting
possibilities. Data connections are two-way, so you could have a
remotely-controlled sedative inducer when you got too excited.
Another possibility is described in the SF story, "Shadrach in the
Furnace," by Robert Silverberg.
Lest you think I haven't been sufficiently paranoid, I draw your
attention to the synergetic effects which can be obtained from
widely available voiceprinting, recording devices, psychological
stress evaluators (a form of "lie detector"), and AI
word-recognition techniques. Not to mention the potentials of
subliminal advertising and color display terminals.
I hope I'm just kidding,
-- Steve
------------------------------
Date: 15 March 1983 22:47 EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky
Subject: The future is now?
NEWSWEEK, March 21, 1983, p. 53:
``WEARING A JAIL CELL AROUND YOUR ANKLE''
It's waterproof, two inches wide, worn on the ankle and it tells
your probation officer when you've left home. Beginning this week
in an Albuquerque district court, small-time criminals will have a
choice: go to jail or agree to wear an electronic device that will
alert authorities when they are more than 200 feet from their home
phones. ``The idea is to substitute a curfew at home for jail,''
says Judge Jack Love, who got the idea for the anklet from a
Spider-Man cartoon. Whenever offenders leave home -- or try to
remove the anklet -- a transmitter planted in their telephones will
send a special signal to a probation-department computer. If the
offender doesn't have a good excuse for leaving, he could go
directly to jail.
Public defender Bruce Kelly opposes the anklet and will challenge
its constitutionality as soon as one of his clients is asked to wear
one. ``The idea of having Big Brother monitoring people at all
times should be resisted,'' he says. But the New Mexico Civil
Liberties Union endorsed the anklet as a way to reduce jail
crowding. And the company that makes them, National Incarceration
Monitor and Control Services, hopes that the 30 units New Mexico has
purchased will lead to sales of 200,000 nationwide.
------------------------------
Date: 15 March 1983 23:31 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: The future is now?
I think the stay-home ankle bracelet is a great use for technology,
making easy something that was totally impossible 200 years ago when
this nation started. But it shouldn't be used in any case except as
an alternative to jail/prison. Perhaps *all* nonviolent convicted
criminals should be kept at home with these devices instead of jail,
being sent to jail only after they have broken this computerized
curfew.
------------------------------
Date: 16 Mar 1983 0106-EST
From: ZALESKI@RUTGERS (Mike Zaleski)
Subject: Stay-home Ankle Bracelet
Although this seems like a good idea, I wonder how well it will work
in practice, since presumably the criminal working in the privacy of
his/her home will be able to work out some method of circumventing
this device. (Such as building a radio transmitter which transmits
on the same frequency and "looks" like the real thing.)
-- Mike^Z
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #13
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-03-28 03:08:24 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Sunday, 27 Mar 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 13
Today's Topics:
Programming - Unix,
Technology - WorldNet (2 msgs) & EFT (4 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Feb 83 21:32 EST
From: Stephen Tihor
Subject: Typeahead buffers
While I usually prefer to avoid religious disputes one of the
comments in the current VMESS vs. Eunuchs debate got me wondering:
our VMS machines are configured with between 80 and 255 characters
of typeahead buffer and frankly I rarely use more that 100
characters even when doing very standard operations where I can
predict the necessary input well in advance (but not so well that I
make a shell script/command file to do it.) At least one person's
comments (csin!sjh@CCA-UNIX) implied that this is way too few ...
although I haven't heard word one in complaint for the user comunity
maybe they don't realize that it is easy to adjust. About how much
typeahead can people use, leaving aside the cases of when you are
inside of an screen editor or other RAW mode program?
------------------------------
Date: 23 February 1983 03:48 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Do we really want a worldnet?
IMP44 has been providing absolutely terrible service to MIT-MC for
several weeks, blocking data from MIT-MC for 15 seconds at a time,
causing typing at normal rate to fill up the 64-character TAC buffer
and lose subsequent typeahead; this occurring several times a
minute, making it impossible to maintain one's train of thought when
typing a message. I have consequently delayed trying to answer this
message because I needed to have some train of thought. I am now
answering mail on other systems, MIT-ML currently, which don't
suffer that 15-second-blockage problem, thus I can now finally get
on with replying to this message:
Date: 8 February 1983 04:43 EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky
[Re using EFT to replace cash in most cases, thus allowing a
person to get by without carrying more than perhaps $5 cash at
any time]
In all fairness I should note that most of the abuses listed
here are the result of improper control of the information
capability which might be offered by worldnet. Of course,
proper control can never QUITE be guaranteed.
It's important for us brilliant Arpanet/Internet people to make sure
WorldNet is designed properly, especially EFT and other aspects that
can really hurt people if mis-designed.
Instead we can create a system where you must have a worldnet
account to be a valid person. What if you lost your worldnet
card?
I don't propose having to carry a card that if you lose it you
become a non-person. Perhaps a card would be the primary and easiest
means of identification, perhaps fingerprints would, perhaps both
would be required for quick access, but if the card is lost or the
fingerprints are damaged it should be possible to get the card
replaced and some other physical identification such as tongueprint
registered, and then have quick-access available again.
What about people who haven't been able to join worldnet for
legal (undocumented aliens)
Let them suffer the pains of having to carry cash. I don't feel
sorry enough for them to avoid EFT just to avoid putting them at a
slight disadvantage.
or practical (illiteracy, poverty)
This is silly. People can be taught how to put a card in a machine
then to press their thumbprint in the glass window. Even a severely
mentally-retarded person who would have a conservator anyway can be
taught this kind of simple thing, and that's a lot easier than
counting change to avoid being cheated as is now the case (with
EFT-net, there'd be a record of every transaction, computed by the
computer not the human employee, thus not only would cheating not
happen in the first place unless the computer were programed to
cheat retarded people, but if cheated the conservator could later
take the case to court).
reasons? Are
these people unpersons in the worldnet economy?
Just in the EFT-net. Illegal aliens could still use cash or barter,
or go back where they belong.
This also brings to mind an interesting way to screw people over
in the worldnet economy -- just delete their accounts.
I would hope we'd have enough audit trail to prevent such misuse
from going undetected or unprovable in court.
Have you ever had trouble with your bank account? It's not
pleasant even today, but with worldnet it could prevent you from
eating.
I would hope we could have simple food staples available for free to
anyone who wanted them, thus solving both your EFT-net herring and
the "crime-to-eat" problem some claim we currently have. Thus money
would be needed only for food beyond the basic staples, such as
Chinese restaurants and your choice of soft drinks etc. A balanced
diet of surplus food would be free under REM's term as world-leader.
What good does the cashless society do about crime anyway?
Someone can always force you to transfer money to them. Do you
intend that credit transfer outlets are to be restricted? I can
just see having to visit the bank to lend a friend money.
The customer (account-holder) could set any rules on access that
were understandable to the computer, such as "no more than $100/day
and no more than $400 total between special authorizations". There'd
be a complete audit trail so later you could show you were coerced
into giving away your money for nothing in return, and sue to get it
back.
Also, people can still take your car, or break into your home.
Not if they are adequately protected with security systems (see
preceding message to HUMAN-NETS about calling up the local
militia/citizenry if a crime wave or false-alarm wave breaks out).
Or do you intend that major expensive objects would be
inventoried in worldnet as well? (Clearly all major objects
should be equipped with location tracers to assure against
theft.)
Yup.
Re keeping track of your personal business by the transactions you
do, you can always withdraw cash for anything you want secret, and
thus risk robbery at such times. (But if hardly anyone carries cash,
and you don't tell anyone you're an exception, the potential robber
won't know to try hitting you, so you'll be safer than you are now
when robbery is rampant.) Re enforcing tax and minimum-wage laws, I
guess I'm in favor of that. After all, why should the dishonest
people get to rob me by not paying their fair share of taxes and
thus having the tax rate go up to compensate so I have to pay more
than my fair share?
------------------------------
Date: 26 Mar 1983 0909-EST
From: Andrew Scott Beals
Subject: worldnet and non-persons
[enter rabid fascist mode - flames to /dev/null please]
Well, if someone is illiterate and there has been state provided
education his whole life, then tough.
Having non-persons might be a good way to weed out their genes from
the gene pool and thereby improve future generations. Hmm.... Better
yet, we could take away worldnet cards from everyone who has genes
for nasty genetic diseases. And take them away from repeat
offenders.
And since they [people without worldnet cards or info about them in
the computers...] aren't real people, they aren't protected under
the law, so.... (see Fred Pohl's Bipohl (first story (I can't
remember the name of it right now...sorry)))
Hoboy! Let's implement it today! [exit rabid fascist mode]
------------------------------
Date: 15 Feb 83 18:07:40 PST (Tuesday)
From: Purvy.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #10
With respect to Gellens' remark that "Supermarkets, department
stores, apartments, etc, all refuse to establish accounts (check
cashing cards, credit accounts, leases) without disclosure of my
social security number":
I've often refused to give my social security number and gotten away
with it. What do I mean by "gotten away with it"? I mean that I
got the credit card, rented the car, got the apartment, or whatever,
without giving them the number. In fact, I believe I even got my
American Express card that way. Try it!
Where the form asks for social security number, I write "(Privacy
Act)". If the clerk asks about it, just tell him/her that federal
law prohibits ANYONE from requiring a social security number, unless
they really require it, where "require" is strictly defined, i.e.
they are an employer, bank, brokerage house, or other institution
that reports tax information to the government. This happens to be
true.
Bob
------------------------------
Date: 19 February 1983 2323-EST (Saturday)
From: Thomas.Newton at CMU-CS-A
Subject: EFT/Crime
No one "drives" a person to crime, except maybe another
criminal. It's about time that people stop dismissing crime as the
result of our society. Human nature is such that there will always
be people willing to rob/maim/kill others for money or even just for
the "thrill" of it. The way to deal with criminals is to punish
them, not to tell them that it isn't their fault.
It seems to me that EFT is safer only when the robber isn't
smart enough to make you give him your password--which is unlikely.
There have been reports of robbers who wait by teller machines at
night waiting for people to come by, then rob them as they withdraw
their money or leave. On the other hand, EFT is convenient. I
would not like to see a total EFT system, but I would like to see
more stores that accept EFT cards as well as cash.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Feb 83 22:00:57-EST (Sat)
From: Henry Dreifus
Subject: ''Electronic cash: The Smart Card''
Henry Dreifus
The Wharton School of Business
University of Pennsylvania
Let me begin with a few useful references:
K.H. Humes, The cashless/checkless society? Don't bank on it!, The
Futurist, October, 1978. pp. 301-306.
M. Turoff and I.A. Mitroff, A case study of assessment applied to
the cashless society concept, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, vol. 7, 1975. pp. 317-325.
{see also: Hiltz and Turoff, The Network Nation.}
Arthur D. Little, Inc. The Consequences of Electronic Funds
Transfer, a Technology Assessment of Movement Towards a
Cashless/Checkless Society, Cambridge, Mass. 1975.
The lubricant of the American economy is the electronic transaction.
Whether we physically have our VISA card embossed on a four part
carbon, or write a check, nothing "physically" happens until a
computer somewhere, someplace is given this information. It
classically has been this translation process, from paper to
computer data which we class "The computer made a mistake with our
billing". This even happens literally right under our noses! Once
an associate rented a car in Denver, and upon returning the customer
service person punched in return mileage: 1010240 when she should
have said 10240, thus charging him (he found later) for 100,000
extra miles. Had this and other information been captured and
recorded automatically, a $27,000.00+ bill may not have occurred.
Imagine driving 100,000 miles in two days.
One study hazards a rough guess of 15 million retail transactions
per hour take place in America today (from Colton et. al., Computers
and Banking, Plenum Press, 1980). I place the number somewhat
higher. If indeed we are at the mercy of a transactional economy,
moving at very high speed, how can the consumer protect himself?
Legally the issue is far from controlled. At present it is
state-by-state legislation of EFT and electronic cash. Socially
consumer preference, given a choice between paying cash and using a
credit card, tends strongly to use the credit method. Protecting
the public is a problem. In case of a stolen card the maximum
liability an individual must assume is $ 50.00. Most stolen credit
cards never surface again into the economy. The equivalent amount in
cash will always be honored in our economy.
The real concern is protection from the electronic jungle. A number
of proposed solutions revolve around providing a two way credit (or
debit) card, which store a second copy of the transaction. This
electronic receipt is consumer protection. VISA corporation, a
marketing company, will soon be distributing a read/write credit
card, which will store information on the magnetic stripe. The
capacity on today's cards is at most 1,800 bits. The new VISA card
will have approximately 100K bits. My feeling is a card will need to
store at least 1.5 to 2.0 megabytes. If a card can record every
transaction, the consumer can have a legal form of proof for his
protection. If this card contained his private key, the transactions
can also be encrypted - as a part of a transaction's validation.
Personal questions, a bit encoded signature pattern, and other
improved forms of identification could also be encoded. If a card
is stolen, it can be programmed out of the system, and immediately
suspended (and tracked down).
Burroughs corporation, G.T.E., Smart Card, Inc., Payment Systems,
Inc., and other high technology companies are moving into this
field. There is a large push taking place in the industry to
innovating the smart-card. Jerry Drexler's Drexler Technology
Corporation has a 1 mb laser stripe which has the same geometry as
the magnetic stripe. Unfortunately, the terminal reader does not
exist as of yet. There is a good deal of quiet competition taking
place. The major issue to tackle is standardization. At present,
there exist no standard "universal transaction", which ultimately
will be needed for these cards.
The French and British have been using Smart Cards since 1979. The
reaction thus far has been mixed. Clearly, these cards are useful,
and people are willing to use them. There are numerous applications
which this card can be used in place of cash. Direct purchase of
oil and gas is one such field receiving much attention. I would
personally not be surprised if ARCO (Atlantic Richfield Corporation)
does not offer a debit form of electronic card for point of sale
operations. They have removed the "credit" dumb card, and are
probably the only company in a position to offer such a service at
this time.
With human intervention necessary for transaction keying and
processing, the cost per transaction can be as high as $ 2.50. A
totally electronic transaction should cost no more than $0.18 to
$0.25. Unfortunately, to handle a completely electronic transaction,
many things will have to occur. Retailers will have to install
terminals capable of handling the cards. The 1980 median cost for
such a terminal was $ 1,975.00. The cost will have to drop to
between $ 250.00 and $ 400.00 before retailers will be willing to
cooperate.
Cash will never disappear. The smart card will happen. I only hope
it is done correctly.
Henry Dreifus
------------------------------
Date: 22 Feb 1983 2047-CST
From: Werner Uhrig
Subject: Cost of Credit Card Purchases to Merchants
WHAT ARE THE REAL COST TO THE MERCHANT OF CREDIT CARD PURCHASES?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone out there KNOW for certain? (I know, but only from
hear-say)
- what charges the banks make in each card-transaction to the
merchant?
- are there fixed charges to the merchants (startup, periodic)?
- are charges always a fixed percentage of the purchase, or are
there variations?
- how do the costs of handling checks and cash compare with cards?
If anyone remembers having seen anything in print or electronic
media regarding this topic, by all means, let me know, too.
---Werner (cs.werner@utexas-20)
P.S.: Send replies to me. If I receive more than 5 requests for
copies, I assume there is enough interest for this
information to send a summary to the BBOARD
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #14
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-03-28 02:09:56 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 28 Mar 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 14
Today's Topics:
Computers and People - Information Systems,
Definitions - of Weaving & of Algorithm,
Technology - EFT (2 msgs),
Computers and the Law - Computer Crime (2 msgs) &
Electronic Anklet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 February 1983 13:14 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: WorldKey at EPCOT.
Aha, so EPCOT needs some more design work before it'll be more than
a toy. It needs to permit orthogonal indexing methods (physical
location and category as separate indexes but ability to intersect
and de-intersect those modes at will), and it needs the ability to
use a keyword expression to jump into the middle of the indexing
system without needing to to go thru the levels to it but without
losing the ability to proceed along the indexing system once the
keyword-jump has occurred.
Systems for handling both keyword-jumps and hierarchy, including
multiple paths (one special topic under two different major topics),
already exist. For example, the INFO program (part of EMACS) here on
ITS. But does anybody know of a system that also has orthogonal
indexing modes properly implemented? (I'd like to hear about such a
system and get a demo.)
------------------------------
Date: Tue 15 Feb 83 13:56:39-EST
From: Susanne Humphrey
Subject: weaving
Regarding derivation of the word "system" as coming from "syn-"
(together with) and "histemai" (to weave): I don't think so.
A colleague here cites the Greek dictionary as follows:
under systema - "that which is put together - from synistemi";
under synistemi - "to place or set together".
The derivation is syn = with + histemi = to stand or to cause to
stand (from sta- = to stand).
Maybe Granger is thinking of histion = something woven, from histos
= the webbeam of a loom that stands (histemi) upright.
By the way, there are five entries for "I weave": hythaino, pleko,
empleko, histourgeo, and spathao.
------------------------------
Date: 15 February 1983 12:41 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Definition of 'Algorithm'
Although it's interesting to learn how the word "algorithm" came
about from the earlier word "algorism", it's silly to attempt to
force all new usage for the word out, to try to roll back to
pre-math pre-computer usage. The word with its new spelling now has
a very useful meaning established in mathematics and computer
science. Rolling back the meaning would be rather like forcing
people to not use "sparkplug" in any way other than how it was used
before the internal combustion engine was invented. I abhor random
sloppy new uses when a better old definition exists, but I like new
definitions that are much better (more useful) than old ones.
Let's all decide that "algorism" means a number system that includes
zero while "algorithm" means a precisely-specified method for
solving a task, regardless of what they may have meant 500 years
ago, ok?
------------------------------
Date: 22 Feb 1983 2053-CST
From: Werner Uhrig
Subject: a case for EFT ?!!
DOES ANYONE care to AGREE or DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING?
---------------------------------------------------------------
- The cost of the merchandise should be listed seperately from the
overhead caused by the form of payment? (just like tax)
- Any savings or additional costs due to the form of payment should
be passed on to the buyer.
- Considering that
a) CASH needs to be counted and handled with more security, and
that losses can occur due to forgery, theft, fire, etc and
that it presents a special health problem and that it
presents additional insurance needs
b) CHECKS can be "hot", forged, lost due to accidents
c) CREDIT CARDs have similar problems as checks, plus the banks
are taking an additional bite in form of a percentage from
the merchant and an annual charge from the user
d) both Checks and Cards require too much information to be
disclosed to the merchant (the banks know anyway, which is a
whole different bag of worms)
Considering all that, there must be a better way.
- one that is safer from loss due to accident and crime
- one that is more economical in terms of overhead costs
and human time spend in transaction and accounting
- one that enables the customer to prove his "wealth"
and "ability to pay" without disclosing all kinds of
personal data which can be "abused"
- one which provides the merchant as well as the customer
to, automatically, gather information machine-readable,
for record-keeping and evaluation.
The Solution must come from an advance in the technology of
Point-of-Sale Equipment and EFT. And through modifying
procedures and laws, to protect the rights and interests of
all parties involved (the consumer, the merchant, the bank,
and the government), by avoiding monopolies and by keeping
the government responsive to everyone's needs, I am certain
that competition, finally, will get us an environment where
even the consumer gets a fair deal. Elimination of cash,
check, and card may never become desirable or neccessary
But wouldn't it be nice to be creditworthy on account of one's
fingerprint, voiceprint, look or smell, and not have to
show 2 ID's, 2 credit cards, driver's license, SSN,
birthdate, address, home and work-phone, plus patience, to
wait for all that information to get HANDWRITTEN down by a
barely literate -- something similar most of us have
experienced --
Therefore, here is my vision and proposal:
1) EFT, where my creditworthiness is shown by either or all of:
a) fingerprint or voice-check (or whatever I can take with
me with the same ease)
b) by responding correctly to a prompt for information which
only I can provide, and which should never be repeated
again. this prompt should be coming from the remote
EFT-site
c) some kind of physical item like a magnetic card, which
would require a correct prompt-reply sequence (or
self-destruct, maybe)
2) an interface, between the merchants Point-of-Sale equipment, and
my miniature portable data collector, where I get to record
all information about the transaction, for later
account-balancing and automatic bookkeeping (why should THEY
get all the benefits)
3) laws to guarantee that information about my spending habits are
not used or made available to anyone, without my explicit
consent for each transaction (why make it any easier for
THEM). I guess, some binding form of consent could also do,
but who ever heard of behavior like that from government,
banks, or whoever wants to get hold of the consumer's money.
4) a system which will allow me to have my computer double-check
with the EFT-computer, to make sure that all transactions are
correct.
---Werner (cs.werner@UTEXAS-20)
------------------------------
Date: 23 February 1983 03:04 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Mugging, security-system design
Date: 13 Feb 83 17:35:14-EST (Sun)
From: the soapbox of Gene Spafford
You made a suggestion about some kind of emergency beeper.
I don't think it is practical. ...
... If I were after somebody with something like that,
I'd just have four or five friends in the area have theirs
go off by "accident." By the time things were sorted out,
I'd have scored.
Obviously the simple call-the-police design wouldn't be practical.
I'd rather have citizen involvement. If a single beeper goes off,
the nearest on-duty security guard is notified electronically. If
more go off than there are nearby on duty guards, off-duty guards
are called in. If more than the total number of guards, the computer
declares a local emergency and wakes up normal citizens telling them
to get together with their neighbors to go out to investigate the
crime wave that is going on at that very moment in their
neighborhood. It's unlikely the number of criminals in any area
would be more than about 10% the total number of citizens, thus
massive calling up of the citizenry ought to be sufficient to locate
all the false alarms and the one real alarm and put all the under
mob attack, not just the ones doing the actual robbery. But it takes
a computer network to provide this sort of massive instant calling
up of reserves. Like you say, a group police dispatchers just can't
handle the sudden load in a timely manner, and thus would be
vulnerable to false alarms to mask the principal crime.
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 26 March 1983, 01:50-EST
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Texas Legislature to consider a Computer Crime Law
Although I am completely ignorant of law, there are no laws that I
know about which concern themselves directly with the misuse of
vacuum cleaners. The same goes for automobiles (although there are
special laws about using automobiles and guns to commit separately
described felonies). So why are people concerning themselves with
laws about computers? Moreover, why do they think that the role of
computers in society is understood well enough to write laws about
their use?
Sec. 33.01 DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(2) "Computer software" means instructions or statements
that permit a computer system to perform a useful function.
------------
I wonder what "useful" means?
(3) "Computer system" means a device or set of devices that
stores data in an intangible form, or that, in response to
instructions or data given to it, analyzes data, converts data
from one form into another, or produces new data.
------------
It seems to me that humans (and other animals, and plants) are
included in this definition. So are telephones, thermostats, and
vacuum cleaners.
Sec. 33.03. BREACH OF SECURITY SYSTEM.
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective
consent of the operator of the computer system, he intentionally:
(3) gives information concerning a computer security
system to another person.
------------
I don't understand how this last can be reconciled with free speech.
What precedents are there (perhaps excluding Government classified
information) for making information sharing between people illegal?
Besides, what "information" are they talking about? I imagine that
if I decided a random fact (such as "grass is green") was a part of
my computer security, that I could attempt to have anyone who
repeated the fact criminally prosecuted.
This bill hardly bears discussion as a reasonable sort of law to
pass. It loudly proclaims how confused and scared the public and
lawmakers are of technology which they do not understand. These
people are scared enough to resort to completely random acts in
attempt to make everything all better and get their view of the
world under control.
I find this sort of thing basically terrifying.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: 26 Mar 1983 0822-EST
From: Andrew Scott Beals
Subject: Re: Texas Crime Law
Re: Computer crimes in texas
Holy bitblit, batman!
Well, it looks like the new fascism has taken root in texas. Under
these statues, if I have been forbidden to write and play games and
do so, I could be persecuted. What a mess.
Hopefully bills like these won't be passed... The worst part about
these is that they seem to prey upon the hacker mentality - ``Gee,
let's try this and find out what happens'' <- if a breach of
`security' (I don't think that that was defined) happens, that
hacker can be persecuted...
What's worse is that none of the legislators understand the bill...
(i would guess).
-andy
p.s. remind me not to be in texas if this bill is passed...
------------------------------
Date: Sun Mar 27 1983 18:18:22-PST
From: Lauren Weinstein
Subject: electronic anklet
When I first heard about this device, I immediately began wondering
exactly how it was implemented -- so I did a little checking.
Apparently it is pretty straightforward. A clever crook could
presumably get around it -- but probably would not want to -- since
the result of slipping up would be jail instead of home! The people
for which this device is envisioned are the non-violent "county
jail" types -- not the hard-core "state prison" type criminal.
Apparently the anklet transmits a digital signal to a fairly simple
decoder box (locked) which is plugged into a standard phone outlet.
The decoder simply records the periods when the anklet "vanishes"
through being out of range of the decoder (1000 feet or something
like that). About once every 24 hours, the decoder dials the
central computer (some pay-tv systems have operated in this same
manner) and dumps the data regarding the anklet's comings and
goings. The computer compares the data with the prestored
information regarding "authorized" come/go times (for going to work,
etc.) If there is a discrepancy, a report is sent to the probation
officer, who then takes whatever action he/she sees fit.
There are presumably special codes recorded to handle exceptional
conditions such as "AC power fail", "decoder unplugged from phone
line", "anklet/decoder tampering", etc.
Whether or not such a system could be easily defeated would depend
largely on the sophistication of the digital signals being sent from
the anklet to the decoder and from the decoder to the central
computer. A system using good encryption, a local realtime clock,
and similar niceties, could be reasonably secure.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #15
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-03-30 00:39:49 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 29 Mar 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 15
Today's Topics:
Queries - Novel Computer Applications &
Where to Order Documents &
Resource Requirements,
Response to Queries - Typeahead buffers,
Technology - EFT (4 msgs),
Computers and the Law - Computer Crime (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 March 1983 02:48 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: novel non-network computer applications
I'd like to discuss some computer applications that don't
necessarily have anything to do with networks, thus probably aren't
appropriate for HUMAN-NETS. Some of these might be:
- Entertainment center that keeps track of what you like and what
you don't like or are tired of, and thus plays for you random
selections mostly of things you like plus a few new things you
haven't reviewed yet. These might be music or TV-movies, thus the
system would sort of be the "optimal disk jockey" or the "optimal
TV station" as far as the individual consumer is concerned.
- Nutrition&diet system that keeps track of what you have eaten and
knows what you like and dislike and what you have in stock, even
knows prices of things you might need to buy. When you're hungry
it suggests things that you need to balance today's nutrition,
from things you like an have in stock if possible. It prints
shopping lists for things you're running short on that are likely
to be eaten if only they could be put into stock, so when you go
to the store you don't even have to spend time making a shopping
list.
My question is, what would be the best forum for this kind of
discusion?
------------------------------
Date: 20 March 1983 00:48 mst
From: Schauble.HDSA at M.PCO.LISD.HIS
Subject: Where to order documents
Reply-to: Schauble%PCO-Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Can someone please supply with the addresses from which I can order
NBS, ISO, ANSI, and CCITT standards documents.
Thanks,
Paul
------------------------------
Date: 23 March 1983 21:35 EST
From: Benjamin Kuipers
Subject: What does it take to write a paper?
Does anyone know any formal research on:
(1) How much computing resources, on average, does it take for a
person to write a paper using a text editor? I'm actually
interested in whether anyone has studied a university population,
presumably looking separately at undergraduates, graduates, and
faculty. If I were doing the study, I would measure output in
printed, double-spaced pages, and resources used primarily as
connect-hours. I would also assume the answers would be very
different depending on whether people were using screen editors
versus line editors. But I'm interested in any statistics you know
of.
(2) How does this compare with non-computer writing? Do people
spend more or less time producing a paper when they use a text
editor? Is the quality noticeably different? (My own guess is that
they would spend MORE time, do MORE drafts, and that quality would
thus be considerably higher.) Are there statistics?
Thanks.
Ben Kuipers
------------------------------
Date: 28 Mar 83 18:52:44 PST (Monday)
From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Typeahead buffers
In systems such as Xerox's Star, Smalltalk, Interlisp, and Mesa
Development Environment, where you can select and stuff into a
TTY-emulation or other window a huge selection of characters using
only a couple of mouseclicks and keystrokes, the amount of typeahead
that you can use at a remote computer is effectively unlimited.
--Bruce
------------------------------
Date: 26 Mar 1983 0438-EST
From: Robert W. Kerns
Subject: Bleeding-heard Libertarian objection to EFT.
I'd like to call your attention to a potential problem with your
scheme. It may be a little more complex than you picture under some
circumstances.
If someone (big brother) has access to the banks records (i.e. has
the keys both banks use for encrypting their record of your account
AND the account of the Mustang Ranch), and an audit trail is left
(as I believe is standard accounting practice?) matching every input
of money with every output of money, then your money can be traced
from your bank's reply, debiting your account, being credited to
some unknown account at the other bank. Looking at the other bank's
records, you find that credit, and find out what happens to it in
the reverse process. Note that none of this has to do with being
able to see the contents of the check.
It does depend on several things which may suggest how to avoid it:
1) It depends on an identity being associated with an account.
(Thus, a numbered account would solve the problem).
2) It depends on bankers recording balanced pairs of credits and
debits. They probably need this to protect against fraud.
3) It depends on big brother having access to both banks records.
The current state of affairs often requires access to only one
bank, so this is an improvement.
4) All actors handling money between the ends have audit trails
accessible to the particular bogeyman you're trying to avoid.
(This means a laundering operation might do a good business if
they can keep their records secure, and are careful to randomize
the times of their transactions. But dealing with such an
outfit could be suspicious itself).
5) Audit trails are retained long enough to be used against you.
(If they were destroyed after being used for electronic audits
every hour, you'd be pretty safe. Maybe this might be possible
someday.) Hopefully, the records have a finite lifespan, so a
college-days fling couldn't be brought up during your
presidential campaign.
6) Computers and networks are available to obtain and wade through
the amount of information available. (No help here!)
I think limiting access to audit trails, and NOT GIVING SIMULTANEOUS
ACCESS TO ACCOUNT IDENTITIES is the most tractable approach. This
would protect against IRS snooping, I think, but probably not the
NSA. But that's better than we have now.
------------------------------
Date: 26 March 1983 19:26 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: EFT
Re: banging on a malfunctionning ATM... The frustration level would
be less if there were a means for the poor mistreated customer to
file an official protest of the bad machine on the spot, which
protest would be given to prospective new customers until such time
as the company (bank) resolved the situation to the satisfaction of
the customer or a mediator. One simple way would be to supply OUT OF
ORDER stickers so the customer could leave a message "this damn
&%$'"@&$ machine wouldn't let me withdraw $20 to take my girl to
dinner so she jilted me for a guy who uses a different bank whose
machines are more reliable" or whatever. Perhaps if customers could
communicate their gripes to each other and to new potential
customers, to at least protect others from the fate they suffered,
and also to punish the bank for its poor service, they could vent
their anger that way instead of by damaging the machine?
By the way, a couple years ago there was a news story to the effect
that somebody who broke hir foot kicking a faulty vending machine at
hir place of work was granted workman's (oops, workperson's)
compensation since the injury was in the normal course of activities
related to work (lunch break is in the contract). Unfortunately this
doesn't apply to ATMs because they aren't at ones place of work etc.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Mar 1983 12:10:02-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: re real cost of credit card purchases
The New England Science Fiction Association started accepting
credit cards a few years ago for payments associated with our annual
science fiction convention. (The bulk of these payments are for
purchase of artwork but we also take cards for registration and
publications sales.) Our present bank takes 2.75% off the top (don't
know whether that's before or after state sales tax) for Visa and
Mastercard charges. When we had a check verification service they
charged 2.89% and cheated (e.g. they wiggled out of most of the bad
checks the supposedly were covering); this figure may be higher than
for operations with a higher/smoother throughput of checks but the
charge %age is typical. Note that this applies only to the
revolving, interest-bearing debit cards; Amex wanted more, wanted a
steadier throughput, and (worst of all) wanted us to eat the float
(i.e., 6-8 weeks between invoicing and payment)
------------------------------
Date: 28 Mar 1983 1308-MST
From: Walt
Subject: Re: a case for EFT ?!!
- The cost of the merchandise should be listed separately
from the overhead caused by the form of payment? (just
like tax)
- Any savings or additional costs due to the form of payment
should be passed on to the buyer.
I vote in favor.
------------------------------
Date: 26 March 1983 09:04 EST
From: Zigurd R. Mednieks
Subject: I like the part about intangible information storage
So if I resurrected one of those storage tube memories for registers
and used a write-once optical mass storage device, or better yet,
used ONLY the optical disk memory, I would have a "computer" that
stores information in tangible form. If I sold non-software for my
non-computer in Texas, would I need pay tax? Sounds like they're
legislating the value of pi again.
The edge between intangible and tangible is the most intangible and
unmeasurable thing about computer systems. An optical disk could be
read like a book by someone used to reading front panel lights, or
disassembling in his head. I believe there is an emulsion you can
apply to magnetic media to "develop" a visible manifestation of the
magnetic fields storing the information on it.
If I burn a stack of documents typed in OCR-A before they reach the
reader, have I committed a computer crime? Actually, the typeface
need not matter at all.
If a server at a secure site spazzes and scribbles all over the disk
instead of just refusing me access, have I committed a crime for
TRYING to access that site? What if was trying to break in? What if
I wasn't? Who could tell what my attitude really had been had I
done such a thing and been arrested?
Yow! Is it 1984 yet?
Cheers,
Zig
------------------------------
Date: Sat 26 Mar 83 14:54:43-PST
From: Edjik
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #11
Hmm, the definition of a computer system in the texas bill 193 seems
awful vague. the way its stated my hp-25 calculator would be
considered a computer system. Hmm, i can't wait till some student
in some texas college picks up someones calculator to do some math
problem and then finds himself arrested for using a computer system
against the operators wishes. sigh.
-- Edjik
------------------------------
Date: 28 Mar 1983 0958-PST
Subject: Re: Silly legal definitions in texas
From: Ian H. Merritt
Perhaps somebody should take a copy of the digests on this subject,
strip off any indication of their source, and leave only first names
or nicknames. Then forward the result to the media with a partial
explanation, and to the texas authorities responsible for this as
well. A little input from people who have some knowledge of the
subject they are trying to define wouldn't hurt.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #16
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-03-31 02:35:54 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 31 Mar 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 16
Today's Topics:
Computers and the Law - Texas Computer Crime Law (8 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 29 March 1983 04:24 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Texas Legislature to consider a Computer Crime Law
Date: Saturday, 26 March 1983, 01:50-EST
From: Christopher C. Stacy
... there are no laws that I know about which concern themselves
directly with the misuse of vacuum cleaners. ... So why are
people concerning themselves with laws about computers?
I agree. We should be careful to make special laws for special tools
only when those special tools permit kinds of crime not covered by
older laws, and only in ways appropriate to the level of threat
involved. In many cases I'd rather see old definitions adjusted
(like amend the definition of "property" to include confidential
data stored in a memory device) instead of creating a whole class of
"computer crime" separate from existing theft laws.
Sec. 33.01 DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(2) "Computer software" means instructions or statements
that permit a computer system to perform a useful function.
I wonder what "useful" means?
I think you're being too picky. "Useful" means it accomplishes some
purpose that a human or pseudo-human (company, government agency)
wants performed. For example, adding the contents of register 4 to
the contents of register 6 and depositing the results in register 6
isn't useful, but accepting input from the terminal until
end-of-line and parsing that line of text as an arithmetic
expression an printing out the result of evaluating that expression
IS useful. Thus the ability of the PDP-10 CPU to execute the
instruction ADD 6,4 isn't useful in itself, but the Macsyma program
is. A bunch of random instructions generated by noise, that don't do
anything useful, just hang the cpu after a few microseconds,
wouldn't be considered "software" under this proposed Texas
defintion. -- In summary, the definition seems to hit the nail on
the head, even if it's not mathematically perfect (hardly any legal
definition is anyway).
(3) "Computer system" means a device or set of devices that
stores data in an intangible form, or that, in response to
instructions or data given to it, analyzes data, converts
data from one form into another, or produces new data.
It seems to me that humans (and other animals, and plants) are
included in this definition. So are telephones, thermostats,
and vacuum cleaners.
Yes. This definition needs to be amended to exclude biological
units. Telephone headsets aren't computer systems, but the central
office and the relaynodes *are* and ought to be included. That way
if you tap into the telephone system's computers to disrupt
communications and cause many people to die due to inablity to
contact their doctor by telephone, you'd be subject to this new law
wheras under old law you might get off because "all you did is talk
to the telephone computer, and freedom of speech is protected". -- I
rather doubt thermostats and vacuum cleaners store data. They take
input from a dial or switch, and continuously react to it, but they
never store the setting internally, they just keep reacting to the
current setting, and as soon as you change it they act like the old
setting never existed.
Sec. 33.03. BREACH OF SECURITY SYSTEM.
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective
consent of the operator of the computer system, he
intentionally:
(3) gives information concerning a computer security
system to another person.
I don't understand how this last can be reconciled with free
speech.
I agree, this ought to be limited to secret keys, not info about the
general algorithm. For example, if I told somebody that Crocker Bank
used plastic cards plus 4-digit identification numbers manually
typed in, as I am doing right here, I'd be violating that new
proposed Texas law! But if I started passing out pepole's 4-digit
numbers without their permission, that'd be something the law should
cover. I wonder if anybody in the Texas legislature is on this
mailing list? We'd make a good sounding board for any laws relating
to computers, to see if they have serious flaws like this.
Besides, what "information" are they talking about? I imagine
that if I decided a random fact (such as "grass is green") was a
part of my computer security, that I could attempt to have
anyone who repeated the fact criminally prosecuted.
Hmmm, ordinarily I'd say this is frivilous, but recent cases with
national security where somebody doing independent research happens
to come up with a system similar to some secret system, and suddenly
this independent research is declared top secret, get me to
worrying.
------------------------------
Date: 29 March 1983 04:50 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #11
Yup, a pocket calculator with memory would certainly (in my opinion)
be a "computer" under both this proposed Texas law and under the
proposed USA law a couple years back. There ought to be a way to
prevent baiting. Like if you leave your calculator on a desk and
somebody comes along and presses one of the buttons to see if it
worked, that would be a crime under both proposed laws. But it
really shouldn't, because you didn't take adequate security
measures. If it's in your purse or briefcase (etc.) and somebody
gets in there without your permission and uses your calculator, that
probably should be a crime, because people aren't supposed to get in
your purse or briefcase in the first place.
(What if you pass out on the street, somebody looks in your purse to
see who you are so they can notify your family and doctor, and they
see your calculator and play with it. I wonder if that should be a
crime? I think if you had some valuable program on it (suppose it's
an HP-41c) and they accidentally deleted it they ought to get fined
and/or sued for the loss you thereby suffered? That'll teach them to
keep their finger off computers that don't belong to them and which
they don't understand what to do and what not to do.)
What if you are working out your income tax, and you go to the store
for a refill for your pen. While you're out your apartment manager
comes in to fix something, and sees the papers and not realizing
they're important throws them away. You come back and find a week's
work lost. -- This has nothing to do with computers, yet you've
suffered a similar loss to if your disk file were deleted by some
intruder. I think the law is too specific to computers and ought to
cover all sorts of data or work loss regardless of whether a
computer was involved or not. I.e. the law is aiming at the mystique
of computers instead of where the problem really lies, damage or
theft of valuable data and other products of work/labor, or
interference with legitimate operations.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 29 Mar 83 02:41:10-PST
From: Edjik
i think the real problem is having laws made that deal with highly
technical issues, by people who have an extremely limited technical
background.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Mar 1983 10:39:03-PST
From: Robert P. Cunningham
Reply-to: cunningh@Nosc
Subject: Texas bill 193
Section 33.05 of the bill (Interfering with computers) appears to
apply to an electrical utility which sends power spikes and thereby
glitches a computer system. Similarly, it also might apply to a
phone company which allowed its lines to become noisy and interfere
with telecommunications involving computer systems.
In fact, since phone company switching systems (ESS) employ embedded
computers, the bill's definition of a 'computer system' may also
incidentally apply to the phone system. Will that make it a
misdemeaner to give out an unlisted phone number?
Bob C.
------------------------------
Date: 29 March 1983 14:18 cst
From: Heiby at HI-MULTICS (Ronald W.)
Subject: Texas Computer Crime Bill
Effective consent is not defined in the bill. I assume that the
phrase is defined somewhere in Texas or common law. If I find a
list of the user ids and passwords lying around un-protected and
un-encrypted in a public system directory where the system
administrator left it, have I been given effective consent to look
at it? To make use of the information in it?
An area that the bill does not address at all is the entire issue of
protecting customers of a computer service bureau from the service's
operator or his/her staff.
Ron H.
------------------------------
Date: 29 March 1983 16:04-EST (Tuesday)
From: Paul Fuqua
Subject: Texas Computer-Crime Laws (70+ lines)
That's my home state. Wouldn't want to live anywhere else, but
the lawmaking *does* become a bit strange sometimes. What other
state needed to pass a constitutional amendment to legalize bingo
for non-profit groups?
When I first read the computer-crime bill, I was somewhat
dismayed. It was so broad, so vague. I felt all those concerns
already voiced. Then I read it again. It's not a *bad* bill.
Finesse the definitions for a moment (rely on intuitive meanings),
and read it again. "Access for fraudulent purpose" is written just
fine. "Unauthorized access" part 2 (alteration or damage of the
system, software, or data) is OK. "Interference (*intentional*
interference) with service" is also written properly.
What doesn't work? The sections concerning "breach of security
system" and the initial part of "unauthorized access" (using the
system in a manner not permitted by the operator). Why don't they
work? Because the definition of "computer system" is vague. The
concepts themselves are roughly akin to trespassing. If someone
wishes to fence their property and not allow you to walk across,
they can do so; so can a computer operator refuse you access to his
machine (I don't want to talk about easements and discrimination).
I'm somewhat of a hacker, too; nevertheless, it's "trespassing."
So, the crux of the whole issue is the definition of "computer
system." Some (old) unabridged dictionary I leafed through a moment
ago defined "computer" as "a mechanical or electronic device capable
of performing repetitious mathematical operations at high speed."
It's not great, but it's better than the vague definition given in
the bill. At least a vacuum cleaner doesn't qualify. Digital
watches and microwave ovens could slip in, if they contain
processors (as most of them do). That "intangible" business is also
a problem, but I suspect it is necessary either because of the
judicial decision mentioned, or to be compatible with the
software-sales-tax bill. Storage is not necessarily intangible, but
legislators are not computer people.
"Computer system" is not an easy thing to define, however. We
want to include the systems that banks and other institutions use to
store their records, but exclude processor-containing objects such
as calculators, watches, and microwave ovens. We cannot define by
example, because that is incompatible with the supposed timelessness
of law. I propose "a mechanical or electronic device or set of
devices that, in response to data or instructions given to it and/or
stored in it, analyses data, converts data from one form into
another, or produces new data, at a high rate of speed."
I hope that covers processors without covering microwave ovens
(although it could be said that they work fast, too). Perhaps a
specific exclusion is needed. I wanted to include the phrase
"through mathematical and logical operations," but I think it's too
restrictive. There are also days when DEC-20s do not work at a high
rate of speed (try mit-xx between 4 and 6). My proposal still
doesn't handle the problem of "what if someone uses my calculator
and I don't want them to", but somehow there is made a distinction
between trespassing on land and borrowing a tool without permission,
both of which involve the concept of property.. Let's steal from
that. Of course, the Dynabook will mess that idea up. Help.
I realize I've thrown around a lot of terms in an imprecise or
incorrect way, and there are a lot of items still needing
definition. If we come up with something good, we can send it in
and keep the Texas Legislature from screwing up.
pf
ps Regarding the "emergency" provision: will avoiding two readings
of the bill in each house really make a difference in
time-to-passage?
pps Many laws exist not to prevent actions, but to allow
governmental action against an offender when they deem it
necessary. In both Cambridge and Dallas, it is illegal to park
on the street for longer that 24 hours without moving, but it
is only rarely enforced in Dallas, because there are still
plenty of parking spaces. I hope the "breach of security"
provision, if passed, is treated in such a manner.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Mar 83 21:35:15-EST (Tue)
From: "Peter N. Wan"
Subject: Re: Texas computer law
The Texas computer law reads very much like the one that was passed
as the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act. My initial
reactions after reading the Georgia law were pretty much the same as
the ones expressed here; i.e., that freshmen playing games on their
computer course accounts could be prosecuted for misuse of the
system, etc. The way that I see it, present laws would probably be
sufficient to rectify criminal activity if our judges and jurors
were knowledgable enough about computers and information technology
to apply them. For instance, stealing someone's password and
logging in would correspond to breaking and entering, etc. Proving
theft would be another matter, however. Our current concepts of
theft involve the change of possession of something; stealing a
computer program does not deprive the original possessor of
possession. It just allows someone else to have control of
essentially the same item. I feel that we need laws to address only
those areas that cannot possibly be covered by current legislation.
And we certainly do not need the ambiguous, poorly-worded pieces of
legislation that we are currently getting to address computer
problems.
------------------------------
Date: Wed 30 Mar 83 10:49:08-PST
From: LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Computer Systems
I looked up the IEEE definition of "computer system". It is
basically a communicating configuration of computer hardware.
"Computer hardware" is hardware for processing computer data. I
didn't follow this all the way down (or around), but "computer data"
seems to be easier to define than the other terms; it has to do with
information that is not directly usable by humans.
-- Ken Laws
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #17
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-04-02 00:46:11 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 1 Apr 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 17
Today's Topics:
Replies to Queries - Where to Order Documents &
Resource Requirements,
Technology - EFT (4 msgs),
Computers and the Law - Electronic Anklet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 29 Mar 1983 0747-PST
From: Wmartin at OFFICE-3 (Will Martin)
Subject: Addresses request
The address inquiry previously appeared on Msggroup; here is
an answer which was sent in reply.
(You'll probably see twelve of these...)
Return-path:
Date: 21 Mar 1983 0839-PST
Subject: Re: Where To Order Documents ?
From: SABATINE at USC-ISIB
To: POSTEL at USC-ISIF
Jon,
Here are the appropriate locations. I'm sending this to you
in the hopes that you'll forward it to the original requestor.
ISO and ANSI standards are both ordered from:
American National Standards Institute
1430 Broadway
New York, NY 10018
(212) 354-3300
It's best to call first and receive price quotes and info re
the correct method of payment. They also have an ISO catalog
that can be obtained.
NBS publications are ordered either from the Superintendent
of Documents, US. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
20204, or from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
I always go through NTIS because they are fast and accept phone
orders. Their address is Port Royal Road, Springfield Virginia,
22161. (703) 487-4650.
Both agencies only accept orders via a GPO SuDoc number, or
an NTIS accession number. To find out the available publications
from NBS, and the corresponding order numbers, it may be best
to contact them directly. The NBS address is simply: National
Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington
D.C. 20234. I'm sorry, I don't have a phone number.
CCITT: International Telecommunication Union
General Secretariat
Sales Service
Place des Nations
CH-1211
Geneva 20 Switzerland
They, too, can be contacted for publications lists and order
forms.
I hope this helps,
Alicia
-------
(Forwarded by Will Martin, WMartin@Office-3)
------------------------------
Date: 29 Mar 1983 1235-PST
From: Wmartin at OFFICE-3 (Will Martin)
Subject: Comparing Electronic Mail Systems
One reasonable reference source I've been reading for a while on the
subject of electronic mail is a newsletter called "EMMS - Electronic
Mail & Message Systems". It comes out twice a month and is printed
on light green paper. Though it is expensive ($235 / year, back
issues $10 each or less if you buy a year's worth in a binder), they
seem to be amenable to sending out free samples. Look for
Business-Reply cards from them in the packets of cards you get along
with subscriptions to freebie trade magazines ("Computer Design",
etc.) or drop a note to :
International Resource Development, Inc.
30 High Street
Norwalk, CT 06851
Telephone # is (203) 866-6914.
Of course, since this is a private-industry-oriented publication, a
lot of the fax, telex, ECOM, and suchlike stuff discussed is fairly
inferior to the real computer-based electronic message systems we
are used to. So you have to wade through a lot of dross to find the
information of interest to us. There is more of a marketing than a
technical orientation.
Will Martin (WMartin@Office-3)
------------------------------
From: allegra!rba@ucbvax
Date: Wed Mar 30 14:52:39 1983
In reply to the questions of Ben Kuipers (HN vol 6, #15), John Gould
of IBM has conducted several studies comparing how letters are
composed in different modalities. In one of these studies (Gould,
1981) he found that letters written with a text editor (REDIT) were
composed more slowly than handwritten letters although if the time
for a secretary to type the handwritten letter was included, the
text editor came out slightly ahead. In another series of studies
(Gould, 1978) dictation and "spoken letters" are found to be much
faster than handwriting. However, in both studies letter quality
was not affected by the way the letters were composed.
Bob Allen
BTL - MH
Gould, J.D. How experts dictate. \Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance/ 4, 1978, 648.
Gould, J.D. Composing letters with computer-based text editors.
Human Factors/ 23, 1981. 593.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Mar 1983 0305-EST
From: Hobbit
Subject: EFT cards
Somehow I don't think a writeable card would be too secure. I have
had cards from which the mag stripe has been bashed simply by riding
around in my wallet for six months. If high-density stripes are
going to work, they have to physically protect them better.
_H*
------------------------------
Date: Mon Mar 28 1983 13:00:01-PST
From: Lauren Weinstein
Subject: EFT, etc.
My friends,
Some of you are fooling yourselves. We can sit around our terminals
and mumble about security systems and encryption until doomsday, but
the real security parameters of future EFT systems will be
*politically* determined, *not* simply technically determined.
Right now, today, we know how to build systems that could provide
virtually "perfect" security of transactions from the customer's
standpoint (I'm not addressing the issue of how much these systems
could *cost* in today's market, however.) But I'll make you a bet.
Such "perfect" systems would always have legally mandated "holes"
implemented to allow for "special situations". Does anyone
seriously believe that an EFT system that effectively "obscures" all
transactions from scrutiny will be permitted to exist on a large
scale? I can think of half a dozen governmental agencies which
would scream bloody murder at the very idea. Of course, each agency
would claim that only *they* needed access to the data, and of
course *nobody* else could ever touch such data. Poppycock. By the
time the various exceptions are implemented, our "perfect" EFT
system will have as many holes as the proverbial swiss cheese.
As was stated by someone in a previous digest, it is not the systems
themselves that are the real danger -- but rather the *misuse* of
information that these systems generate and collect. It is my
belief that *only* a system with the potential for misuse (where
"misuse" can be defined in various ways by different persons) will
be legally permitted to appear. I also might suggest that the
dangers of such a system might well overshadow the "convenience"
benefits we could derive from its use.
The "unrealistic" tone of some of the proposals recently presented
in this digest is obvious. "Free food under REM's term as world
leader" --- gimme a break! "Send the illegal aliens back where they
belong" -- a one line phrase which many "leaders" spout at election
time but perpetually find extremely complicated to handle in
reality. Such pie-in-the-sky statements (if indeed they are "pie")
belong over in the POLI-SCI digest, not on HUMAN-NETS where,
presumably, we are seeking "realistic" solutions to complex
technical issues which face society.
I fear that there are those among us who would willingly set up a
society where you had to use your thumbprint (or tongueprint? What
a disgusting idea, REM...) twenty times a day just to handle the
normal transactions of living. Sometime ago, I sent to this digest
a "humorous" scenario of what the printout from such a "tracking
EFT" system might look like. I was not just "kidding around" with
that message -- I consider EFT abuse to be almost a certainty in
many of the large scale operations now being envisioned. I also
suspect that, by convention and eventual edict, cash will become
less and less acceptable as time goes by under such a system, simply
because it *is* so much easier to keep track of electronic
transactions -- and we can be sure that somewhere, someone other
than "us" will be keeping track.
Convenience is one thing. But frankly, I don't want to have to show
my thumbprint (or lick some damn EFT terminal!) simply to allow such
"conveniences", and I wonder how long it would take for
"necessities" to also be brought under the umbrella of these
systems. I hope that there are those of you who agree with me.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: 29 Mar 1983 1715-PST
From: Lynn Gold
Subject: ATMs and records
No matter whether or not they keep old records around, aren't
there statutes of limitation which take effect after a certain
period of time after a crime is committed (seven years or so)?
If this is the case, it wouldn't matter if someone had a
college-days fling that was discovered fifteen years after they
finished college, since it would be too late to prosecute.
--Lynn
------------------------------
Date: 29 March 1983 21:21 EST
From: Barry Clifford Neuman
What good does the cashless society do about crime anyway?
Someone can always force you to transfer money to them. Do you
intend that credit transfer outlets are to be restricted? I can
just see having to visit the bank to lend a friend money.
One solution to this problem is to take a step backward. We
shouldn't restrict credit transfer outlets, but we should restrict
locations where credit can be turned into cash. This means that you
can transfer money to you friend at any time you want, but to
withdraw cash, and give it to someone, you should have to go to a
bank or similar establisment. If the whole society were cashless,
there should only be need for small amounts of cash, and obatining
it should not pose any great emergency, since for almost everything,
you can use EFT for the transaction. Do away with the automatic
tellers that allow you to withdraw cash. This shoud essentially
eliminate this type of crime, since a theif obviously gives away his
identity if he forces you to transfer money to him.
Cliff
------------------------------
Date: 29 Mar 83 10:34 EST (Tuesday)
From: Damouth.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Electronic Anklet
Weinstein's additional description of the electronic anklet stops
short of pointing out the obvious next step:
Our large cities are all installing cellular radio systems for
mobile communications. Some cities already have a similar but more
limited transponder system for automatically keeping track of
location of police cars. The anklet could easily transmit to such a
system, providing a continuous record of the location of the person.
For the police car locator system, accuracy is a fraction of a city
block. The cellular radio, not being designed for this purpose,
might only localize the person to a particular cell, which is much
larger but still useful. Going a bit further, the radio navigation
receivers now being sold for yachts can automatically provide
location to within about 50 feet most places in the country (or
maybe it is presently limited to a few hundred miles from navigable
water - the newer satellite-based transmitters will fix this, and
will also provide elevation plus or minus one floor in a high-rise).
Such a receiver is presently a bit too big and too power-hungry to
be mounted in an anklet. A more specialized unit, which simply
receives the navigation signals and transmits the raw data and an
identification code, via cellular communications systems, to a
central computer, could be reduced to a few chips and mounted in an
anklet.
Viewed by itself, this prospect appears horrifying. Viewed as an
alternative to prison for convicted non-violent criminals, it seems
far more humane and far cheaper than the prison.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #18
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-04-05 02:46:07 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Saturday, 2 Apr 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 18
Today's Topics:
Technology - EFT (9 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 31 Mar 1983 1332-EST
From: ZALESKI@RUTGERS (Mike Zaleski)
Subject: EFT Security
In view of the recent discussion on Human-Nets regarding the privacy
and security of Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) and Electronic
Banking in general, the following, from the February 1983 issue of
The Communications of the ACM, "Regulation of Electronic Funds
Transfer: Impact and Legal Issues", pages 112-118, might be of
interest:
"The United States Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Miller in 1976
ruled that the notion that an individual's expectation of
confidentiality in his bank is not legally enforceable or
even warranted. Further, the Court ruled that the records
are property of the bank, not the depositor [4].
[4] Colton, K. W. and Kraemer, K. L., "Computers and
Banking", Plenum Press, New York, 1980."
Although these notions might be distressing, consider the other side
of the issue. Is it desirable that individuals with bad credit
ratings be allowed to hide in a maze of confidentiality laws?
People who pay their bills must also shoulder the responsibility of
those bad risks.
Perhaps the biggest concerns of pro-EFT forces should be directed
toward security from criminal intervention and toward consumer
convenience. I would use EFT today even if there were no privacy
safeguards, but not it there were no safeguards against outright
criminal misuse of the system.
-- Mike^Z
------------------------------
Date: 1 April 1983 05:30 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: EFT, etc. - another strawman idea below...
Under my ideal system, you wouldn't have to show your thumbprint (or
tongueprint; ugh, unless the sensor tastes nice; gee what a 1984ish
way to entice people to use the system, addictive tongueprint
sensors!) twenty times a day.
There are three kinds of transactions:
(1) You physically travel to a store where a human checks you out;
(2) You physically travel to a bank where you interact with a
device;
(3) You sit at home and call up your orders directly from your
workstation without having to physically travel anywhere.
Type (2) will die as soon as everybody has workstations. The whole
idea of having to travel downtown just to press buttons on a machine
is stupid. We do it now only because the "dumb" banks haven't yet
made it possible for us to do everything from home. So let's discuss
(1) and (3).
In the case of (1), you insert your ID card or punch your username,
the computer calls up a picture of you, and the storeclerk compares
you with your picture to verify your identity. Just like showing an
ID with picture, except it's harder to forge the ID.
In the case of (3), you identify yourself when you wake up and start
using the system or when you return home. If anybody visits you (or
breaks in) your automated home automatically cancels your password
unless you have authorized the visitor to be present while the
password is active. When the unauthorized visitor leaves you
re-identify yourself. Unless you have lots of unauthorized visitors,
you don't have to identify yourself often.
Thus you may never need your thumbprint (or tongueprint) except for
coroner's files in case you die and somebody needs to identify your
body.
------------------------------
Date: 1 Apr 1983 0916-CST
Subject: Re: EFT, etc.
From: CS.TEMIN at UTEXAS-20
I would like to voice agreement with Lauren, that any EFT system
will be \\designed// with the potential for misuse explicitly
embedded in it. And it seems that no contributors to this digest
who advocate EFT would put up with such an EFT system.
A comprehensive EFT system would put more information in one place
than there is currently. For example, the IRS keeps tax returns
privileged from criminal prosecutors in general. EFT could
undermine all the laws that currently exist regarding freedom (and
secrecy) of information.
I enjoy the luxury of having several different ways to pay for a
transaction -- cash, bank card, store-specific credit card, check.
Integrated EFT sounds like it would do away with such methods.
I think that EFT is a case of the public falling in love with
technology. There is no real need for this. EFT works fine for
transactions between financial institutions. And if the current
methods for detecting fraudulent checks and credit cards were a bit
more reliable, the current system for making personal monetary
transactions should be acceptable to everyone (vendors and
purchasers).
/aaron temin
------------------------------
Date: Fri 1 Apr 83 09:29:18-PST
From: LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA
Subject: Statute of Limitations
I disagree with Lynn Gold about the statute of limitations providing
protection from misuse of old data. It currently offers some
protection from prosecution, although that can be revoked at any
time (e.g., to allow us to get at Nazi war criminals). Much more
common, however, is persecution outside the legal system. The
Commie witchhunt/blacklist history is an example. Anyone who
declares bankruptcy, is convicted of a major crime, or is even
acquitted of a morals charge may be similarly branded by his past.
(We still remember Charles Dodgson/Lewis Carroll's interest in nude
little girls, don't we?)
Sixty Minutes has reported that police (near St. Louis?) have
allowed landlords to screen prospective tenants via on-line
databanks. These records often show fugitive warrants that have not
been purged after the suspect has already been found and released.
Neither the statute of limitations nor uninforced laws against
misuse are of any help in these situations. Data that are not
purged may become part of your public identity, either now or for
future generations.
-- Ken Laws
------------------------------
Date: Fri 1 Apr 83 11:28:42-PST
From: Paul Martin
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #17
Re Lauren's view of the political nature of EFT implementations: I
believe he is right. The current efforts to keep track of the
transfer of funds inside this country include so many restrictions
and record-keeping (and, at least with a court order,
record-supplying) that only the biggest crooks can afford the
privacy provided by "offshore" banking. The popular perception of
the balance of privacy vs. ease of law enforcement is such that the
mere ownership of a numbered Swiss account is considered "proof" of
financial wrongdoing (at least tax evasion; probably laundering of
mob money too!).
Until the electorate recognizes the need to legislate privacy even
in cases when it could be potentially inconvenient to some finger of
the long arm of the law, we can expect the outlawing of any private
form of EFT.
Re Lynn Gould's reference to the statute of limitations: The Mustang
Ranch example was a case where no law was broken; the problem for a
Moron Majority leader having the old wild weekend surface goes way
beyond any restriction on the time limits for broken laws. The
example of Tom Eagleton being kicked off the Democratic ticket for
having sought the aid of a shrink in the distant past gives us a
clue as to how the mere record of payment transfers can become a
liability if it is obtainable by the wrong folks....
Paul (SSN-is-none-of-your-business) Martin
------------------------------
Date: 1 April 1983 14:36 est
From: Dehn.DEHN at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Realism of EFT Proposals
It is not at all unreasonable to consider "perfectly secure" EFT
systems. I agree that the current trend is not very encouraging;
the more information gets into computer-readable form, the more
reasons the politicians think of for using it. We can see where
this will lead, but can the politicians see any alternative?
One reason for discussing and building secure systems is to see if
they do provide an alternative. If the nation were presented with a
choice between the current trend and a situation where everyone was
safe (in this domain) from both criminals and the government, it
might at least give a little consideration to the latter
possibility.
Yes, "perfectly secure" EFT is inconsistent with today's practices,
but that doesn't have to stop it. New technology often requires
changes in practices. A change in human nature is not required, but
rather a change in people's conception of their rights. History
provides many examples of such changes. For documentation of a few
examples, see our Constitution. In this case, we may not even need
a new idea, but rather simply a recognition that a right that people
thought they had is being threatened in a new way, and that there is
an alternative to simply watching it vanish entirely.
The government activities that pose the threat are not some sort of
fixed environmental specs that technical solutions must comply with.
The political process provides mechanisms for change, and technical
demonstrations can be part of that political process. They may even
change in a favorable direction for other reasons. For example, in
the tax area, there is currently interest in alternative forms of
taxation (flat tax, VAT, etc.) that might require less information
collection for enforcement. There may also be technical ways of
reducing the danger even more, such as by building some aspects of
the tax system into the EFT system itself, making it unnecessary to
make detailed information available to anyone.
-jwd3
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 1 April 1983, 11:49-PST
From: Richard Lamson
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #17
From: Lynn Gold
Subject: ATMs and records
No matter whether or not they keep old records around, aren't
there statutes of limitation which take effect after a certain
period of time after a crime is committed (seven years or so)?
If this is the case, it wouldn't matter if someone had a
college-days fling that was discovered fifteen years after they
finished college, since it would be too late to prosecute.
Yes. Remember Chappaquiddick? How about when Teddy Kennedy was
found to be cheating on an undergraduate test (or whatever -- I
don't remember the actual scandal, just that it gets publicity every
time EMK runs for office...)?
There are ways to persecute without prosecuting.
-- Richard
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 83 13:49:58 EST
From: Jerry Leichter
Subject: EFTS, Privacy, etc.
Lauren's fears about possible abuse of EFTS systems - and his
reminders about the political elements of the decisions involved -
are well taken. The history of technology clearly indicates that
political arrangements drive and control technology at least as much
as technology drives such arrangements. The United States has
maintained the greatest degree of separation between the two
spheres; as a result, the connections, probably as powerful here as
elsewhere, are hidden and non-obvious. The US is just about the
only country in the world that allows private enterprise to run the
phone system; it's almost universally a function of the local post
office. An example of where this can lead is in France: The Paris
phone system as originally designed included a simple method for the
police to tap in to any conversation. No inconvenient physical taps
to install, no court orders; it was understood that control over
this new communication medium would have to be maintained. Today,
the PTT's (Post, Telephone, and Telegraph) are trying to control all
computer networking as well. Consider that in just about all of the
world, TV is a state-provided, state-controlled enterprise.
In Fred Hoyle's "Fifth Planet" - an interesting but not particularly
memorable book otherwise - one of the characters starts speculating
about devices that would allow a central computer to keep track of
where you are. He sees the introduction of such devices as
proceeding from high-status positions - "I'm so important that I
must be reachable & protectable immediately at all times" - on
gradually downward, to the point where everyone is required to wear
the things at all times. No one objects because at each point in
the evolution of the system it looks like the new class of people
who have to wear the things are being awarded higher status. This
was written about 15 years ago; I find it fascinating to compare to
the evolution of "beepers" - devices I would absolutely refuse to
accept.
Finally, on a positive note: EFTS will not TOTALLY displace cash in
the forseeable future. Reason: It costs way too much per
transaction. Take a look at the December 1979 CACM - a special
issue on EFTS. Here is a table:
Transactions/year Total cost Cost/transaction
(billions) ($billions) ($)
Cash 264 3.274 .012
Check 32 17.048 .53
Credit card 5 2.580 .52
(1976 data)
Most cash transactions are small (75% <$1, 95% <= $10). It's
difficult to imagine the EFTS cost coming even close to the cash
cost on a per-transaction basis. (Unfortunately, there is - or was
in 1979 - no good data on EFTS costs.) Clearly, the big win is in
taking over for checks, at least for quite a while to come.
-- Jerry
decvax!yale-comix!leichter
leichter @ yale
------------------------------
Date: 1 April 1983 23:59-EST (Friday)
From: _Bob
Subject: Question: EFT and Fingerprints
Hi,
Several recent messages to HN have assumed, without describing,
reliable fingerprint recognition as part of an EFT scheme. Just
what do the best fingerprint recognition programs do, exactly, and
how well do they do it?
I've had occasion to read the testimony of human fingerprint
experts, and I'm not sure it is stuff you'd want to trust your money
to. In the examples I have seen the expert looks for between 10 and
15 'points of correspondence,' arches whorles and the like, between
the candidate and exemplar prints. Correspondence is a judgment
call, else the fellow wouldn't have to be an expert.
The humans seem to be trying for unique identification from a 15-bit
word, with an error-checking algorithm that is far from obvious.
Maybe some AI construct could handle this task. But, something
written in bankers' COBOL?
_Bob
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #19
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-04-05 02:51:51 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Sunday, 3 Apr 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 19
Today's Topics:
Computers and the Law - Texas Computer Crime Law (5 msgs) &
Electronic Anklet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 31 March 1983 05:38 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Computer Systems
Date: Wed 30 Mar 83 10:49:08-PST
From: LAWS@SRI-AI.ARPA
"computer data" seems to be easier to define than the other
terms; it has to do with information that is not directly usable
by humans.
Gee, under that definition all information in the brains of any
species other than Homo Sapiens would be "computer data". Also any
information locked in a vault such as a safe-deposit box would be
"computer data" during the time it's under lock. Also anything
written in a lost language such as ancient Mayan would be "computer
data".
I think we better try again with that definition.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Mar 1983 12:54:13-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: re computers and the law
Enter Flame Mode:
I'm a bit surprised at the naivete with which most people are
approaching the Texas Computer Crime Law; although I don't recall
seeing msgs from the wight on Poli-Sci who was proclaiming himself
and his reactionary buddies the source of all hard truths, it should
be obvious (especially considering where the laws are first
appearing) that the major issue here is MONEY. (This was briefly
mentioned as an introduction to the debate and has since
disappeared.) The issue isn't assorted minor inconveniences, and it
certainly isn't personal rights; it's the fact that the average
money-yielding attack on a computer system (i.e., not hacking but
-"computer theft"-) yields something like 20 times as much loot as
the average robbery/burglary (and those figures may be suspect
because the ones I've seen don't indicate whether they include
crimes against homes as well as crimes against business). Worse (from the point of view of the people who own
some of the legislatures), some computer thieves have managed to
wriggle out of any charges through loopholes in current laws, to the
extent that computer theft often goes unprosecuted due to the
unlikelihood of conviction, the even smaller likelihood of getting
anything back, and the great likelihood of unfavorable publicity for
companies which depend heavily on public confidence (e.g. banks).
If you want to deal with the fallacies of a law you have to allow
for the objectives of those who framed it.
Leave Flame Mode.
Note on the landlord-destroying-tax-returns case: in
Massachusetts it's illegal for the landlord to enter your place
without an appointment except in an emergency, and the courts aren't
lenient in their definitions of emergency. (But then, Mass. is a
good place for tenants.) I'm more worried about destruction by my
sister's cats.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Mar 1983 10:44-PST
From: Greg Davidson
Subject: Computer Laws
It always disturbs me when laws define crimes in terms of the
methods used to perform the crime instead of in terms of the nature
of the crime. This is one of the things that keeps our legal system
so complicated that even lawyers trip over it. I would assert that
no new laws need or should be passed, ever, to cover crime involving
computers.
Regardless of the tools used, harming someone physically should be a
crime. Regardless of the tools used, stealing someone's property
should be a crime. Regardless of the nature of the property, its
theft should be a crime. In addition to theft, unauthorized use
should also be a crime. It is the owner's privilege to specify what
uses of his or her property, if any, are to be permitted by others.
It is the owner's responsibility to clearly label or restrict access
to his property so that people can respect his or her wishes.
Issues of enticement come up, and so on, but such issues have
nothing to do with computers, per se.
Any person who commits a crime is certainly responsible for any
damages that ensue. Its probably also necessary to be able to slap
their hands even if no damage ensued from their action. Also, if
there is reason to believe that they were trying to cause damage,
its necessary to take strong action. I could go on, but there's
nothing about computers here.
It should be made clear that information can be property like
anything else. It can not only be stolen or damaged, it can also be
copied. Copying information whose access is restricted against
such, is just another example of unauthorized use of someone's
property. It does not make any difference what form the information
is stored in.
I would challenge the whole group to come up with anything new which
needs to be added to existing laws to extend them to cover computer
crime. Also, I would like people to find cases where existing legal
definitions are tied to some particular method, and suggest how they
should read instead.
I've always found it hard to believe that a society can expect
people to obey its laws when they are so complex that they can't be
known to everyone. Can anyone think of any good reason why the laws
of this country couldn't be reduced to the size of a paperback book?
Suppose they were legally required to fit in such a book (word
count, not page count)? Suppose that learning the laws was required
of all high school students, and the legislature was required to
keep them simple enough that at least 80% of the students passed a
standardized achievement test on them?
-Greg
------------------------------
Date: 31 Mar 83 18:39 EST (Thursday)
From: clark.wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #16
Suggested Definition:
Computer System: "Contrivance intended to manipulate
information."
Information: "{data, facts} and {ideas,algorithms,concepts}"
(something like that)
A microwave oven manipulates Hot Dogs,
A Vacuum cleaner manipulates air and small particles,
A digital watch I don't know about...
SO... a Washing Machine with a CRAY I in it to optimize the
motion of the parts to maximize the effectiveness of washing
while minimizing the wear and tear on the cloths would NOT
be a Computer System, because it is intended to wash cloths.
An ATM manipulates information, the result of such
manipulation being to run a mechanical gadget to feed you
$$. It falls under the category of computer system because
it manipulates your magic number to decide whether to give
you $$ or not. If it simply gave $$ to everybody who pushed
a button, it would not be because it's main purpose was to
manipulate $$ and the dispensing mechanism.
A process control computer manipulates information, the
result being used to control motors, etc.
Note that the process control system WOULD be a computer
system, since it is intended to manipulate information,
whereas the Steel mill is NOT a computer system because it
is intended to manipulate Metal.
A mechanical device to shuffle huge card files around is
manipulating information, and so it would be just like a
computer.
Does this make sense?
Without knowing one whole heck of a lot about law, It seems to me
that if the people involved understand the technology that the
application of laws for material objects to computers is obvious.
If you do damage to the other party, or run off with something that
he/she did not want you to, you ... well... did something wrong !
Notice in my definition of information, it does not matter HOW it is
encoded, or if a person, no matter how sharp, can read it. If the
OWNER can get some use out of it, or extract the information, it
must be useful!
Favorite point:
The (*& about information being directly useable by humans... any
amount of gibberish is directly useable by humans, it just takes us
a little longer. First, because it is not in a very efficient form
for us, and second, because we are not used to doing it. At one
time I could read, modify, and debug 8080 code with a hex memory
editor just as well as the source. Just because Joe Blow off the
street can't, doesn't mean it is not useable. That would mean that
German language information is not information because it is not
usable by *all* humans. Actually, using MagnaSee, while I would not
want to do it, it is conceivable that a person could read a book
directly off of a mag tape!
Actually, I don't see what it matters if it is directly usable by
humans or not... if the information is encoded there, it must be
there for a reason... The fact that people put it there in that
format is in itself proof that it is usable by humans, and that they
can somehow profit by it's use. Does anyone have a good (or bad)
explanation FOR the stuff about not applying laws to things not
directly useable by humans? The only source for such ideas I can
think of is the manipulation of technically ignorant legislators by
technologists who want to make it legal to steal other people's
information.
Anyways, this has been much longer and sweeping than I had
intended...
--Ray
------------------------------
Date: 31 March 1983 21:19 EST
From: Clifford Neuman
A few (more) of the provisions of the Texas computer crime act have
points that either need clarification, or that should be totally
rewritten.
To start with:
Sec. 33.01 DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
"Operator," with respect to a computer system, means the person
who manages, controls, or directs the operation and use of the
system.
Operator should be defined in the plural, or at least used in that
way. Most systems are operated by more than one person, and
approval required from the operator may be granted by any of these
people.
Sec. 33.03. BREACH OF SECURITY SYSTEM.
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective
consent of the operator of the computer system, he
intentionally:
What is meant by effective consent? If one of the people who
operates the computer does something covered by the act (totally
legitimately) does he have effective consent. Does he have
effective consent of "The Operator" to perform this act? For the
purpose of this letter I define "The Operator" to be the single
person responsible for overseeing the computer and its staff. Well
maybe he does have the effective consent based upon the privileges
granted to him by "The Operator", but then what about people to
whom he has given consent to perform specific actions. Clearly
they have not receive consent, from "The Operator", but from some
"subordinate" member of the the systems staff.
Perhaps effective consent is defined to include implied consent.
Maybe "The Operator" is allowed to delegate his authority to grant
consent for certain actions. In fact, maybe it can even be
delegated to a process which continually runs on the system whose
sole purpose is to grant permission to users for specific actions.
This sounds very much like an Access Control Job. Does this mean
that anything that the ACJ allows you to do has implied consent
based only on the point that you were able to do it?
Sec. 33.05. INTERFERENCE WITH COMPUTER SERVICE.
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent
of the operator of the computer system, he intentionally
interferes with or interrupts computer system services to one
authorized to receive the services.
This seems like an interesting issue for sites which have a fairly
lenient tourist policy. It is occasionally the case that when
tourists are logged in during peak hours they are asked to leave.
They are even on occasion forcibly logged out if they do not heed
the warning. This is clearly a case of interrupting the computer
system services to those authorize to receive them. It can probably
be argued that the person performing the action has the implied
consent of "The Operator" since the tourist policy does mention that
tourists are not to use the system during peak hours or at other
times when the load is high, but the definition of peak hours or
high load is not the same for everyone. Of course as Paul Fuqua
mentioned in his response, systems may not be considered computers
when the load is high because of their slowness.
Cliff
------------------------------
Date: 1 April 1983 13:07 cst
From: Heiby at HI-MULTICS (Ronald W.)
Subject: Thermostats not computers?
By the way, Honeywell, Texas Instruments, and at least one other
firm (JS&A distributor) make thermostats with microprocessors. At
least one of these is smart enough (according to the ads) to figure
out when to turn the furnace on in order to get the house up to the
desired temperature at the desired time.
I can see changing a thermostat set-point being a crime here in
Minnesota, but I can't see it for Texas. (Ha ha.) Ron H.
------------------------------
Date: 1 April 1983 20:57 EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky
Subject: a jail cell on your foot
From: Damouth.Wbst at PARC-MAXC.ARPA
``Viewed by itself, this prospect appears horrifying. Viewed as
an alternative to prison for convicted non-violent criminals, it
seems far more humane and far cheaper than the prison.''
This can only mean, ``If this were applied to me, I would be
appalled, but since it will only be applied to people I don't know,
it is A.O.K.''
The aspect of the position-sensing anklet, or "jail cell on your
foot," which is worst is (again) its potential for misuse. In this
case it is being applied only to parolees, in place of prison. But
will that be all? The next judge to read Spiderman comics will
probably realize that prisoners held on bail could also wear the
anklet, in place of prison. It is not a difficult step to
administrative supervision, and automatic application to anyone
whose movements "we" might want to watch. (Would you feel
comfortable if this included people with security clearances?)
A "jail cell on your foot" is still a JAIL CELL. Of course it is
more humane! That is the very aspect which is most dangerous.
Humane weapons are more likely to be used, and humane jail cells are
more likely to be applied, and to more people. (Recall REM's world,
where everyone has one.) It is cheaper, too.
An easy solution is to declare that the position-sensing anklet IS a
jail cell, and can only be applied where a prison sentence would be.
But that takes away the technological "miracle," doesn't it?
Technical solutions are not the final word -- they are a great deal
of /help/, but by themselves won't /solve/, hard social problems.
-- Steve
P.S. If you used NAVSTAR, you could be very, very accurate.
$$
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #20
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-04-06 03:49:51 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 6 Apr 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 20
Today's Topics:
Computers and the Law - Electronic Anklet &
Texas Computer Crime Law (6 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 April 1983 18:21 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: a jail cell on your foot
Hey, it's not my world where everyone would have an anklet. But I
rather like the idea of enforcing bail (a mechanism for making sure
people come to trial while allowing them access to lawyers and not
disrupting their daily life such as going to work) this way instead
of with gun-toting bail bondsmen. (Ever jump bail after getting it
from a bondsman, and try to stay alive?) An accused person shouldn't
have to report to court physically until actually convicted of a
crime serious enough to require prison. At the point of arrest the
person should be given the option of (1) immediate anklet, with no
booking procedure at all, or (2) regular booking procedure; thus the
anklet couldn't be used en masse to enslave the population, but
would be an alternative to booking. Court appearances could be done
by remote terminals or in person at the choice of the accused.
I could imagine somebody accused of murder (but not convicted yet)
having an anklet programmed to prevent access to firearms (which
would have their own transponders for that purpose), maybe. Not
sure. Anyway, with the accused sitting at work assembling widgits
while watching the trial on TV, the prosecutor would be eager to
have a speedy trial! Perhaps after the prosecution is done, if
there's a sufficient primae facie case then the accused could be
taken into custody until such time as the primae facie pendulum
swings back (if the person is really innocent). Thus open and shut
murder cases would have a very fast prosecution-half, and the
defense not having any case would not be able to delay imprisonment,
while in the case of an innocent person the imprisonment would be
from the time the prosecution ends until the time the defense has
gotten an alibi, about 10-20 minutes, hardly worth quibbling over.
Also, the jury should be able to vote at the start of deliberation
whether the case is leaning toward guilt or not, and thus whether
the accused should be confined or not while awaiting the final
verdict.
-- Just ideas, might work, might have problems, send quibbles/nits
to me...
------------------------------
Date: Sun 3 Apr 83 10:47:36-PST
From: Robert Amsler
Subject: Texas Computer Crime Bill
I find nothing wrong with the definition of Operator. The bill would
be designed to protect the owners of the computer--they are in fact
the operator. The person hired to run the computer is their employee
and merely one extension of their operation of the machine.
One point which I think the bill is addressing is the ability to
prosecute for the theft of CPU cycles, or any of the other less
tangible computer resources (e.g. line time, disk space). Existing
laws would seem to have a great deal of trouble with such
intangibles and I think a new bill dealing with computer resource
theft is probably reasonable.
However, as everyone has said... These definitions aren't adequate.
An interesting problem is whether "computer system" can be
adequately defined in terms of what it DOES, rather than what it is
made of.
I tend to doubt this is entirely reasonable, as it seems to imply
that there aren't alternate means of doing the things computers can
do. Of course, defining a computer system in terms of what it
consists of is likely to last only a few years... who would venture
to say there will be silicon chips in the year 2000? I'd even be
worried about "microelectronic components" existing by then... we're
likely to have genetically engineered neural nets. But a bill that
deals with technology and lasts 10 years ought to be sufficient.
------------------------------
Date: 3 April 1983 17:48 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: re computers and the law
If the purpose of the law is to prevent theft of money by remote
control (telling commands to a computer via a dialup port, rather
than being physically present), then that's how the law ought to be
worded. It should be worded in such a way that pressing a key on
somebody's pocket computer is a crime subject to jail or prison. It
should be an amendment to the definition of theft, to include remote
control, and to breaking&entering, to include deliberate bypassing
of security measures with attempt to use the computer in ways that
aren't unauthorized or permitted by whoever is in charge of
authorizing access (the owner or lessee, or someone such as an
operator or administrator carrying out the owner's or lessee's
access policy).
But it should be made clear that an unsecured system is the same as
an unlocked door, an open invitation for anyone to enter for a visit
(but not to steal something); someone must either break through
security measures, or steal something whether secured or not, to
commit a crime. -- So how come the lawmakers can't hit the nail on
the head? Or they only pretending to be after theft, really they
hate computers and want them not to be usable at all?
------------------------------
Date: 3 April 1983 17:56 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Computer Laws
Hear! Hear!
I agree with you almost completely (see amended paraphrase
following). The basic outline of laws should be easy enough for
everyone to understand, with clear pointers to all special laws for
special groups of people, such as regulations for driving,
regulations for installing electrical conduits, regulations for
nuclear power plants, ... The total laws that anyone has to learn
should be n+1 paperback books, where n is the number of special
professions the person is in. We shouldn't have to make up a new law
for each way of committing the same crime.
Is it possible?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 83 11:07:17 EST
From: Jerry Leichter
Subject: Do we need new laws to deal with computers?
It's contended that we don't need new laws, only protection of
property rights that happen to be embodied in computers.
This is naive. "Property rights" are exactly what the law DEFINES.
You have a property right exactly when the law is willing to protect
some "thing". Consider patents and copyrights. These are specific
legally constructed property rights. They've been around so long
that they now seem natural to us; but they are only a couple of
hundred years old. Note that the Constitution contains an explicit
statement that the Congress may create, if it wishes, patent and
copyrights. The authors did not think this was inherent in anything
else they said.
If I am a sculptor, do I have some sort of property right in my
artistic work even after I sell it? Certainly I have some copyright
protection; but what about the work itself? Well, in France I DO
have a property right. I have some control over what the purchaser
can do with my work; he can't destroy it, for example, if I don't
give him permission. If he resells at a profit, I am entitled to a
certain percentage. I believe California is experimenting with a
similar law, at least with regards to sharing profits. These are
new (about 20 years old) property rights that never existed before.
Technology often creates new property rights, or changes how we view
old ones. Probably the oldest property laws deal with real estate.
Does my control of land I own extend upward arbitrarily? No;
airplanes can fly by all they like, and I have no say in the matter.
With interest in solar heating, all sorts of new "property rights"
issues have appeared. Can you build a house on your land that puts
my solar collecter in the shade? Can you cut down trees on your
land that provide me with a wind-break? New law - new property
rights - are being created right now in these areas.
Computer technology is full of such issues. Example: I maintain a
data-base of Federal government publications (which anyone is
entitled to copies of). What makes my data-base valuable is the
selection and indexing. Can you use or copy my data-base without my
permission? The actual data you see is all public-domain...clearly
there is something there we would like to protect, but what exactly
is it? Suppose I break your encryption key and read your private
files. What "property" have I stolen from you? The analogue would
be my looking through your window with a telescope and reading
papers on your desk. While I could probably be prosecuted for
SOMETHING, it most likely would not be theft or anything
particularly serious. Again, in asking for legal protection in a
case like this, you are asking for a definition of a new kind of
property.
-- Jerry
decvax!yale-comix!leichter
leichter @ yale
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1983 19:46 EST
From: SJOBRG.ANDY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #19
Golly, a microwave oven with a memory that's used to start cooking
at a pre determined time is a computer... (it manipulates
information... and produces a result (like an atm does..)) Would
this mean that it is a crime for the electric co to interrupt
service?
------------------------------
Date: 1 Apr 1983 0212-CST
From: Clive Dawson
Subject: Latest Status of Texas Computer Crime Bill
Well, I take it all back. I was going to send a message chastizing
everybody for non-constructive responses, but the latest Digest
arrived with quite a few well thought out replies and good
suggestions.
Somebody mentioned that HN should be used as a sounding board for
laws like this. That is precisely what's happening, in an
unofficial way, of course. Some of us here at UTexas (just up the
street from the state capitol) have been invited to meet with the
sub-committee and present our views on this bill. Some of the
points we brought out in the first public hearing have already
resulted in changes to the bill.
It turns out that the Bill has now made it through one pass of
sub-committees, and has been simplified considerably. There are
still some problems with the definition section, including the fact
that "software" is defined but never used! There is also some
awkward wording which needs to be fixed. But probably the main
improvement is that the section which mentioned the use of computers
for fraudulent purposes has been removed. Fraud is fraud,
regardless of whether a computer is used or not.
I thought of a good guideline that sums up my views pretty well: I
would be against a law which put a crime into a special category
just because a computer is used to help commit it. But I'd be in
favor of a law which provided more protection for computers
themselves (or their users) as VICTIMS of crimes. Breaking into a
computer should be at least as serious as breaking into a house.
(Hmmm...does anybody know if any laws exist to prevent somebody from
handing out keys to my front door?!)
Here, by the way, is a definition used in a federal Computer Fraud
and Abuse bill:
'computer' means a device that performs logical, arithmetic,
and storage functions by electronic manipulation, and
includes any property and communication facility directly
related to or operating in conjunction with such a device;
but does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter,
or any computer designed and manufactured for, and which is
used exclusively for routine personal, family, or household
purposes including a portable hand-held electronic
calculator.
I think this definition may go too far in the other direction, by
excluding too much. What kind of protection do I want or expect for
my personal home computer? It's unclear what "routine personal
purposes" are. What if I'm running a business with it?
Anyway, here is the revised text of the bill. It is also available
by anonymous FTP from UTexas in NEWBILL.193. (The old
text is OLDBILL.193.) If anybody has further comments, please send
them to me and/or the digest. I'll certainly do my best to see that
they do some good. (By the way, Section 3 is apparently a routine
clause which gets put onto just about every bill these days...)
[***
Editor's note: For ease of access, the files mentioned above have
been moved to local machines on the following networks:
PARC-MAXC:
[Maxc]Bill193.new
[Maxc]Bill193.old
MIT
[MIT-AI]duffey;humnet oldbil
[MIT-AI]duffey;humnet newbil
***]
------------------------
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the creation of offenses involving computers.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Title 7, Texas Penal Code, as amended, is
amended by adding Subsection 31.14 to Chapter 31.
Subsection 31.14. Computer Crimes
(a) For purposes of this Section:
(1) "Computer system" means a device, or a set of
devices, that stores data in an intangible form, or that, in
response to instructions given to it, analyzes data, converts data
from one form into another, or produces new data. "Computer system"
includes a network of two or more computer systems that are
interconnected to function or communicate together.
(2) "Computer software" means an ordered set of
instructions or statements that permits a computer system to perform
a specified function.
(3) "Computer security system" means the design,
procedures, or other measures that an owner has taken to restrict
the use of a computer system to persons the owner has selected to
have access for limited purposes.
(b) A person commits an offense if, without the effective
consent of the owner, and with intent to harm the owner or some
other person he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) uses a computer system with intent to harm the
owner;
(2) breaches a computer security system;
(3) gives information regarding a computer security
system to another; or
(4) interferes with or interrupts the service of a
computer system to a person authorized to receive the service.
(c) An offense under this Section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) The attorney general, may, upon request, assist state
and local law enforcement and prosecuting agencies in investigating
and prosecuting violations of Chapter 31, Subsection 31.14, Penal
Code.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 1983.
SECTION 3. The importance of this legislation and the
crowded condition of the calendars in both houses create an
emergency and an imperative public necessity that the constitutional
rule requiring bills to be read on three several days in each house
be suspended, and this rule is hereby suspended, and it is so
enacted.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #21
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-04-09 02:45:32 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 8 Apr 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 21
Today's Topics:
Technology - EFT (8 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 83 15:31:45-EST (Sat)
From: the soapbox of Gene Spafford
Subject: EFT and such
My apologies for these comments being a bit out-of-date; March has
been a very bad month for me.
Re: Tracking your activities with EFT.
Isn't it a pity that we have an attitude in our society where we
have to hide so many things? We are ashamed of how much or how
little we make. Having "flings" seems to be a liability in some
quarters. Being human seems to be a problem, doesn't it? We don't
want people to know about us because they judge us not for what we
may be but by how we appear. If we are going to dream up EFT and
change the world, why not dream up a situation where people wouldn't
be hurt by others knowing about them? I worry more about people who
want to hide everything than I do about people who admit to being
human and having human activities. But as long as we sell so much
mouthwash and perfume and makeup and ... I guess people will want
to hide the fact that they are buying the stuff and aren't what they
seem to be. And as long as people are insecure in themselves and
need to look to someone else for an image, then I guess the moral
majority guy who goes to the Mustang Ranch will want to hide what it
is he's really been praying for.
Re: Automatic Teller machines.
Please note that I'm not advocating the following, but if you have
had any experience with the following I'd be interested in hearing
the results.
It seems to be human nature to get upset with these teller machines
which don't work after you've driven halfway across town for money
from the suckers. Therefore, it is no surprise that people come up
with methods of venting their frustrations on the machines. The
secret, as with getting mad at people and institutions, is not to
lose your temper and kick and scream. Rather, be clever. I have
heard that cutting a piece of cheese to the size of a teller card
and pushing it into the teller slot does amazing things to the
machine. It takes in the cheese and that's all it does for quite
some time. Hit 4 or 5 machines in the vicinity on a Friday evening
and the bank will have a lot of irate customers who may wish to
change their accounts. Another method is to take a can of that
compressed freon (or even foam or epoxy) and spray it in through the
slots. Freon under pressure comes out at something like -40F and
does wonders to hot thermal printer parts and electronics. I know
of one institution that had to scrap an employee ID system that the
employees hated due to acts like this.
There are more, but I don't want to suggest acts of vandalism,
merely point out that the more sophisticated we make our mechanisms,
the more sophisticated the vandals will become. Spur of the moment
may decrease a bit (how many of you carry Freon around with you?),
but acts by angry consumers may actually become more widespread
because now there is even more challenge. We are building more
impassive, heartless companies and institutions and increase the
feelings of rage and helplessness in the consumer. I seem to detect
more of an undercurrent of defiance to the systems (did YOU fudge
your income tax a bit...drive 55 all the time), more anger, and more
books appearing on how to disrupt your favorite target.
More electronics and more hardware isn't going to solve all our
problems. People already distrust computers, I don't see how full
EFT would ever be accepted. Maybe the next generation raised on
video games and home computers can deal with it. I really don't
know.
I'm not sure I asked a question in any of that, but does anyone have
any comments?
------------------------------
Date: 3 April 1983 01:27 EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky
Subject: privacy of banking records
It is unfair to cite U.S. v. Miller without also noting that it has
been disapproved by the legislature. Scant two years later,
Congress in response enacted the "Right to Financial Privacy Act of
1978," Pub. L. No. 95-630. This Act provides that any subpoena for
financial records must be served on the customer, who may then
challenge it in court. A judicial order must be obtained (the
equivalent of a search warrant) to void the notice requirement.
It looks like Congress, at least, believes that financial records
are within the individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." As
well they should be.
In any event, we on HUMAN-NETS should be discussing the interactions
between people and computer networks. One aspect of the information
revolution is the discovery of problems which were only minimal
before the advent of new technology. This gives us an opportunity
to examine these problems and to build appropriate safeguards into
the technology so that the problems do not become magnified beyond
our capacity to control them. Ignoring these problems won't make
them go away.
-- Steve
------------------------------
Date: 3 April 1983 02:26 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Re: EFT, etc.
Date: 1 Apr 1983 0916-CST
From: CS.TEMIN at UTEXAS-20
And if the current methods for detecting fraudulent checks and
credit cards were a bit more reliable, the current system for
making personal monetary transactions should be acceptable to
everyone (vendors and purchasers).
I disagree. From my point of view the current method is already good
enough in the areas you list, yet I dislike the current method for
other reasons:
- Once a month I have to physically write out cheques for routine
bills like telephone, apartment rent, newspaper, credit card
account, medical insurance. Also each time I buy groceries with a
cheque I have to write out a cheque then wait at the approval window
to have it verified. (I presume you propose automating the
verification process; but the chequewriting would remain.) - I'd
rather have my personal computer handle this kind of stuff
automatically. Each time a bill comes in my computer would insert it
in my queue of things to cheque off. I'd look at the queue several
times a day, because it'd include incoming electronic mail,
appointments and dates, television and radio programs, regular
clubmeetings and dances, even bus schedules and computed optimal
routes for bus-transfer including time I have to start getting
dressed to meet the bus; all the sorts of things I have to remember
at the right time but my human memory just doesn't work that way
very well at all. When a bill-payable appears, it'd be shown with
not only the company-name and purpose of the bill but also a note as
to the previous payment to that same account, and it'd automatically
cheque to make sure the bill was reasonable (if not, a bright flag
to warn me to look more carefully). I'd press one key to clear that
item, causing the cheque to be written automatically. That would
cover all the regular billings. For grocery store I'd just charge it
and pay the bill at the end of the month automatically. -- But
equipment to interface to the physical-cheque industry is too
expensive for a single person to own, and I've never heard of a
service bureau willing to perform this task. -- Meanwhile it takes
several minutes of my attention to write each cheque (I have to get
out the stuff, including envelop and stamp, sit down and start
writing out stuff, then put all the stuff back when done, then make
a trip to the mailbox to post it.) The only alternative currently is
very very expensive, hiring another human to do it, an executive
secretary, a few thousand dollars month I estimate. - I'd rather
have EFT that I can invoke from my personal-computer using
public-key cryptosystems.
- Once a month I have to balance my chequebook, to make sure some
employee at the bank didn't goof. I'd rather the bank sent me the
info in machine readable form so I could balance it electronically.
Until EFT is up and running, what's the chance of automating the
bank-statement/consumer interface?
That's all for now. Unburden me of those and I'll be able to
perceive more subtle deficiencies with the cheque & credit-card
method.
------------------------------
Date: 3 April 1983 02:46 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Realism of EFT Proposals
Ah, a voice in the wilderness who also wants to change things for
the better rather than throw up hands in despair to "political
realities" that seemingly prevent anything from getting better.
Indeed perhaps a demonstration that a workable EFT system can be
done would increase its chance of being accepted. (Maybe Arpanet
could set up a prototype system that handles "funny money"? Just an
idea. Maybe PCNET or somesuch will set up a real prototype
someday...)
As for collecting taxes automatically as part of the EFT system. I
don't like the idea of taxing money every time it changes hands, but
I think a value-added tax would be acceptable to me and workable.
The EFT system could keep total track of income and expenses in any
venture, and compute the correct value added, a fixed percentage of
which would be the tax, computed and paid automatically. As for how
to make this work, here's my proposal. Each financial transaction
would have to go through a gateway, a part of the program that is
public. The data passing thru the gateway wouldn't be public, but
the source program would. Thus the tax authorities could inspect the
source program to verify it complies with taxation laws. The rest of
the program would be private, so nobody would know your heuristics
for approving and denying payment (like you might want bills to your
masseuse to be paid automatically and listed in all hardcopy output
reports as "entertainment" or "health care" without specifics).
------------------------------
Date: 3 April 1983 02:58 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: EFTS, Privacy, etc.
Your figures don't support your claims. You claim EFT will not be
done because it's too expensive. You show figures that indicate
cheques and credit cards are much more expensive than cash. The
reason is that a lot of paperwork has to be done with cheques and a
lot of risk has to be absorbed with both methods. With EFT neither
of these would apply. I think the cost of EFT when fully available
will be comparable to cash, and more convenient in most cases.
Simple example, when an EFT transponder costs $5.00, every public
transit bus will have one, and instead of standing at the front of
the bus looking for loose change while the bus driver holds the bus
and other passengers stand in line to board, you simply identify
your account by card or whatever. Since this one card handles all
your transactions, you don't have to look for it, it's right there
where it always is in your pocket or wallet or purse etc. in the
canonical place where it's easy to find instantly. Alternately if
you don't want your identity to be known, you can use an anonymous
prepaid account, similar to a rapid-transit (BART etc.) card.
------------------------------
Date: 4 April 1983 07:50 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Re: EFTS, Privacy, etc.
It's silly to cite the cost of a secretary putting a bank card in an
envelop and mailing it, just to replace a worn card, when the ATM
could dispense replacement cards at a cost of comparatively zero. In
fact the ATM could automatically warn you when it's starting to
wear, and if you ask for replacement charge you a nickel or whatever
it costs when fully automated (blank cards in machine, magstripe
recorded on the spot). I betcha the wear and tear on the printer
that makes the receipts is more expensive than the wear and tear on
a magnetic cardstripe initializer.
This is an example of where if you do it wrong it costs a bundle,
but if you are bright enough to think of an alternative, it's cheap.
Of course for new cards to first time customers, as well in case of
stolen/lost cards, you have to send them thru the mail. But that's
not necessary for simple wear&tear replacements where the old card
is still available and readable on retries.
------------------------------
Date: 4 Apr 1983 12:24:26-EST
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: fingerprint recognition
The last time I read anything about this, fingerprints were
increasingly a problem anyway, since there are only so many possible
points of difference; the estimate was that (for identification
purposes) there are something like 14 other people with your prints
(or perhaps that was 14 other people whose Xth print matches your
Xth print, which would make the problem still solvable, but with
difficulty). Note that this is somewhat better than the 15-bit word
that _Bob proposed; this would give 2**13 people in this country
alone who match each of your fingers (current population is pushing
2**28), but a point of correspondence usually amounts to more than
one bit of information.
------------------------------
Date: 5 April 1983 02:51 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Re: EFTS, Privacy, etc.
Right. When the magnetic stripe on the cards instead of the embossed
name is the primary means of use, having a supply of blanks in each
ATM won't be any problem. The embossing will be only to allow you to
sort out your card if you drop it or your spouse's and your card are
in the same purse, to be sure the storeowner didn't hand you the
wrong card back, etc. It'll be the secret ID numbers on the card
that are the true identification, which the supply of blank cards
won't impact. Even knowing the system for recording on the card,
and making a false account, won't work, since every transaction will
call the main computer to verify the account and its status. In fact
it should be possible for a person to create a duplicate card just
by visiting an ATM instead of having to phone or write the company
and have a human send it in the mail. That should actually be more
secure, since (1) it won't get lost in the mail or stolen (standard
trick, call up bank pretending to be somebody else, ask for a dupl
card, then watch that person's mailbox for the card to arrive; the
theft isn't reported because the victim didn't even know there was a
duplicate card arriving), and (2) next month's bill shows the
purchase of the duplicate card (5 cents surcharge or whatever), also
(3) each card has a different duplicate-index, so if you pass out
cards to your spouse and children an one of them misuses it you can
identify which clone was the problem and punish the misuser or split
the accounts so you'll no longer be responsible for debts by so and
so.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #22
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-04-09 22:19:28 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Saturday, 9 Apr 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 22
Today's Topics:
Technology - EFT (3 msgs),
Computers and the Law - Texas Computer Crime Law (6 msgs) &
Electronic Anklets (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 5 April 1983 02:56 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Re: EFTS, Privacy, etc.
Re wear and tear on printers, yup, that's a cost.
Perhaps someday we'll have semiconductor lasers that last for tens
of years without wearing out, and the cost of receipts will go down.
Actually physical receipts are a nuisance, because they occupy space
and can't be copied easily. Better to have a trapdoor-encoded
message you can save in your electronic checkbook and copy to your
personal database when you get home (more likely, the copy to your
home is sent automatically, and a reply is encrypted with your
private home key, and then your electronic checkbook verifies the
signature of your home, so before leaving the store you are sure
your home has a copy of the receipt, which is the only receipt you
really need).
------------------------------
Date: 1 Apr 83 15:18:52 PST (Friday)
From: Poskanzer.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: ATMs and records
Date: 29 Mar 1983 1715-PST
From: Lynn Gold
No matter whether or not they keep old records around,
aren't there statutes of limitation which take effect after
a certain period of time after a crime is committed (seven
years or so)?
If this is the case, it wouldn't matter if someone had a
college-days fling that was discovered fifteen years after
they finished college, since it would be too late to
prosecute.
--Lynn
1) I believe the statutes of limitation only apply to criminal
offenses, not civil.
2) They certainly don't apply to "moral" offenses, which our society
delights in persecuting (not prosecuting) for. Remember how
Thomas Eagleton was forced to give up his vice-presidential slot
on the democratic ticket in 1976 when it came out that he had
been treated at a mental hospital?
Just imagine, if McGovern had been elected and then left office for
some reason, we would have had the first president in history to be
certified ->sane<- by the A.M.A.! Obviously unacceptable...
Jef
------------------------------
Date: 4 Apr 1983 1710-PST
From: Lynn Gold
Subject: ATMs, confidentiality, and defamation
I've received many messages mentioning Kennedy and Chappaquiddick
(which STILL didn't keep him out of the Senate), and ESPECIALLY Tom
Eagleton and seeking psychiatric help. In the latter case, it seems
to me that people need to be re-educated as to their values
(Eagleton is probably a lot saner than anyone who gave him trouble).
The fact is, though, that most of us have some kind of dirt in our
past which would get dug up by our opponent if we ever ran for
President or many other public offices. One guy in Florida got
defeated by someone who accused him of being a "philatelist" and "a
practicing homo-sapiens."
I'm convinced it's the IMAGE a candidate plays up that can make or
break an election. Reagan was caught telling derogatory jokes about
blacks, yet he got away with it by coming off as "Mr. Average Guy";
`most of us are white, and most of us tell black jokes, right?'
--Lynn
------------------------------
Date: 5 April 1983 23:35 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Do we need new laws to deal with computers?
Good analysis. Hmmm, if copying computer data by remote control
(over dialup port for example) is similar to reading papers thru a
window with a telescope, then should both be considered the same
legally? Perhaps the analogy should be emphasized, instead of
writing up "computer crime" as some mysterious new kind of crime?
Like a law forbidding eavesdropping on private files of any kind
owned by another person without permission of that person. Data is
regarded a priori as your property if you create it from scratch
(not plagarizing anyone else's data) in any form and put it in what
you think is a relatively safe place (in your home or computer, not
posted on a public bulletin board; left behind in a purse or brief
case at a bus stop is a borderline case, you were careless and
perhaps innocent browsing is ok but using the info for profit
isn't?). If you index somebody else's data, the index belongs to you
providing you had legitimate access to the original data, and
although you can provide the index for hire without paying
royalaties to the original dataowner, you can't release the original
data to your customers without permission/royalities. For example,
if you make an index to ads you see on a free bulletin board at a
coin laundry, you can sell access to that index, and since the
original ads were free you can resell the info at a profit providing
you tell customers where they could go get it for free if then
wanted to save your surcharge, in which case they'd pay only for
your indexing and locating service. (Note I've said nothing about
computers. You can compile the index by hand and sell "Leichter's
index to local wantads" in bookstores if you want.)
Anyway, there's part of how I'd like this all rewritten. Xanadu
seems to be heading in that direction, although it's not clear their
method will agree with law unless *all* their info consists of
original contributions by customers who have signed an agreement to
submit to this new charging method.
------------------------------
Date: 5 April 1983 23:46 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Latest Status of Texas Computer Crime Bill
I think if somebody hands out keys to your front door, and one of
the customers enters your house without your permission, thus doing
criminal trespass, the person who handed out the keys can be
considered an accessory before the fact and subject to any crime
actually perpetrated except one that goes so far beyond what the
key-hander expected that he couldn't reasonably be considered an
accomplice. Thus the key-hander could be guilty of accessory to
trespassing, burglary, grand-theft, assault&battery, vandalism, etc.
but probably not to rape, murder, extortion, espionage, treason,
etc. unless the key-hander had some reason to believe you were
vulnerable to such a crime (attractive woman, very rich, government
worker, etc.) or to believe one of the key-takers was particularly
likely to commit such a grievous crime.
At least that's how I'd see it (I'm not a lawyer; can a lawyer on
this list comment on my analysis?)
------------------------------
Date: 6 April 1983 00:01 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Latest Status of Texas Computer Crime Bill
Gee, an audio tape recorder or dictaphone stores data in an
intangible form, for example if you record a list of things to do so
you can play it back later to remind you or so you can transcribe it
into another form. Thus a simple tape recorder is a "computer" by
that definition.
Ok, you say I'm nitpicking, the stuff on a tape recorder is analog
signals, which aren't considered data. Well, a video tape recorder
can store the full TV signal including the teletext and network-time
signals, which are true data. Thus a simple manually-controlled
video tape recorder, with no processing capability, only storage
capability, is a "computer" under the absurd Texas definition.
When they define computer software as an ordered set of
instructions, do they mean a sequence (linear ordering), or do they
permit something more complicated like a tree structure or linked
list or a database of autoloadable functions such as used by
LISP/MACSYMA/MAINSAIL?
The part about intent to do harm is redundant. "If ... with intent
to harm ... and ... he (1) ... with intent to do harm ...".
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 83 10:40 EST (Wednesday)
From: Marshall.WBST@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #20
New York has a law prohibiting "theft of services" which is used for
telephone fraud and could be used for computer cycle stealing etc.
Rather than define special situations that are illegal one should
define classes of activities that are undesirable. I feel that this
kind of law is the right way to go about it. The injured party
should only be allowed to collect damages. Defining special
situations that are illegal makes the law unmanageable.
--Sidney Marshall
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 1983 1357-MST
From: Walt
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #20
If the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse law defines a 'computer' as
a "device that performs logical ... functions by electronic
manipulation" then it doesn't cover computers constructed with
transphasor (Fabry-Perot interferometer) logic components, since
they aren't electronic.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 1983 13:32-PST
From: Greg Davidson
Subject: Re: Do we need new laws to deal with computers?
I see from Jerry's article that special laws are required to REDUCE
people's existing property rights (such as an existing right to
build as high a structure as one might want), or to create DEFAULT
property rights (such as the rights enjoyed by French artists over
their creations sold normally). Special laws are also required to
limit people's ability to create legal contracts.
But note that in the absence of such special laws, nothing keeps
someone from requiring a contract with a buyer that leaves them with
some rights over the sold item. Except where laws have specifically
disallowed certain kinds of contracts, a seller can sell anything he
can define, and define selling as anything he likes. The selling of
mailing lists is an interesting example. When one ``buys'' a
mailing list, one typically does not get to read its contents, one
merely gets to have a (presumably trustworthy) third party mail
one's brochures to the people on the list.
Owning a computer is nothing special, as its just a physical object.
Creating ownership over such abstractions as the information in it,
copies of information in it, etc., is up to the owner of the
computer to specify, if desired, in the contracts required of people
allowed to use the computer. If a customer of a computer system has
copied information off of that system in violation of a contract,
then it doesn't matter if that information is public domain or not.
I would ask the following: Given that owners of computers can
create any abstractions they like (for example the idea of a file
copied from one source differing from an identical copy from another
source), what useful abstractions ought they to be considering, for
use in writing up contracts governing computer usage? Should any of
these abstractions be given legal meaning outside of contracts which
define them explicitly?
Also, what special laws ought to obtain by default in legal
situations (buying, selling, murdering, etc.) involving computers?
Which should be unchangeable by contract? How should our ordinary
property rights over physical object we own be reduced when those
physical objects are computers?
I still am inclined to believe that there need be no special laws
made about computers. However, computers, although they cannot do
anything fundamentally new, are a valuable test for existing laws.
If having a computer allows me to think of a new way to commit a
crime, I can probably then think of a way (perhaps very awkwardly)
to use that method without using the computer. It should still be
illegal. As an example, think of the various questionable practices
big businesses have used with consumers (such as snowing them with
required paperwork when making a complaint) that were available to
them because of their large secretarial or legal staffs. Now that
anyone with a good computer system can do the same thing, these
practices may become illegal through new or modified laws. It is
important that what makes these things illegal not depend on their
being done with a computer.
Nevertheless, whether useful or not, computer laws are going to be
written. Ideally any such laws will have a sunset clause (default
expiration date). In fact, I think it would be a good idea to
recommend that all computer laws have a sunset clause requiring them
to be renewed after, say, the first and fifth years and every ten
years thereafter. This should help protect against mistaken laws,
obsoleted laws, and simply unnecessary laws.
-Greg
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 1983 1018-EST
From: Clifford Neuman
Subject: Re: a jail cell on your foot
Date: 3 April 1983 18:21 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
...Also, the jury should be able to vote at the start of
deliberation whether the case is leaning toward guilt or not,
and thus whether the accused should be confined or not while
awaiting the final verdict.
It has always been the Judge, not the Jury that set and revoked
bail. As such I do not think that the jury should have to decide at
the beginning of a deliberation whether to confine the person during
its deliberation or not. This could actually affect the decision
that they finally reach, if they have to make some kind of decision
before considering all the facts. Also, what is done while the jury
is deliberating whether or not to confine the defendant while they
decide the actual issue of guilt or innocence.
If the judge were the person to decide whether the defendant should
be confined, or allowed to wear the anklet, the anklet becomes an
alternate form of bail which is more equitable than todays methods
since the amount of money the defendant has is irrelevant.
Cliff
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 1983 1415-PST
From: Lynn Gold
Subject: Anklets for the accused
It's unconstitutional for someone who is ACCUSED of a crime and is
on trial to wear an anklet; this assumes they are guilty. The same
goes for asking a jury where their partialities lie. Why? Because
in our system of justice, you are (supposed to be) "innocent until
proven guilty."
I agree that people who are deemed not to be a menace to society
(i.e., small-time white-collar criminals, people who don't pay off
their speeding tickets for doing 66 miles in a 55-mph zone, perhaps
petty thieves as well) ought to be given such an option, along with
others, such as weekend work camps (they do that out here for such
criminals, esp. people who are arrested for drunk driving). It
costs us less to pay for an ankle bracelet than to keeps someone in
jail fed, clothed, and housed.
Here's one ergonomic question, though: the ankle bracelets were
obviously designed for MALE criminals; they can be worn
inconspicuously under pants where nobody will see them. What about
FEMALE offenders? Try putting on a pair of panty-hose with
something on your ankle sometime! If you're female, you find it
doesn't work very well. Seriously, where could you inconspicuously
and DISCREETLY put such an item on a woman?
--Lynn
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #23
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-04-11 00:37:26 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 11 Apr 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 23
Today's Topics:
Computers and People - Facilities for Software Developers,
Technology - Automatic Mail Sorters & EFT (7 msgs),
Computers and the Law - Electronicx Anklets (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 29 March 1983 14:34 cst
From: Heiby at HI-MULTICS (Ronald W.)
Subject: Facilities for SW Developers
I am currently in a fight for what I consider to be a decent
working environment for software developers. This is being
prompted by my management moving me from an area where I share
my cubicle with one person to an area where I will be sharing
(a larger cubicle) with two or three other people. We are all
degreed software engineers with (mostly) 2-6 years of
experience.
I'd like very much to know in what kind of environment software
development gets accomplished in your facility. Specifically,
how many people per cubicle (or office), what size cubicle, how
many people share a terminal or desktop computer workstation.
Other concerns include noise suppression techniques, lighting,
plants (green, growing), ventilation, etc.
In addition to this information, anything on productivity
differences based on type of environment would be great
ammunition for me.
Please reply directly to me (Heiby @ HI-Multics) and I'll
summarize to the net.
Thanks much. Ron H.
------------------------------
Date: 8 April 1983 02:32 EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky
Subject: [FJW: [Tim.UPenn: automatic mail sorters]]
This should be of interest to this mailing list: -- Steve
Date: 29 Jan 1983 21:57-EST
From: Tim Finin
To: msg-group, header-people
Re: automatic mail sorters
I'm working on a project involving user-constructed mail "filters".
What we would like to build is a rule-driven expert system which
will ORDER one's electronic mail on the basis of the message
attributes. We don't want to actually filter out unimportant
messages, just rank the current (or incoming) ones.
The kinds of attributes we are imagining using are things like:
- has the message been read?, header seen?, answered?
- age of message
- sender's identity (e.g. RPG@SAIL), address (BBNA), local vs.
network
- keywords in subject field and message body
- apparent "type" of message body (e.g. pascal code, lisp code,
- manner we became a recipient (e.g. only addressee, one of
several addressees, as a member of a mailing list, a carbon
copy, forwarded...)
- size of message
- etc.
We expect to rank messages with along several dimensions, such as
INTEREST, URGENT and IMPORTANCE, and then have rules which combine
these rankings to produce an overall ordering of the messages.
A crucial aspect to this project would be to provide an environment
in which it would be easy for the USER to examine, understand,
specify and modify the rules which drive the system. We are aiming
for a class of users which includes those technically oriented but
having no programming knowledge of experience. We might, for
example, allow rules like:
if the sender is TIM.UPENN@UDEL ; this fellow sends very
then INTEREST is VERY LIKELY to be HIGH ; interesting messages.
if the RECIPIENT is a MAILING LIST ; if the mail is not personal
then URGENCY is LIKELY to be LOW ; then it's prob. not urgent.
if the source is LOCAL ; local (non network) mail has
then the IMPORTANCE MAY be HIGH ; many important messages.
if the SIZE is > 200 LINES or
the TYPE is PASCAL ; very big messages and
then the URGENCY MAY be LOW ; programs aren't urgent.
if the URGENCY is > MEDIUM and
the IMPORTANCE is NOT LOW ; rank from other
then the RANK is VERY HIGH ; measures
I know that there has bee a fair amount of work in the area of
automatic mail filters, routers and the like. I'm interested in
getting pointers to people, projects and relevant publications. I'd
also like to talk to people who have to deal with a large number of
incoming messages (e.g. > 20). I would like to know how they manage
the task of reading their mail (old and new) already and what
features they would like to see in an mail-sorting expert system.
I would greatly appreciate any information, advice or ideas you
could give me.
Thanks,
Tim Finin
------------------------------
Date: 8 April 1983 19:15 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: EFT and such
No, I don't think acts of vandalism are right (cheese in ATM card
slot). Better to carry around a number of stick-on OUT OF ORDER
labels, and whenever you find a malfunctioning machine you stick on
one of these stickers and write a short explanation on it of how it
is broken (vending machine doesn't return change, vending machine
door is stuck, ATM is out of cash on too many occasions, ATM light
is out so you can't see the labels on the buttons you're supposed to
press, etc.). If those stickers are hard to remove, the bank or
vending-machine company will get the message that customers are
dissatisfied but still want the service offered if only it could be
improved.
------------------------------
Date: 8 Apr 83 14:59:16 EST (Fri)
From: Fred Blonder
Subject: Re: EFT, etc.
From: Lauren Weinstein
. . . I also suspect that, by convention and eventual edict,
cash will become less and less acceptable as time goes by.
I've already run across a clerk in a major department store who
honestly didn't know how to handle a CASH sale. She had to call in
the manager to handle the transaction.
------------------------------
Date: 8 April 1983 23:30 EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky
Subject: magnetic bank cards
Robert,
Doesn't this bring us full circle? If all your credit ("money") is
recorded on a bank card, the card can still be stolen and many of
the anticrime advantages you mentioned are out the window. On the
other hand, EFT is far more convenient than paper (your remarks are
right on the money there), so this is not a real complaint.
Let me propose my own engineering solution to the EFT/privacy
problem: PERSONAL SCRIP. Digital signatures can be used to create
unforgeable messages which say something like "SASW owes the bearer
$xxx.xx". Each person could carry a "smart card" which sends and
receives this kind of message (with appropriate card-to-card
protocol). You can bring your card to the bank, which will then
debit the accounts of people who have given you their IOUs,
crediting your account or giving you a bank IOU.
There is already a legal doctrine to handle this: negotiable
promissory notes. Taking one of these is no more risky than taking
a personal check or credit card. Notes of the form "xxx BANK owes
the bearer ..." or even "xxx FEDERAL RESERVE BANK owes the bearer"
(look at old dollar bills) are the equivalent of cash. If you don't
want a check you can take (electronic) cash. Notes can even be
post-dated for credit.
Your card can still be stolen, since it is now an "electronic
wallet." It is also an electronic checkbook. When paying bills you
may elect to record an audit trail or not, as you choose. But note
that you could literally wire money to people. That allows you to
pay your bills by phone, in "cash" if necessary. In addition to the
convenience of EFT, you might be able to invent creative new forms
of money (such as checks which must be cosigned) for your
convenience and protection.
I know how to make messages unforgeable using digital signatures (if
Rivest-Shimon-Adelman really works) but I'm not sure about making
them induplicable. Any comments?
-- Steve
------------------------------
Date: 9 Apr 83 0:42:54-EST (Sat)
From: the soapbox of Gene Spafford
Subject: Re: EFT and such
When people resort to acts like putting cheese in ATMs it is
generally not for such simple reasons as lights being out or
temporarily out of cash. Generally, it is an act against the
philosophy of the machine or actions of the bank. One of the local
banks, First Atlanta, has a policy at the local branch of not giving
customers their account balance unless they stand in line and see
one of the two overworked people ata a desk. That is, the tellers
refuse to check the balance. Instead, they send people to the ATM
machines to get their balance. However, such a transaction costs
25 cents and the link to the main computer is often down resulting
in a charge but no balance. Enough run-ins like this and you begin
to get rather upset with the bank. Some types like to over-react.
Me, I just switch banks where they treat me a little nicer. Just
because I'm a student doesn't mean I don't rate some respect.
However, I had a friend who decided to try something like the cheese
because of a continuing problem with "bounced" checks -- the bank
doesn't credit deposits made at ATMs in the same way as at the bank.
Grrrr...
------------------------------
Date: 9 Apr 1983 16:54 EST (Sat)
From: Paul Fuqua
Subject: More EFT Questions
I have read somewhere of the existence of "debit" cards, which,
as opposed to "credit" cards, do not extend loans to be billed, but
rather deduct money from a {checking, saving, special} account.
Sounds awfully EFTish to me. Anyway, since I'm not up on these
things (the only cards I have are teller cards to the credit union
back home and a bank here), I would like to know (1) are these debit
cards in use? (2) are they common? (3) is their per-transaction
cost the same as that of credit cards? (4) is their use growing?
Regarding receipts: the reason one has to pick up the silly
things after each ATM transaction is that the
lawmakers/banks/customers are overly concerned with the reliability
of the transaction-recording mechanisms in the ATMs. Paper is still
considered more permanent than electronic storage, so if one has
paper, it is remembered forever. By the way, my credit union
doesn't send me canceled checks, because the checkbook includes a
carbonless copy with each check. Less paperwork, in a way, but they
still microfilm all the checks, just in case. The bank here,
however, does send them. Any knowledge of the trends there?
pf
------------------------------
Date: Sat Apr 9 19:37:43 1983
From: decvax!watmath!bstempleton@Berkeley
Subject: EFT and privacy
You fear people who want to hide what they're doing more than those
who don't? That may be true for criminals, but there are real
reasons for privacy. Some people just plain like it, for one thing.
The main thing to consider, though, is that while you may not feel
that what you are doing (be it purchasing mouthwash or contributing
to a political party) there may be others who do think it is and
might act against you if they had a list of your transactions. Can
you imagine if the Moral Majority could get a list of what you
bought and decided to move against you because you bought a Pay-TV
channel that included some program they didn't like???
Brad
------------------------------
Date: 9 Apr 83 20:17:47-EST (Sat)
From: the soapbox of Gene Spafford
Subject: ATM issuing new cards
When I want to order a new card from First Nasty of Atlanta (excuse
me, First National), they require me to show some positive form of
ID and enter my old secret code on the request form. The new card
is generally mailed within a week. The waiting time serves a
purpose, I'm sure, and the requirement of ID and the code seems
pretty secure.
I don't see how the ATM could issue a blank card with just the
magnetic strip encoded. I mean, that might work part of the time,
but the only times I needed a card replaced were times I lost my
card (and thus could not activate the machine to request a card), or
else my card was so badly damaged it either would not go in the
machine, or could not be read. Again, the machine could not be
activated to issue me a new card.
Also, the embossing is useful for me -- it contains my account
number, which I can never remember (I have so many other things to
remember). It also can be used in check verifying machines to
identify me. The embossing can serve other purposes too, I suppose.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Apr 83 20:02:55-EST (Sat)
From: the soapbox of Gene Spafford
Subject: Anklets on Women
Actually, I think the idea should be to make the anklets as
conspicuous as possible, even under pants, boots, floor length
gowns, flannel nighties... The purpose of the anklet is as an
alternative to a jail sentence. I may be wrong, and some of the
things currently done in our judicial system make me wonder, but I
thought conviction of a crime entailed some form of punishment which
included some form of public recognition of the conviction. I don't
think we should use something like this on anyone but a convicted
felon, but if we do it should be a collar or other prominent badge
of wrongdoing. Punishment is also supposed to be a deterrent to
potential criminals. Would you be so likely to ignore your traffic
tickets if you knew you might end up wearing a 5 pound ugly green
collar around your neck for a month? Same idea as the "Boston boot"
for you car....
------------------------------
Date: 10 Apr 1983 1128-EST
From: Siggy (Alexander B. Latzko)
Subject: Anklets on women
In response to Ms. Gold's letter referring to putting pantyhose on
over an anklet three solutions come to mind:
1> Wear slacks. Perhaps things are different in different parts of
the country; however, standard day wear for most persons of the
female gender in this area includes trousers of one form or
another.
2> Individual stockings which could then be slid between the anklet
and leg are a possibility (yes I realize that negates the ease in
wearing panty hose).
3> Move the transponder. It could be worn as a wristlet or as a
necklace although the idea of it in neck borne form strikes me as a
harkening back to times of slaveholding in connotation.
/S*
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #32
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-07-09 13:15:38 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Saturday, 9 Jul 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 32
Today's Topics:
Queries - Request for Famous Bugs &
Keyboards (2 messages),
Programming - Debuggers,
Computers and People - Jobs in the future,
News Articles - DOD To Join Co-Op For Semicon Research &
AP article on Computer Security,
Announcements - 1984 National Computer Conference: Call for Papers &
Bulletin Board For Micro Users Set Up By NBS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Shore
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 83 11:17:14 EDT
Subject: Request for Famous Bugs
In discussions of software and software engineering, it sometimes
helps to cite famous bugs. To this end, I am collecting a list. I
have in mind bugs that caused major problems as well as bugs that
could have but were prevented by suitable human intervention.
Some examples of bugs I've heard about but for which I don't have
documentation: (a) bug forced a Mercury astronaut to fly a manual
re-entry; (b) bugs were problems in the first two Apollo moon
landings; (c) bug caused NORAD to alert U.S. forces about incoming
Soviet missiles (the moon); (d) process synchronization bugs delayed
the first space shuttle launch.
Can you help? I would appreciate receiving brief descriptions of
famous or should-have-been famous bugs of all types (space program,
banking, nuclear power, census, etc.). If possible, please include
references that will help me to filter out the apocryphal bugs.
Please pass this message on to others who might be interested. I
will send a copy of the resulting bug-list to all who contribute.
Thanks in advance.
John Shore
Code 7591
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, D.C. 20375
(202)767-3056
shore@nrl-css
------------------------------
Date: 3 Jun 1983 1200-PDT
From: Lynn Gold
Subject: Keyboards
Is there an ANSI standard on this? If so, could someone please
direct me to it?
My husband and I have been debating over where a few keys are
supposed to be placed.
--Lynn
------------------------------
Date: 4 Jun 1983 0:51-PDT
From: Greg Davidson
Subject: Keyboards are a very personal thing
Spare me from having to use anyone else's ideal keyboard. I'd much
rather use their toothbrush! In fact, having to use two different
keyboards that I both like is terrible.
I think that the best thing that could happen to keyboards is for
ANSI to define a standard ASCII keyboard interface, so that people
can own their own keyboards & plug them in anywhere. Once I can
count on not having to go back, I'll eagerly try chord keyboards,
DSK keyboards, etc., until I find the one I like best.
-Greg
------------------------------
Date: 14 Jun 1983 03:20:13-PST
From: whm.arizona@Rand-Relay
Subject: Debuggers
I have developed a recent interest in debuggers for high-level
languages. I'm looking for references on source-level debuggers of
various sorts. The primary interest is in novel ideas in debuggers,
for instance, screen-oriented debuggers, and debuggers written in the
language they serve as debuggers for. Also of interest are debuggers
for unconventional languages. A secondary issue is that of
interactive program development environments such as those associated
with Lisp, APL, and Mainsail.
I'm familiar with the various debuggers under UNIX (4.1bsd), I've used
some Lisp debuggers, and I've had excruciating amounts of experience
with "symbolic debuggers" of various types. I've heard about a recent
(last year) conference on High-Level Debugging and understand that the
proceedings are due out in a couple of months or so. That's about all
that I know of in the line of debuggers. As for interactive
development environments, I know of the ones mentioned; are there
others?
So, if you know of articles, books, etc., concerning debuggers or
interactive development environments, I'd like pointers to them. If
you have something in mind, please try to reply by about July 7 and
I'll report my findings about a week or so after that.
Thanks,
Bill Mitchell
whm.arizona@rand-relay
{kpno,ihnp4,mcnc,utah-cs}!arizona!whm
------------------------------
From: "CACHE::TS1::BURROWS Jim Burrows c/o"
Date: 7-JUN-1983 00:38
Subject: Jobs in the future
I doubt things will go much like the experts in the articles
Lauren submitted expect. The guy who said:
"If anybody told us in 1933 that only 3 percent of the
labor force would be in agriculture today, we would have
foreseen all sorts of cataclysmic problems in terms of what
would those poor farmers do with their skills in the big
cities,"
is probably the most realistic of the bunch. I'm especially
skeptical of the union spokesman who claimed that strong government
backed union action is needed to avert the coming disaster. Somehow
I just can't shake the notion that he has a vested interest in that
course of action.
I think the real trend was pointed to by the ex-steel-worker
who's studying to be a computer technician, who said:
"There's a trade-off. My income won't be as high, but the
computer industry won't collapse overnight like the steel or
auto industries. The future is what I'm shooting for."
and the quote that
Isabel V. Sawhill, an economist with the Urban Institute,
predicts workers will "increasingly trade off higher wages for
various kinds of non-wage benefits," such as better working
conditions, job training and mobility, more flexible hours and
locations and day care facilities. These demands, she says, will
be caused in part by an increase in the number of two-earner and
single-parent households, "where conflicts between work and
family responsibilities loom large."
What I see in my crystal ball is more lower paying jobs, many of
them created by the high tech industries. There was an ABC (?) news
report a couple of weeks ago about the "false promise" of high tech.
Their main point was that high tech industry produces low tech jobs.
They showed how many low paying assembly jobs were created in
Austin, Texas by the computer and electronics moving there. What
they failed to notice was that virtually all of the workers and city
government people interviewed were really happy that there were any
new jobs at all. They emphasised how much less the workers were
making in their new high-tech/low-tech jobs, missing the fact that
they were really thrilled to be working at all.
What I think is happening is the American worker is finding that
he has to compete with workers in other countries, and that in order
to compete he's going to have to settle for a wage more like theirs.
This cheaper labor, and automation could put us more in competition
with other high tech countries (where the wages are coming up
towards ours). I expect the lowering of individual incomes will
cause the trend towards multi-income families to continue. I also
suspect it will head off the shortening work week. (You ain't gonna
be happier about working few hours for fewer dollars per hour.
Finally, just to be heretical, I am also skeptical about some of
the claims made for the degree to which computers will dominate our
lives. Specifically I am not expecting either the predictions that
Office personnel eventually will simply dictate into a machine
that will type the letter itself.
or that
the need for sales clerks will decline as consumers start using
home computers to make purchases.
I, for one, don't trust machines enough to let them shop or take
dictation for me.
------------------------------
Date: 20-Jun-83 15:38 PDT
From: WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2
Subject: DOD To Join Co-Op For Semicon Research
i just read that the DOD will be joining the Semiconductor Research
Corp. (SRC) within the next 2 weeks. Does this mean that research
done by the institute will have to be cleared by DOD before it can
be published?
--William Daul
------------------------------
Date: 6 July 1983 00:06 edt
From: TMPLee.DODCSC at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: AP article on Computer Security
Sometime between June 24th and July 5th the Associated Press put out
a story on their wires about a recent article written by a couple of
Naval lieutenants dealing with computer security.
The article, which appeared an an obscure publication called the
Naval Institute Proceedings is entitled "The Eagle's Own Plume" and
deals with a hypothetical set of scenarios reflecting the results of
subversion (trap doors and trojan horses) of Naval combat computer
systems.
Has anyone here seen either the article or the AP story, and, if so,
could they please comment. (comments directly to me; I'll
summarize/redistribute to HNets and to my Security-Forum if that
seems appropriate). It would be even more interesting if one of the
sites that seems to be plugged into the AP wires managed to capture
the story.
Ted Lee
------------------------------
Date: Fri 17 Jun 83 05:09:09-PDT
From: Jim Miller
Subject: 1984 National Computer Conference: Call for Papers
The call for papers for the 1984 National Computer Conference has
been released; a copy of it is enclosed below. As the program chair
for the artificial intelligence / human-computer interaction track, I
hope that you will give serious thought to preparing papers and
sessions for NCC. This meeting offers us a real voice in the
conference's program, as six program sessions will be devoted to these
topics, far more than in the past. Proposals on any aspect of AI or
human-computer interaction are welcome; I would only note that most of
the people attending the conference will have little familiarity with
these topics. Consequently, extremely technical papers or sessions
are probably not appropriate for this meeting. I am particularly
interested in sessions that would summarize important subareas of AI
or HCI at an introductory or tutorial level, perhaps especially those
that that are beginning to have an impact on the computer industry and
society at large. Please contact me if you have any questions about
the conference; my address, net address, and phone are below.
Jim Miller
------------------------------------------------------------------
A CALL FOR PAPERS, SESSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
1984 NATIONAL COMPUTER CONFERENCE
July 9-12, 1984 Convention Center Las Vegas, Nevada
E N H A N C I N G C R E A T I V I T Y
You are invited to attend and to participate in the 1984 NCC
program. The 1984 theme, "Enhancing Creativity," reflects the
increasing personalization of computer systems, and the attendant
focus on individual productivity and innovation. In concert with the
expanded degrees of connectivity resulting from advances in data
communications, this trend is leading to dramatic changes in the
office, the factory, and the home.
The 1983 program will feature informative sessions on
contemporary issues that are critically important to the industry.
Sessions and papers will be selected on the basis of quality,
topicality, and suitability for the NCC audience. All subjects
related to computing technology and applications are suitable.
YOU CAN PARTICIPATE BY:
- Writing a paper
* Send for "Instructions to Authors" TODAY.
* Submit papers by October 31, 1983.
- Organizing and leading a session
* Send preliminary proposal (title, abstract, target
audience) by July 15, 1983.
* After preliminary approval, send final session
proposal by August 30, 1983.
- Serving as a reviewer for submitted papers and sessions
Authors and session leaders will receive final notification of
acceptance by January 31, 1984.
Send all submissions, proposals, correspondence and inquiries
about papers and sessions on ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE or
HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION to:
James R. Miller
Computer * Thought Corporation
1721 West Plano Parkway
Plano, Texas 75075
214-424-3511
JMILLER@SUMEX-AIM
Send all other proposals or inquiries to:
Dennis J. Frailey, Program Chairman
Texas Instruments Incorporated
8642-A Spicewood Springs Road
Suite 1984
P.O. Box 10988
Austin, Texas 78766-1988
512-250-6663
------------------------------
Date: 17-Jun-83 16:42 PDT
From: WBD.TYM@OFFICE-2
Subject: Bulletin Board For Micro Users Set Up By NBS
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- An electronic bulletin board that will inform
microcomputer users about upcoming conferences, seminars and
workshops, as well as update them on the latest telecomputing
services, publications and users groups, has been established by the
Commerce Department's National Bureau of Standards (NBS).
Dubbed the Microcomputer Electronic Information Exchange (MEIE), the
service will be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Both
federal and nonfederal users with Asci terminals that communicate
at 300 bit/sec with eight data bits, no parity and one stop bit can
reach the exchange by calling (301) 948-5718.
Further information on MEIE can be obtained fom the NBS.
From June 13th issue of COMPUTERWORLD
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #33
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-07-13 05:28:42 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 12 Jul 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 33
Today's Topics:
Administrivia - New Moderator,
Queries - Command Syntax(es?) & ICONS,
Reply to Query - Keyboards,
Computers and the Law - New Mass. definition for stored info &
DOD and Ownership,
Computers and People - Effect of Automation on Jobs (3 msgs) &
Young Computer Users
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 Jul 83 21:42:09 EDT
From: Charles
Subject: Hello!
Hello,
I am the new moderator of Human-nets. I bid you all welcome to the
continuation of human-nets, and hope for many a happy flame from one
and all!
I will probably make a few mistakes early on with this. For
instance, I accidently put out a second -- different -- V6 #32 as my
first issue of Human-nets; both issues are valid. Please bear with
me... I am sure that I can live up to the fine job that Mel has done.
Charles
------------------------------
Date: 15 June 1983 14:46 cdt
From: Heiby at HI-MULTICS (Ronald W.)
Subject: Command Syntax(es?)
I have a question about the philosophy of the user interface. I am
implementing a program on two systems which is/has been implemented
on several others. The program has basically the same function on
each system on which it is implemented. Also, each implementation
has similar abilities for having its behaviour modified by command
line arguments.
The question is, where command line syntax differs on different
systems, should the implementations conform to each other or to the
system on which they are running re command language syntax and
conventions.
The main argument for having all of these tools support the same
identical command line syntax is that of least confusion. If a user
learns how to invoke the tool on one system, the user can invoke it
on any other in the same way.
The main argument for having the tool match the system is that of
least confusion. If a user learns how the command language on a
particular system works, the user can use that knowledge to invoke
this tool.
I tend towards the tool matching the system point of view. I'd
appreciate the opinions and comments of the group. Thanks. Ron H.
------------------------------
Date: 22-Jun-83 00:50 PDT
From: Vongehren@OFFICE-12
Subject: ICONS: Passing Fad or New Found Wisdom?
My current work has brought me to the question as stated in the
subject. Rather than elaborate on it in this message, I would like
to make contact with others who would be able to contribute to the
discussion. I will, however, briefly state a few of the questions
which fall out of this:
A - Do you think that the current interest in the use of icons on
terminals and computer displays is just a passing fad?
B - Aren't some of the current 'graphics' just a little too 'cute'
e.g. IBM upper-case 'lock'. Is this just a sign of an immature
field? Will the marketplace tolerate this long enough for growth
and maturity to occur?
C - What must happen for this field to mature?
D - Standardization of Signs and Symbols has occurred in other
fields, e.g. Traffic. Is there any effort to standardize within
the computer field? Should this be done?
E - Are there any obvious indicators for when it is inappropriate to
use an icon in place of a word?
F - What would you offer as guiding principles for the use of icons
in computer displays? Will these differ for icon use on keyboards?
I'll be glad to hear from you if you are willing to do some (or have
done some) thinking on these issues.
Ed vonGehren,
Bell-Northern Research
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 1983 19:04 EDT
From: SJOBRG.ANDY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #32
I don't know about an ansi standard, but there apparently is a
european standard...the one that IBM followed when they did
(=~ totally brain damaged =-) keyboard for the IBM PC.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jun 1983 12:42:03-EDT
From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX
Subject: more on "computer crime"
A rag called TECH, which recently appeared in my in-box
proclaiming its attraction to the New England high-tech community,
says that Massachusetts has elected not to define computer crime per
se (thus avoiding the morass of technicalities) but is defining
electronically-stored information as property --- so if you take
some info that isn't yours you can be prosecuted for larceny. This
answers the worries a number of HNers have raised; how many problems
do y'all expect it to produce?
------------------------------
Date: 6 June 1983 00:23 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: DOD's STARS
The current climate is that if you invent something totally on your
own, no military funding, no direct military use, if the military
decides it's of military use they will clamp it in secrecy so you
can't get it patented (for example, mathematical trapdoor functions
and encryption methods suitable for general commerce more than for
military messages). I would be reluctant to submit any programming
technique to the DOD for consideration. If it isn't useful to the
military, you've wasted yor time and theirs; If it is, you may find
yourself forbidden to discuss the method with anyone else or publish
or use it even, even if it's just a powerful way to develop reliable
programs that the USSR might use for reliable weapons control.
------------------------------
Date: 6 June 1983 00:56 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas
Although "eventually" we'll just dictate to a machine that does the
typing for us, that's skipping a step. First we'll have machines
that do most of the dictation automatically but have a lot of
trouble and make a lot of mistakes. The secretary will become a
proofreader who will simply scan the computer-generated file looking
for obvious errors, and correct them without having to refer to the
digitized voice in most cases. Once in a while the computer data
will be messed up enough to be ambiguous, and the
secretary-proofreader will ask the computer to play back the
digitized-voice segment marked as a region of text in the edit
buffer (the computer will maintain links between the digitized voice
and the edit to facility automatically retrieving any desired
segment of text), listen to it, and then make the correction.
This could be here in 2 years if some big company (IBM, Xerox)
started working on it now; existing semi-AI software should suffice
for converting voice into a close-enough-to-guess-at transcript.
Some executives may even prefer to send the pidgin-transcription
without editing, if they're sending it to somebody who can do the
guesswork at his end and not even bother actually correcting the
transcript. Where it's ambiguous, the recipient could ask the
mail-monger to go fetch the digitized voice segment via WorldNet,
again with the links between edit buffer and digitized voice kept by
the message system.
------------------------------
Date: 6 June 1983 01:06 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: job outlook
It sounds like with the aging population and needs for health care,
computer (mycin) assisted health care would allow relative novices
at medicine to provide health care, starting with the computer doing
just about everything including calling for assistance any time the
computer is worried, and gradually getting more experience so the
semi-novice nurse can know when to call the expert-nurse, until
after a few years of experience the trained-on-the-job nurse is
ready to become a fullfledged expert-nurse. Perhaps some formal
nursing education could be given during idle moments on the job
(probably 50% of nursing work is idle wait-for-something-to-happen,
be available in case needed), so that after a few years the nurse
not only has lots of practical experience (not to mention a source
of income all this time) but also enough education to take a formal
certification examination. Full-fledged nurses could then use idle
moments to train to be surgeons or nutritionists or doctor-
paramedics or any other medical speciality. Even full-fledged
doctors could have the computer feed them during idle moments with
the latest techniques and dogma, since all routine tasks including
general examinations could be handled by the computer-assisted
nursing staff so the doctor wouldn't be so overworked as at present.
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jun 83 01:02:57 EDT
From: Ron
Subject: Re: "requires political intervention..."
I hope I don't sound too libertarian here (affected by my
office-mate no doubt) but I cannot imagine any good coming from the
GOVERNMENT making laws about how factories can and cannot auomate.
Wow. Let's regulate automation to kill industry (when it can no
longer compete).
Marvelous.
(ron)
PS- What was that message doing on Human-nets?
------------------------------
Date: Sat 2 Jul 83 11:03:39-PDT
From: William "Chops" Westfield
Subject: Computers and kids
BC-COMPUTER-KIDS
(Art en route to picture clients)
By RICHARD SEVERO
c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service
NEW YORK - It was the usual computerese one hears around the new
cognoscenti - talk of chips and programs, pixels and peripherals,
hardware and software, commands and graphics.
The only difference, really, was that the nine conferees were all
between the ages of 6 and 16, with a decided clustering around the age
of 7.
And if the graduate students and teachers who gathered to hear
them Friday at the Teachers College at Columbia University in
Manhattan were impressed by what the nine children had learned about
computers, they seemed delighted also to learn that among the nine
there was a love of such non-computer things as parents, humor,
baseball and good music and, most important to the teachers, of words
written on paper and bound into books.
The occasion was the end of a three-day national conference
conducted by the Teachers College and entitled ''Microcomputers,
Electronic Toys and Genius Machines in Early Childhood Education.''
The conference promised to take a critical look at what the computer
age was doing for and to children, without dodging the possible
negative psychological effects of obsession with the machines.
But apprehensions were allayed when Erik Hueneke, who is 7 years
old, said that although he liked computer training, he preferred
''reading a book.''
Patricia Vardin, the conference director, asked Erik why he liked
books. ''It's because I like to read,'' Erik replied, ''and also I
find out more things, just like a story.''
The scholars gathered around - worried at the national decline in
reading skills and the emergence of young people who play videogames
and seem to relate far more to the pictography of video terminals than
the kind of imagination and intelligence nurtured by words - burst
into applause when Erik said that.
In the course of the discussion, it became clear that Erik was by
no means alone.
Robert Schlesinger, who is 14, said he played the violin and liked
baseball and reading, but emphasized there was ''nothing wrong with
learning about computers.''
''If people don't learn,'' he said, ''they won't be able to go
anywhere in the year 2001.''
The children, most of whom are studying computers under Karla
Pretl at the Fleming School on Manhattan's East Side, were asked what
they would have the computer do if they were allowed to have it do
anything they wanted.
Robert said he thought it would be nice to ''break into Government
computers'' to see just what they held, while Erik said he would ask
the computer to ''find a baby deer for me to take care of.'' Then
Robert added he would like it to ''change my grades.''
When asked by Miss Vardin, all the children said they thought they
were ''smarter'' than the computers they programmed, but when asked if
she thought she was smarter, Dierdre Cohen, 7, replied, ''I don't
know.''
Using computers is not all fun. Katherine Redfern, who at age 6
was the youngest participant, said staring at a screen ''makes you
very tired.'' Jonathan Niborg, who is 8, acknowledged that once in a
while computer work gave him ''a very small headache.''
Gary Caldwell, who at 16 was the oldest participant, said that he
was convinced computer use had strained his eyes, and that he would
probably have to wear glasses for the rest of his life.
But he said he loved computers anyway and would like to learn more
about them at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His advice to
those thinking about getting an education in computers was, ''Don't
get it out of fear of being left behind - get it out of a desire to
get ahead.''
But for most of the others, careers seemed a long way off and they
preferred to think of the computer as a source of amusement now.
Eric said he liked using computers because ''no other activity
includes machines.''
''You are the boss of it,'' he said, ''and it's the one that does
the work.''
Robert said he found using computers satisfying because it was
something he could do and his parents would not have the slightest
understanding of what he was up to.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #34
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-07-20 20:04:31 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 18 Jul 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 34
Today's Topics:
Reply to Query - Command Syntax(es?),
Computers and the Law - property rights for stored data
Technology - text and sound for messages (2 msgs)
Computers and People - Personal Information Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Jul 83 01:12:04 EDT (Fri)
From: Mark Weiser
Subject: Re: Command Syntax(es?)
As to whether the syntax should match the system or the tool:
its basically a matter of analyzing the user population. If there
are features of the tool which use syntax which everyone using the
system must know (like how to backspace a character), or if the
tool will (can) only be used by people who are pretty familiar with
the system, then the tool should conform to the system.
On the other hand, if the tool is one which someone might only
use the system for, and not be familiar with any other aspects of
the system, then the tool can afford to offer uniform syntax
regardless of the system. This pretty much means that the tool
must supply a complete operating environment. For instance,
apl and emacs environments ought to be the same everywhere, because
they insulate you from you operating system and because
you might use the machine for only them. A compiler or a mailer
would be different (not so sure about the mailer).
------------------------------
Date: 14 July 1983 03:06 EDT
From: Steven A. Swernofsky
Subject: property rights in stored data
Chip,
Do you have any more info on this topic? Is the legislature insane,
or is this an attempt to foist the problem off on the courts? Do you
know the story of the Mass. "right to privacy" bill?
-- Steve
------------------------------
Date: 14 July 1983 10:21 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: text and sound in the network?
Date: 14 July 1983 03:15 EDT
From: Steven A. Swernofsky
It's silly to use sound as a backup for text. Just send the sound
directly!
If infinite data storage were free so the sound could be kept forever,
and if listening to sound were as efficient as reading text (remember
people can read or skim-read at over 700 wpm while they can talk at
only 200 wpm), then your statement would be valid. But for permanent
storage of memos and documents voice is too expensive and slow to
access. Besides, if you never convert it to text or other abstract
form you can't index it by keywords for later access by subject.
It's also silly to require a secretary-proofreader. Just display
the text for the speaker as he speaks, and allow him to be his own
proofreader. Adding a secretary just makes for another error in
theloop.
I agree, except that a lot of executives think their time is too
valuable to waste doing that so they have secretaries do it for them.
(My boss is an example. For a simple reminder message to himself he
calls his secretary in for dictation instead of sending himself a
message on his terminal.)
------------------------------
Date: 15 July 1983 23:01 EDT
From: Steven A. Swernofsky
Subject: text and sound in the network?
Robert,
[SASW]
It's silly to use sound as a backup for text. Just send the
sound directly!
[REM]
If infinite data storage were free so the sound could be kept
forever,. . ., then your statement would be valid. But for
permanent storage of memos and documents voice is too expensive
and slow to access.
I was thinking of short memos or phone messages. (1) Short messages
of this kind are not usually kept forever. (2) Short messages don't
take very much storage space. Speech research has shown that the
amount of storage required is not so huge anyway. (3) Long documents
would be transcribed to text for review and revision before they were
sent anyway.
Besides, if you never convert it to text or other abstract
form you can't index it by keywords for later access by subject.
So what? Short messages (as noted) aren't usually saved and aren't
usually worthwhile to access by keywords anyway. I just find that
they get in the way.
Another good reason to send the sound directly is that inflection and
other nuances of speech are difficult (if not impossible) to transmit
via text.
It's also silly to require a secretary-proofreader. Just
display the text for the speaker as he speaks, and allow him
to be his own proofreader. Adding a secretary just makes for
another error in the loop.
I agree, except that a lot of executives think their time is too
valuable to waste doing that so they have secretaries do it for
them.
This is the wrong way to think about the topic. Provide the
capability and SOME people will take advantage of it. When those
people find it to be convenient, they will spread the word and it will
become more common. Planning for prejudice to last forever is also
silly.
A short note on execs vs secys -- it's LOTS cheaper for my secretary
to do dull work like this than for me to. I had in mind the situation
where the spoken version was too ambiguous to transcribe, not the
typical proofreading situation. In the ambiguous-verbiage case, the
exec will have to clear up the text somehow anyway (as by telling his
secretary what to insert in place of the meaningless drivel he
caused). So having him do it immediately isn't too unreasonable.
-- Steve
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jul 83 14:41:56 EDT
From: Ron
Subject: Fear and loathing of personal information systems
I am trying to consider the consequences of widespread use of personal
information systems. Imagine a large segment of the world population
owning the rough equivalent of Alan Kaye's (sp?) Dynabook, a portable
information manipulation device about the size of a notebook. It
would include every spiffy accouterment known to computer science.
Imagine them interconnected by the infamous "Worldnet" concept so
often lauded here.
Here we have a machine that can hold encyclopedia, technical manuals,
histories, images, sounds, and communicate them to anyone else with a
similar machine, etc.
Aside from the question of what happens to those who cannot own such a
device...
My basic concern was: with such ready access to information would our
desire to ask questions be stifled? Knowing that an answer is only a
keypress away might keep one from making that movement, the same way
that having reference texts on a shelf lulls one into a false sense of
"defacto understanding."
At another end of the spectrum: might academia fall into the trap of
rearguing each other's theses indefinately, with a significant
percentage no longer doing original or empirical work? Redundancy is
a healthy thing in research. By asking the same question again new
viewpoints may be discovered. By challenging existing ideas, directly
or indirectly, we come upon new truths.
Are there limits to this media that might have an impact on our way of
thinking? Might limits be imposed that would somehow do this? The
latter is something of a horror scenario and may be ignored by the
sensitive respondent... :-)
Further: might we become conceptually "xenophobic?" I.e. afraid of
things that our little boxes could not explain?
Please consider carefully. I believe that this is a deeper problem
than "meets the eye" and also has a serious component of reality.
I worry that easy access to incomplete systems of information may
cause a television-like stupor to descend upon us, ultimately
decreasing our involvment and interaction with knowledge.
(ron)
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #37
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-07-27 06:56:49 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 25 Jul 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 37
Today's Topics:
Query - Is Technology Worth It?,
Technology - Re: Text and Sound for Messages,
Computers and People - Personal Information Systems (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Jul 1983 10:54:17 EDT (Monday)
From: Erik Sherman
Subject: Civilizing technology?
The debate over the usefulness of WorldNet has uncovered a question.
Has any technological development fundamentally changed men and women
for the better? If so, what was the development, what was the change,
and how can you demonstrate the change? If not, why is further
technology desirable in and of itself?
Erik Sherman (ESHERMAN@BBN-UNIX)
------------------------------
Date: 24 Jul 83 11:37-EST (Sun)
From: Steven Gutfreund
Subject: Secretaries and Managers
There was a note in here a few days ago about a manager who preffered
to use his secretary as a reminder/calendar system than his terminal.
There was a conclusion drawn that he had some sort of "secretarial
dependency disease" or computer xenophobia.
I would put it to you that the real reason is a much more common one
in office situations: blame and responsibility. If the secretary
forgets to remind him, there is someone to blame, if he forgets to
look at his terminal, he can only blame himself.
Covering your ass is a very common office politics trick. Furthermore,
some people perfer to trust thinking people who have an understanding
of the importance of the reminder, than a dumb machine.
In the long run, until your machines become well rounded
psychological substitues for secretaries, you will have an uphill
battle.
- Steven Gutfreund
------------------------------
Date: 22 July 1983 12:45 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Fear and loathing of personal information systems - oracle?
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 83 12:01 EDT
From: MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Given a wide
data base, one would expect that even simple queries would yield
more than one response; would not the multiplicity of "answers"
tend to educate the user toward a more inquiring (not to say
skeptical) attitude? I am assuming that the information-retrieval
mechanism would not give "oracular" responses but rather a series
of pointers into relevant files.
This depends on the type of system (fully-automatic such as Dialog or
Mycin, fully-human with computer merely being a communications medium
such as HUMAN-NETS, or truly hybrid systems such as computerized
conferencing or Hypertext or Generalized Computer Dating). Early
fully-automatic systems for general info retrieval would have to be
like Dialog, having no capability for understanding English or other
natural language text in enough detail to synthesize an answer. They
would indeed give just a list of citations, and hopefully present the
text onine rather than require you to order microfiche like Dialog
currently does (either you order fiche, or spend time looking thru
local libraries, or you don't see the full text at all). But advanced
systems should be able to collate the available answers to your
question and construct a summary such as "most sources indicate
Einstein's general relativity is valid, but some alternate theories
have been proposed and not yet refuted" which indicates the
most-likely-correct answer but also indicates the margin for doubt.
This relieves the user of having to read all the cited articles and
construct the summary in hir mind. The citations would of course be
available if the summary wasn't sufficient for the user's needs.
Mostly-human systems would suffer the opposite problem currently.
Whoever the "expert" is, everybody believes that person. Like if
Lauren Weinstein says the quality of CBS Teletext in Los Angeles is
shoddy, everybody takes that as fact. Even if somebody else says it
was good, Lauren is believed. Typically there won't be enough experts
to have a true difference of opinion that the user will believe,
rather the one expert will be believed absolutely, and without a way
to check the expert's alleged facts, well what can you do? With
systems that direct you to an expert, rather than posting your query
on a whole mailing list of random people, you'll get only one reply
and there'll be no room for alternative views, so this effect of
believing the expert will be even worse. But eventually with good
systems that send your query to more than one expert and which allow
you to look up references, this problem will be alleviated.
Eventually the two systems will converge. You'll get a summary,
written by an expert or a computer, you sometimes won't know which;
and you'll get a list of references, facts and expert opinions cited
by the summarizer entity (expert-human or computer).
By the way, I would not like a system that ALWAYS replied with two
opposing answers, one from respected scientists and one from
flatworlders or occultists for example. This "point/counterpoint"
method of disseminating knowledge, such as on various TV programs and
in the ballot proposition booklet in California, usually results in
two extreme views, neither of which is correct. I'd rather have one
generally-accepted answer with alternative views listed as secondary.
Example of query:
Does vitamin C cure the common cold?
Example of point/counterpoint answer:
Yes it does -- Linus Pauling
No it doesn't -- AMA
Example of what I'd prefer:
The question is hotly debated, but some general conclusions seem
warranted. Vitamin C strengthens the membranes causing lessening of
symptoms, but doesn't totally stop the virus. The extent to which it
lessens symptoms is still up in the air, from hardly at all to very
much.
Example of query:
Is the Earth flat?
Example of point/counterpoint:
No, spaceflight photos show clearly the Earth is round - NASA
Yes, spaceflight is staged in Disney studios - flatworld society
Example of what I'd prefer:
The question is firmly decided in the negative. The Earth is a
nearly-spherical body orbiting the Sun. The Earth is so large (7600
miles in diameter) that to a person standing on its surface it appears
flat. There is one group claiming the Earth is flat, but other than
claiming all evidence of roundness is falsified, they have no valid
point.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 83 09:34 EDT
From: MJackson.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Fear and loathing of personal information systems -
Subject: oracle?
It seems to me that after the two systems converge (dumb computer and
mostly-human) you have the same problem as with the mostly-human
system. The list of references, facts, and expert opinions cited will
be selected and summarized by one "expert," although in this case it
may be a computer. I'm a bit dubious of the proposition that the
computer expert is, a priori, less subject to bias (whatever that is)
than the human.
Since most queries are not either/or, suppression of a
minority/unfavored viewpoint can be pervasive while remaining
relatively subtle.
Example of query:
What are the effects of Vitamin C on humans?
Example of response from AMANet:
Vitamin C is necessary for life. In inadequate amounts. .
.
Example of response from Pauling InfoService:
A major effect of Vitamin C, given in adequate quantities, is
the suppression of the common cold. . .
The solution that comes to mind is to accomodate multiple "expert"
services on the net, so that the user could shop around and sample the
prejudices of several. Of course, just as many persons read only the
magazines that reflect their personal viewpoint, some users would
focus solely on the expert service that told them what they wanted to
hear.
Example of query:
Do UFOs exist?
Example of response from a popular, hence profitable, expert service:
UFOs definitely exist; visits from space creatures are
well-documented, but the evidence has been systematically
suppressed by the Air Force.
-- National Enqiry Service Executive
The drawbacks are obvious--but I see no acceptable alternative; other
options lead to objectionable pruning or have excessive potential for
abuse. Of course, some of us make a point of reading literature from
"the other side" even when we hold strong opinions. And on-line
access to sources tends to speed up the task of uncovering
falsification, misstatement, and questionable interpretations. This
kind of diversity would help keep the system as a whole from being
viewed as an oracle--defending against (but hardly eliminating) some
of Ron's major concerns.
"Objectivity" tends to be a myth; I suspect the best one can do is try
to put the options, and the tools to evaluate them, in the hands of
the users.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: 24 July 1983 17:31 EDT
From: Zigurd R. Mednieks
Subject: "You will be asked to leave the future immediately."
We already have the means to study what will happen when some people
cannot use modern tools. The modern tool I'm refering to is the
library. Dynabook is to the library what a Vic20 is to an 1130, it's
something you can cart around with you and is much easier to use.
The people who can't use libraries can afford to use what is free.
Money and our economic system are not the problem. The problem is that
even today there are large numbers of people who just cannot read and
unless some dictator decrees that all illiterates be shot, the problem
won't go away. But it will get worse: I was listening to NPR news
recently, not the sort of news show that often admits that there are
problems that more public spending won't cure. The feature I was
listening to was about a job placement program. What nearly made me
gag on my oatmeal was the casual remark that about half the people in
the placement program had "reading deficiencies". When you work every
day at a job where if you just apply yourself a bit more diligently
you'll find that bug, it becomes difficult to accept that fact that
there are problems without solutions.
What is even more depressing is that being illiterate before the
printing press was invented was a common condition, before the recent
explosion of technology it didn't mean you could not make a living as,
say, a laborer, but now that human muscle is a vanishingly small part
of what creates wealth, illiteracy can be more crippling than
blindness.
Solutions? Not from me. Perhaps we should just let the welfare state
mentality take over. Let's give then bread and circus, we can afford
it. Let's just whoop it up 'till the barbarians invade.
Cheers,
Zig
P.S. Isn't it great how "Cheers" just expresses the right thing every
time? Thank you Roger Duffey, wherever you are.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #38
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-08-02 21:17:20 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 27 Jul 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 38
Today's Topics:
Announcement - New Newsgroup,
Response to Query - Is Technology Worth it?,
Computers and People - Personal Information Systems &
Automation and Jobs,
Technology - New White House Electronic Mail System
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 83 16:44:18 CDT
From: Mike.Caplinger
Subject: Sun newsgroup
Reply-to: Sun-Spots-Request.Rice@Rand-Relay
A new newsgroup has been formed to talk about software and hardware
issues relating to the Sun Workstation. This will be an edited list,
sent out about once a week.
Requests and Problems to:
Sun-Spots-Request@Rice (CSNet)
Sun-Spots-Request.Rice@rand-relay (ARPAnet)
Newsgroup Articles to:
Sun-Spots@Rice (CSNet)
Sun-Spots.Rice@rand-relay (ARPAnet)
Everybody who sent add requests to me already: you're on the list.
We don't have facilities yet to FTP archives, but we'll be happy to
mail copies to people requesting them. Our ARPAnet connection through
CSNet/TELENET is probably only 2 months away. Of course, there are no
archives as yet anyway!
------------------------------
Date: 27-Jul-83 13:29 PDT
From: Kirk Kelley
Subject: augmented global consciousness
Postal Address: P.O. Box 1037, Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Erik's question about technology, I would be more interested in
the question "Has any technological development fundamentally improved
the viability of earth life?" The evidence may be less ambiguous than
for "changed men and women for the better". The answers may be the
same.
Anyone interested in starting an "augmented global consciousness"
where we tele-collaborate on a model of "Gaia" that models its own
viability as a WorldNetworked technique-teaching mathematical
simulation (adventure), let me know.
-- Kirk Kelley
------------------------------
Date: Wed 27 Jul 83 10:19:42-PDT
From: Richard Treitel
Subject: bias on Worldnet, and technology
Since different people have widely differing views of what constitutes
a biased answer to a question, it is inevitable that there will be
bias on Worldnet, even if it confines itself to reporting facts
(because selective reporting of facts you regard as "important" is
also bias). But at least with Worldnet there will be more likelihood
of alternative sources of opinion being quoted, and easily accessible,
so that if you distrust the first answer you get, there are others.
"More likelihood" does not mean "certainty" though.
What the hell does it mean to ask whether technology has made men and
women "better"? I claim that it has made my grandfather better: he is
still alive and active at the age of 83. It has made my father
better: by reading printed books he becomes a vastly more informed
scholar than he could be if most of the information he needed was
handwritten with only about 3 copies made because of prohibitive
labour cost. And it has made me better: I have access to Human-Nets.
- Richard
------------------------------
From: "OBLIO::CROLL c/o"
Date: 25-JUL-1983 17:15
Subj: jobs in the future
Anyone interested in this topic should check the July 1982 issue of
"The Atlantic". There is an article in it called "The Declining
Middle", by Bob Kuttner (who is a contributing editor of "The New
Republic").
Kuttner's thesis is that most new jobs are being created are at the
top and the bottom of the ladder. The high-paying, middle-class jobs
are the ones being automated, because they're the ones that have the
biggest payoff from automation (in labor savings, mostly). Jobs at
the lowest rungs of the ladder will take the longest to automate,
because wages are very low there, anyway, and there is little
incentive to automate them.
Very interesting viewpoint. Kuttner has a lot to say about the future
of automation, both by robots on the factory floor, and by computers
and networks in offices.
John
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jul 1983 21:52-PDT
Subject: Executive Data Link.
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow
n015 0807 13 Jul 83
BC-LINK
(ART EN ROUTE TO LASER PHOTO 2 CLIENTS)
By DAVID BURNHAM
c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service
WASHINGTON - When President Reagan or his staff wants to rush a
written message to one of the members of the Cabinet, they no longer
dispatch a messenger in a car through the traffic-clogged streets of
the capital. They send the memorandum at the speed of light by a
computer 431 miles away in Columbus, Ohio.
The new electronic mail system, which has been operating for
several weeks, is called the Executive Data Link. It now connects 60
of the most influential officials in Washington to one another. By
October, 200 officials will be hooked into the system and its planners
believe it will ultimately be an important new tool in what the Reagan
administration calls Reform 88, a drive to increase the efficiency of
the federal government.
''This will be a lot faster,'' said Joseph R. Wright Jr., the
deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. ''It used to
take two days to get a piece of paper back and forth between the White
House and one of the agencies. Now it can be done in less than30
minutes.''
Wright added that the Executive Data Link would eventually be put
to work on a number of different chores. ''Already, however,'' he
said, ''it has proved very useful for negotiating with an agency over
congressional testimony, writing important press releases and other
matters.'' He said a policy could be established at the White House,
for example, and an agency would write proposed congressional
testimony.
''Then,'' he said, ''the agency sends the testimony over, we can
edit it and send it back very quickly.''
While almost all new communications systems are promoted on the
neutral ground of improving efficiency, they often have farreaching
and unarticulated side effects.
The decision to establish the Executive Data Link was an outgrowth
of one of the problems of the modern-day presidency. Many Americans
think of the separate agencies that make up the federal government as
a disciplined army that marches together in the direction chosen by
the man in the White House. Recent presidents have complained,
however, that this is a false picture, that the tendency of the
agencies is to ignore White House directives.
Craig L. Fuller, secretary to the Cabinet, contended that by
helping the Cabinet get involved in the decision-making process at the
earliest stages, the Executive Data Link ''strengthens Cabinet
government.'' He said he used a portable computer to tap into the
network and work with Cabinet members when he was at home or traveling
with the president. Other top officials of the Reagan administration
are enthusiastic, he reported. Treasury Secretary Donald T. Regan has
a terminal at his desk and Agriculture Secretary John R. Block carries
a portable terminal when traveling.
The system connects 50 of the highest officials in government
agencies with 10 people on the White House staff through a computer
data center maintained in Columbus by Compuserve Inc. With this
computer, the variety of word processors and terminals in various
offices in the White House and at the agencies are able to communicate
with each other through existing telephone lines.
Wright, a former executive of Citicorp in New York, said that
while the security of the Executive Data Link was considered
sufficiently rigorous to protect the domestic secrets of the
government, it was not used for national security matters. In fact, a
warning is automatically printed at the top of each message: ''This
system is not to be used for classified information.''
Although the system is now being used for such purposes as
drafting executive orders, legislation, congressional testimony and
press releases that need to be cleared by top officials, both Wright
and Jim Kelly, the deputy associate director of the management office
who is in charge of its management reform division, expressed hopes
that it would ultimately contribute to another goal.
''This project is the initial step in a much more expansive
project to upgrade the automatic data processing and telecommunication
on a governmentwide basis,'' Wright told Cabinet members last month.
The potential hazard of unifying the computerized data bases of
the major federal agencies has long worried civil liberties advocates
and was a factor in the enactment in 1974 of the Privacy Protection
Act. Some congressional experts, too, are worried about making it
easier for agencies to compare information about individuals whose
data are contained in different government computers. They fear that
such matching might, for example, be used to track political
opponents, or that information from tax returns, provided by taxpayers
in the belief that it would be used only for tax purposes, might be
used for unrelated matters.
One of the provisions of the privacy law is that federal agencies
must publish the Federal Register details about all new computer
systems and what information will be stored in them. But because the
Executive Data Link does not create a new set of records about
individual citizens, it was not subject to the public notice provision
of the privacy act.
With 66 officials in 22 agencies sending an average of 500
messages a month, current expenses for the Executive Data Link average
$18,500 a month. As the system is enlarged, the costs will increase.
But Kelly said an analysis showed that sending written material by
messengers, regular mail and Express Mail was at least twice as
expensive as sending it electronically.
nyt-07-13-83 1104edt
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #40
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-07-31 14:28:29 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Sunday, 31 Jul 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 40
Today's Topics:
Computers and Peole - Personal Information Systems (2 msgs) &
Worth of Technology (2 msgs) &
Secretaries and Managers,
Programming - Debugger Query: Summary of Replies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 27 July 1983 20:22 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: "You will be asked to leave the future immediately." -
Subject: illiteracy
The first that public terminals have to do is entice random passersby
and then teach them how to use the system. Part of this will be
teaching illiterates how to do some primitive reading. Perhaps
cartoons and icons can be used at first, with gradual teaching of
English words as needed. Of course the expert/literate should be able
to quickly skip the unneeded novice/illiterate lessons and get into
the expert stuff.
------------------------------
Date: Sunday, 31-Jul-83 01:24:52-PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein
Subject: "Experts"
Greetings. Why is it that people seem to always use me as an example?
Oh well, such is the price of "high visibility", I guess. I would
think that most people will always tend to largely rely on one or two
experts when they wish to gather quick, useful opinions on a
particular subject. Having the technical ability to reach lots of
people is kinda nice, but we all tend to rely upon those persons whose
opinions we've found valuable in the past, rather than spend too much
time testing out "unproven" ground. I'm not saying that this is
necessarily good, but most of us behave in this fashion much of the
time.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: 29 July 1983 2049-PDT (Friday)
From: marcus at AEROSPACE (Leo Marcus)
Subject: benefits of technology
Some of the responses to the question of relative benefits of
technology are hard to leave unanswered.
For example:
Who would want to fight a war if they have all
the goods and services they would ever need or want?
The author of this comment obviously was not considering religious
wars, wars stemming from nationalistic jealousy, depraved leaders,
etc. He also thinks that people would quite easily achieve a state
where they have all the goods and services they would ever need or
want.
The true test of the benefits of technology, in my opinion, is whether
the human race can make it from one threat of omnicide to the next,
without having any of them materialize. The first item on this list
is nuclear war. Just as the threat is not due solely to technology,
the solution cannot come solely from technology.
U
------------------------------
Date: Sunday, 31-Jul-83 01:24:52-PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein
Subject: "Human Change"
One does indeed wonder how much all of this shiny technology will
really change any fundamental aspects of human beings. I have my
doubts. In the final analysis we've changed very little in the last
10,000 years or more, and I suspect that the inner drives that keep us
going will change very little, fundamentally, in the next 10,000
years. We're still the same competitive, warlike, and perpetually
horny creatures we've been for a long, long time. The name of the
game may change, and the rules of the game may even vary somewhat over
time, but the game itself remains much the same.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jul 83 15:56-EST (Fri)
From: Steven Gutfreund
Subject: re: secretaries and managers
Personally REM, I am probably closer to you than to the managers.
Especially when it comes to mundane things like ATM's.
Still, I think you are slightly hasty or mistaken that it will only
take time for managers to shift their allegiance from secretarial
responsibility to machines.
I believe that there are certain different personality types in the
world and that even with great passage of time only minor shifts
occur.
Look at the interest that "human" operator telephones can develop, or
human staffed restaurant versus automats and vending machines.
No, REM, it will take more than the passage of time for human services
such as secretarial work to fade into quaint obscurity.
- Steven Gutfreund
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jul 1983 05:25:43-PST
From: whm.arizona@Rand-Relay
Subject: Debugger Query--Summary of Replies
Several weeks ago I posted a query for information on debuggers. The
information I received fell into two categories: information about
papers, and information about actual programs. The information about
papers was basically subsumed by two documents: an annotated
bibliography, and soon-to-be-published conference proceedings. The
information about programs was quite diverse and somewhat lengthy. In
order to avoid clogging the digest, only the information about the
papers is included here. A longer version of this message will be
posted to net.lang on USENET.
The basic gold mine of current ideas on debugging is the Proceedings
of the ACM SIGSOFT/SIGPLAN Symposium on High-Level Debugging which was
held in March, 1983. Informed sources say that it is scheduled to
appear as vol. 8, no. 4 (1983 August) of SIGSOFT's Software
Engineering Notes and as vol. 18, no. 8 (1983 August) of SIGPLAN
Notices. All members of SIGSOFT and SIGPLAN should receive copies
sometime in August.
Mark Johnson at HP has put together a pair of documents on debugging.
They are:
"An Annotated Software Debugging Bibliography"
"A Software Debugging Glossary"
I believe that a non-annotated version of this bibliography appeared
in SIGPLAN in February 1982. The annotated bibliography is the basic
gold mine of "pointers" about debugging.
Mark can be contacted at:
Mark Scott Johnson
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
1501 Page Mill Road, 3U24
Palo Alto, CA 94304
415/857-8719
Arpa: Johnson.HP-Labs@RAND-RELAY
USENET: ...!ucbvax!hplabs!johnson
Two books were mentioned that are not currently included in Mark's
bibliography:
"Algorithmic Debugging" by Ehud Shapiro. It has information
on source-level debugging, debuggers in the language being
debugged, debuggers for unconventional languages, etc. It
is supposedly available from MIT Press. (From
dixon.pa@parc-maxc)
"Smalltalk-80: The Interactive Programming Environment"
A section of the book describes the system's interactive
debugger. (This book is supposedly due in bookstores
on or around the middle of October. A much earlier
version of the debugger was briefly described in the
August 1981 BYTE.) (From Pavel@Cornel.)
Ken Laws (Laws@sri-iu) sent me an extract from "A Bibliography of
Automatic Programming" which contained a number of references on
topics such as programmer's apprentices, program understanding,
programming by example, etc.
Many thanks to those who took the time to reply.
Bill Mitchell
The University of Arizona
whm.arizona@rand-relay
arizona!whm
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #41
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-08-03 07:38:35 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 2 Aug 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 41
Today's Topics:
Computers and People - Value Systems &
Personal Information Systems (2 msgs) &
The Worth of Technology (2 msgs),
Computers and the Law - Information as Property
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steven M. Bellovin
Date: 29 Jul 83 13:22:51 EDT (Fri)
Subject: value systems
A local group is trying to encourage teenagers to read more by
rewarding those who read books on their own. The reward? Free
computer time....
------------------------------
Date: 31 Jul 83 20:33:24 EDT (Sun)
From: Randy Trigg
Subject: worldnet fears, etc.
Regarding the recent worldnet discussion, I thought I'd briefly
describe my research and suggest how it might apply: My thesis work
has been in the area of advanced text handlers for the online
scientific community. My system is called "Textnet" and shares much
with both NLS/Augment and Hypertext. It combines a hierarchical
component (like NLS, though we allow and encourage multiple
hierarchies for the same text) with the arbitrary linked network
strategy of Hypertext. The Textnet data structure resembles a
semantic network in that links are typed and are valid manipulable
objects themselves as are "chunks" (nodes with associated text) and
"tocs" (nodes capturing hierarchical info).
I believe that a Textnet approach is the most flexible for a national
network. In a distributed version of Textnet (distributing
Hypertext/Xanadu has also been proposed), users create not only new
papers and critiques of existing ones, but also link together existing
text (i.e. reindexing information), and build alternate organizations.
There can be no mad dictator in such an information network. Each
user organizes the world of scientific knowledge as he/she desires.
Flatworlders in a far different style (probably) than the rest of us.
Of course, the system can offer helpful suggestions, notifying a user
about new information needing to be integrated, etc. But in this
approach, the user plays the active role. Rather than passively
accepting information in whatever guise worldnet decides to promote,
each must take an active hand in monitoring that part of the network
of interest, and designing personalized search strategies for the
rest. (For example, I might decree that any information stemming from
a set of journals I deem absurd, shall be ignored.) After all, any
truly democratic system should and does require a little work from
each member.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Jul 83 21:08:24 EDT (Sun)
From: Fred Blonder
Subject: Re: "You will be asked to leave the future immediately." -
From: Robert Elton Maas
The first that public terminals have to do is entice random
passersby and then teach them how to use the system. . . .
Aha! I KNEW there was some purpose behind the wave of video games.
It's to make the public literate in the skills they will need
(pushing buttons and reading rapidly-changing readouts) to survive
in an information-oriented world. :-)
------------------------------
Date: 2 August 1983 19:21 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Civilizing technology?
Date: 25 Jul 1983 10:54:17 EDT (Monday)
From: Erik Sherman
Has any technological development fundamentally changed men and
women for the better?
Biologically/evolutionarily speaking, a body is merely a gene's
tool for making more copies of the gene, mixing those genes with genes
from other compatible organisms so as to achieve beneficial symbiosis
by means of novel gene-mixing experiments, tending for those new gene
mixtures until they have made their own bodies, and tending for those
bodies until they can function independently. Thus a human body is
merely an extension of the genes that program its basic structure,
consisting of essential organs for genomes (testicles, ovaries) organs
for life (lungs, heart), standby organs for copulation (penis,
fallopian tubes) essential organs for organized activity including
mating (lower brain, limbs), extra organs for enhanced intelligent
activity (upper brain) etc. Hookups into computer networks, data
files, processors, software, etc. fit into the class "extra organs
for enhanced intelligent activity". Although terminals aren't yet
physically integrated into the human body, they and associated compute
power are in effect extensions of the human body, really part of the
human-being functionally.
In answer to your question, yes, my body stretches over 3000 miles
in computer mode, 20,000 miles in TV-watching mode (and sometimes
200,000 miles or even a few million miles), and yours does too. We are
more intelligent creatures than we were before networks (computer and
TV), and we'll be even more intelligent creatures when we include
World-Net as part of our effective bodies. -- Note that the idea of
discrete bodies may soon be obsolete, the same way discrete organs in
the body isn't exactly correct. There will still be parts of our
bodies we consider totally ourselves, but most of our bodies will be
shared or intimately intertwined so that we can't say whose body some
video disk is part of except to say it's part of the overall system.
- Radical opinion by REM
- FROM:37'28N122'08W415-323-0720, about 3 miles from Stanford
------------------------------
Date: 2 Aug 83 13:04:36 EDT (Tue)
From: Charles L. Perkins
Return-Path:
Re: Robert Maas' comments on Dynabook with WorldNet, etc.
I think he is being a little too optimistic, especially about when
he states that scientific inquiry would be helped by almost never
re-doing experiments... See, for an extreme example, the imperial
society described by Isaac Asimov in the Foundation trilogy; it is
collapsing from just exactly this problem: no scientific research is
done based on anything but old experiments and theory. The idea is
that the "greats" of the past were so much more perceptive than we,
why should we presume to begin with any other data? There was too
great a reverence for the past. This was brought about, in part, by
the vast information banks of that time...
Also, do not forget that such a large volume of information easily
accessible may be an oppressive influence to many creative minds.
How can some help but feel that with so very much having been done
already, that their contributions will pale in comparison to the
overwhelming amount of existing information which they can "feel"
around them (due to quick and easy access). Already, the widespread
dissemination of paperback books is affecting the way people learn
information and, presumably, is affecting those who write it. The
point is not to be so sure that the effects are predictable; any new
technology of such widespread effect should be carefully watched...
And I think it is naive to say that because we, who are among the
more technologically and research-oriented people in the work-force,
might have few problems with Dynabook/WorldNet, that this implies
anything about whether the technology is good / bad / not worth
worrying about. The average man in the US will have to deal with
whatever we come out with, and how it effects the life of an average
person is the important issue; remember that some of the most
ingenious people came "out of nowhere" from the crowd of average
people to do creative work (e.g., Einstein). We should consider what
effect these new technologies will have on ALL people, as well as on
the early development of children. We cannot afford to make a mistake
that may reduce our creative potential as a whole... This is not to
say that Dynabook or WorldNet necess- arily limits us, but certain
kinds of those technologies, not designed to be as open-ended as our
minds, might.
Charles L. Perkins
...decvax!genrad!wjh12!clp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 83 14:40 EDT
From: David Axler
Subject: Information as Property
Did anyone notice one comment in the recent issue of "Time" that
focused on Japan? I refer to the fact that, according to "Time", many
American companies will no longer apply for patents in Japan because
the amount of public disclosure required by Japanese law is so great
that, by the time the patent is issued, so much has been revealed that
the company will almost certainly have its product (and, along with
it, all subsidiary manufacturing processed) copied.
Dave Axler
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP
(Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #42
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-08-05 06:27:59 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 4 Aug 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 42
Today's Topics:
Computers and People - The Worth of Technology &
Icons and Direct Manipulation,
News Article - Non-ionizing radiation effects?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 83 21:06-EST (Wed)
From: Steven Gutfreund
Subject: Technology and the MIND
I think there have been strong connections made between how technology
can change the way we think.
At the lowest level, the technology of language causes changes in the
way we think. (see Sapir-Whorf theory)
At an intermediate level I think a strong case can be made that
literate people think different than illiterates. (or merely the
existance of paper to supplement Short Term Memory) Morton Hunt has
several stories in his book that illustrates this. The most striking
is the inability for illiterates to solve syllogisms. I can't think of
anything more indicative of ones thinking patterns than ones ability
or inability to use Logic.
For an indication of how computer technology can restructure the mind,
read "Mindstorms" by Seymour Papert. One really does approach problem
solving differently given different tools.
- Steven Gutfreund
------------------------------
Date: Thu 4 Aug 83 10:15:30-PDT
From: Ken Laws
Subject: Icons and Direct Manipulation
The August issue of IEEE Computer contains (as a special feature)
"Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming Languages" by Ben
Shneiderman of the University of Maryland. The author is fairly
persuasive that manipulation of icons can and should turn the office
of the future into one vast video game. He presents examples of
screen editors, Visicalc, spatial data management, CAD/CAM,
industrial plant monitoring, interactive Plato experiments, etc.
I am not persuaded, however, that scrolling through a simulated
Rolodex file is more productive than scrolling through a text file.
The advantage of the icon system is not really
in the graphics, but in the existence of a customized subsystem
for this one application. The user loses the power of a full
text editor, but is protected from screwing up the data fields.
This is the same goal sought in database systems and in structured-
code editors. The disadvantage is that, even with "directly
manipulable" icons, the user must learn a different interface for
each subsystem. It remains to be seen whether "dragging a directory
tree node to the printer icon" is easier or easier-to-learn than
typing a print command.
I hope we will finally get past this "user-friendly man-machine
interface" fad so that we can concentrate on what happens to the
information once it is in the computer. The friendliest interface
is one requiring (almost) no interaction--just state the high-level
task and let the computer figure out how to perform it. The
interface should model an administrative assistant, not a filing
cabinet.
-- Ken Laws
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 2 Aug 1983 02:17-PDT
Subject: Non-ionizing radiation effects? -- Newswire story
This information, as inconclusive as it is, might be of at least
passing interest to HUMAN-NETS readers...
--Lauren--
--------
n073 1541 01 Aug 83
BC-RADIATION-II 2takes:
Science Times
(The second of two articles.)
By PHILIP M. BOFFEY
c. 1983 N.Y. Times News Service
NEW YORK - Unlike the dangerous ionizing radiation emitted by
nuclear fission and X-rays, the non-ionizing radiation that issues
from radio transmitters, radar, electric power lines, microwave ovens
and a vast array of modern devices has long been considered relatively
safe. But a spate of recent scientific reports has raised concern that
low doses of non-ionizing radiation can cause subtle biological
effects in humans and animals that might, conceivably, cause health
damage as well.
The evidence is murky, contradictory and inconclusive. No one is
suggesting that the nation is about to discover a new public health
catastrophe of major proportions. Indeed, there is no conclusive
evidence that exposures at current levels pose much danger at all to
the general public. But some scientists believe that enough warning
flags have been raised to justify a more vigorous research effort and
judicious caution until the results are in.
The issue has enormous political, social and economic
implications, because life in a modern industrial society would grind
to a halt if all sources of non-ionizing radiation were shut down.
Public-affairs groups fearful of potential health hazards are
currently opposing a Con Edison substation in Manhattan, a proposed
Navy transmitter in Wisconsin and upper Michigan, and various power
lines, television transmitters, microwave towers, laser installations
and satellite communication stations in scattered locations around the
country.
Microwave News, a New York-based newsletter devoted to all forms
of non-ionizing radiation, reports a sharp rise in litigation related
to non-ionizing radiation and increased efforts at state and local
levels to control exposures.
The chief concerns involve three different kinds of non-ionizing
radiation.
-Electromagnetic radiation from power lines and other electrical
sources.
-Electromagnetic radiation from communications networks and other
modern devices that operate at radio-frequency and microwave energies.
-Mechanical radiation from medical ultrasound, a diagnostic
procedure used to detect abnormalities in the fetus in the womb.
The common thread among these kinds of radiation is that they are
non-ionizing, that is, they lack the energy to knock electrons away
from atoms and molecules in the human body. For most of the 20th
century, radiation concerns have focused on the more potent ionizing
radiation from nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors and medical X-rays,
which clearly can produce cancer and other diseases. Virtually all
scientists agree that non-ionizing radiation is not nearly so
dangerous as the ionizing form. But some experts worry that the
apparent harmlessness of non-ionizing radiation has led to a relative
neglect of studies of its biological effects.
''We're at the point today where the ionizing field was 40 years
ago,'' says Zory R. Glaser, a senior scientist in radiological health
at the Food and Drug Administration. ''And keep in mind that the
effects of low levels of ionizing radiation are still being debated.
Until recently, nobody was even looking at low doses of non-ionizing
radiation as a potential problem.''
That oversight is being remedied by a rush of new studies. New
York state, the Federal Energy Department and the electric utilities
have started programs that will cumulatively support millions of
dollars' worth of research related to the biological effects of power
lines, and other federal agencies and industry sources are supporting
extensive research on electromagnetic effects relevant to
communications frequencies.
The sharpest scientific debate at the moment concerns the effect
of electrical and magnetic fields generated by electric power lines
and related facilities.
For example, Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper of the University of
Colorado Medical Center reported in 1979 that a group of Denver
children who developed leukemia generally lived closer to electrical
transformers and secondary lines than did a control group of children
without leukemia. In 1982 they concluded that adult cancers were also
related to electrical wiring. Their findings stimulated a spate of
follow-up reports over the past year suggesting that Swedish children
living near power lines might have high cancer rates, and that workers
in jobs that placed them near electric or magnetic fields in the state
of Washington, Los Angeles and Britain appeared to have an increased
risk of leukemia. However, other epidemiologic surveys of children and
workers have found no adverse health effects at all.
The chief weakness in most such reports is that there are no good
data on the amount of radiation the subjects actually received. Just
because there is a power line outside, some scientists say, does not
necessarily mean the electric and magnetic fields inside a home are
particularly high or are the cause of any health problems among the
residents.
The Lancet, a respected British medical journal, concluded in an
editorial in January that ''at this stage it is impossible to know
what the observations mean, although the cluster of reports relating
to acute myeloid leukemia is worrisome.'' But the journal added that,
since all of us are exposed to some electrical and magnetic fields,
''it is important to know what risks, if any, are entailed.''
Leading scientists from the electric utility industry find the
data suggestive but not frightening. ''When you add it all up, it does
appear that something is going on,'' said Leonard Sagan of the
Electric Power Research Institute, a utility-supported group. ''But I
don't think there is any reason to alarm the public. At the moment, I
think you have to conclude that the question is unsettled and deserves
further investigation. To the best of my knowledge, there are no
animal data anywhere that would support a relationship between
electric field exposure and cancer.''
The most thorough recent review of the growing literature on
biological effects appears to have been done by Dr. Ascher Shepard,
assistant research professor of physiology at the medical school of
Loma Linda University in southern California, under contract with the
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, which had to
evaluate the health hazards of a 500,000-volt transmission line.
Shepard's report, published in February, said that recent research was
finally concluding that electric fields of the magnitude found around
high-voltage power lines, and perhaps even the lower field strengths
found in many homes, can indeed cause biological effects, a matter
that had long been in dispute.
However, Shepard's report stressed that ''while effects occur,
they are not generally of a pathological nature.''
The far less definitive data on humans includes reports that
certain Soviet and Spanish electrical workers suffered headaches and
fatigue, and that certain Swedish electrical workers suffered a high
rate of chromosome breaks and deformed children. Suicides have also
tentatively been correlated with transmission lines in England.
However, virtually all of these studies are difficult to interpret
because of complicating factors, and are flatly contradicted by other
studies that find no effects at all.
Summing up all the evidence, Shepard's report concludes that,
while biological effects occur, it is ''not very likely'' that any of
them will be ''strongly expressed'' in humans and ''even less likely''
that they will be pathological and produce disease.
''It's very murky,'' Shepard said in a telephone interview.
''There are a number of interesting effects that occur and must be
understood.''
A second major area of scientific attention is the radio-frequency
range, which includes radio, television, radar and microwave
radiation, among others.
For many years, Western scientists assumed that the only important
effects from radio-frequency radiation were caused by heating, much as
as microwave oven cooks the insides of a hamburger. High doses were
known to cause cataracts, burns and temporary sterility, but low doses
were considered relatively benign unless they caused subtle changes by
heating biological tissues.
In recent years, however, the consensus has swung toward
recognizing more low-level effects, even at doses too slight to cause
measurable heating. Low-dose animal studies by Western scientists have
reported changes in the immune system, behavioral effects,
neurological effects and possible synergism between microwaves and
certain drugs, as well as the release of calcium ions from brain
tissue at radio-frequency levels too low to produce heating. However,
much of the information is still in dispute.
The gradually shifting consensus led the American National
Standards Institute to issue a new safety standard for radio-frequency
exposures last September. The standard sharply reduced permissible
exposures in the range of frequencies from which human beings absorb
the most energy. Some scientists consider the new standard highly
conservative. But Nicholas H. Steneck, a professor of history at the
University of Michigan who has been studying microwave developments,
told a microwave power symposium in Philadelphia last month that the
values underlying the standards reflect military-industrial interests
rather than the interests of people exposed to the radiation.
Scientific opinion on potential hazards remains divided.
''While some biological effects have been observed in animals and
others claimed to occur in animals and humans as a result of exposure
to microwave-radio-frequency fields within the prevailing exposure
criteria,'' Sol M. Michaelson, of the University of Rochester, told
the same conference, ''none of these effects, even if substantiated,
could be considered hazardous or relevant to man.''
But Przemyslaw Czerski, a Polish expert now working at the Food
and Drug Administration, told a conference in June at Boulder, Colo.,
that microwave radiation at relatively low levels can cause chromosome
damage and abortions in mice. And he told the Philadelphia symposium
that some recent data are disturbing enough to justify still further
reassessment of permissible exposure levels.
Concern over ultrasound has been voiced by Alice Stewart, a
British epidemiologist who heads the Oxford Survey of Childhood
Cancers. She said in an interview last month that there are some
''very suspicious'' hints that children exposed in the womb to
sonograms appear to be developing leukemia and other cancers in higher
numbers than unexposed children.
Stewart acknowledges that the numbers so far are small and could
be a statistical fluke; it will take another three years at least to
determine the truth. But two dozen American health experts have signed
a statement urging the United States government, which has helped
support the Oxford survey, to continue because it is ''on the
threshold of determining the relation of obstetric ultrasound to
childhood cancers.''
nyt-08-01-83 1944edt
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #43
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-08-06 08:20:51 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Saturday, 6 Aug 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 43
Today's Topics:
Computers and the Law - Information as Property,
Computers and People - The Worth of Technology (3 msgs) &
ICONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 4 Aug 1983 13:16:17-EDT
From: csin!cjh@CCA-UNIX
Subject: Information as property, again.
A number of people have "written" asking about my posting on the
new Massachusetts law covering theft of information. I haven't had
anything more than I gave in the original posting, and I'm not in a
position to go digging for more; however, there was more in the BOSTON
GLOBE for 2 Aug 1983:
COMPUTER THEFT LAW GOES INTO EFFECT
(Associated Press)
As of yesterday, a new state law added "electronically processed or
stored data" to the legal definition of property, so stealing those
bits of electronic information is now a crime in Massachusetts.
The law also expands the definition of trade secrets in business to
include "anything tangible or electronically kept or stored" that
represents a secret commercial process or invention.
Previously, thefts could be prosecuted in Massachusetts only if the
target were a tangible object such as a blueprint, a payroll check or
a magnetic tape.
"Our intention and hope was to plug a gap in the existing law,"
said state rep. Paul White (D-Boston), the House chairman of the
Legislature's Joint Committee on Criminal Justice. "Massachusetts as a
high-tech state was dangerously exposed to misuse of computer
property."
The law is expected to have its greatest impact on banks and
insurance companies that store vast amounts of financial information
in computers as well as the growing number of high-technology
companies in Massachusetts that design computers and write programs.
During testimony on the bill this spring, witnesses told the
Legislature that theft of information through computers was a serious
and growing problem.
Sanford Sherizen ,who runs Data Security Systems of Natick [suburb
~13 miles from downtown Boston], described computer theft as "the
white-collar crime of the 1980's" but conceded that very little is
known about the extent of the problem.
Nationwide, the US Chamber of Commerce estimates that computer
theft involves the loss of at least $100 million annually.
More than a dozen other states have recently adopted similar laws
protecting data stored in computers and US Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass)
has introduced a federal computer crime bill in Congress, but no
action has been taken yet.
Under the Massachusetts law, signed by Gov. Michael Dukakis on May
31, the section of the state code defining property in connection with
larceny now includes "electronically processed or stored data, either
tangible or intangible" as well as "data while in transit."
that's all, ffolks. . . .
------------------------------
Date: 4 Aug 83 10:18-EST (Thu)
From: Steven Gutfreund
Subject: A shitty perspective on life
RE: The body is merely a gene's tool for making more copies of the
gene.
I can't resist the following spoof of that theory a friend once told
me.
------
"From my perspective, one does not view the body as the gene's tool
but that of the asshole. Biologically/evolutionarily speaking, the
entire purpose of evolution has been to produce better shit makers and
better shit movers. The highest forms of life on this planet are those
best capable of producing and transporting excrement. The body is
merely the best way nature has found yet for taking in produce and
producing shit. "
-----
- Steven Gutfreund
Gutfreund.umass@udel-relay
------------------------------
Date: 6 August 1983 06:24 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: A shitty perspective on life
Date: 4 Aug 83 10:18-EST (Thu)
From: Steven Gutfreund
RE: The body is merely a gene's tool for making more copies of the
gene.
I can't resist the following spoof of that theory a friend once
told me. ... The body is merely the best way nature has found yet
for taking in produce and producing shit.
That's literally true except for one important and *CRUCIAL* aspect -
the body derives energy and materials for making more body and genes
from this produce. If the body merely converted product into excrement
without deriving useful energy, it wouldn't survive. Whereas plants
survive by converting sunlight into produce plus useful energy,
animals survive by converting produce into dung plus energy. Bacteria
survive by converting dung into methane plus energy.
If becoming "terminal men" makes us more effective at utilizing
produce to obtain biochemical energy and bodystuffs, for example by
giving us a group intelligence sufficient to design and build
interstellar ships for escaping the eventual burnout of our Sun and
moving instead to other places in the Universe, the *horay*, we're
smarter than those many creatures that are too dumb to realize the
Earth won't be habitable forever. -- I think it's virtually impossible
for a non-technological civilization to figure out the way stars work,
and realize the Sun will burn out someday, then to do something to
escape the fate of staying trapped on Earth to the fatal end. Thus
technology may very well make us the only species on this planet to
leave it by choice as free creatures (others may leave with us as
parasites cattle or collector-specimens, but all others will die here
on Earth). Thus technology will increase our eventual fate from
dead-on-Earth to live-in-space, which I consider a definite
improvement.
(For detailed discussions of this sort of stuff, see SPACE mailing
list for getting into space, ARMS-DISCUSSION for avoiding nuclear war
in the meantime. Re the above, I'm not trying to get into those
subjects here on HUMAN-NETS, I'm only answering a question that was
brought up here: If World-Net is supposed to be so wonderful, then
what about all the past technology, what has it done for us? Answer,
it's given us the ability to survive longer than 10,000,000,000 years
if we can just hold out the next 100 years.)
------------------------------
Date: 5 Aug 1983 23:59:58-PDT
From: Robert P Cunningham
Reply-to: cunningh@Nosc
Subject: Re: worth of technology?
Lewis Mumford wrote this in his 1934 book: "Technics and
Civilization":
"Here, beyond what apears at the moment of realization, is the
vital contribution of the machine. What matters the fact that the
ordinary workman has the equivalent of 240 slaves to help him, if the
master himself remains an imebecile, devouring the spurious news, the
false suggestions, the intellectual prejudices that play upon him in
the press and the school, giving vent in turn to tribal assertions and
primitive lusts under the impression that he is the final token of
progress and civilization. One does not make a child powerful by
placing a stick of dynamite in his hands: one only adds to the dangers
of his irresponsibility. Were mankind to remain children, they would
exercise more effective power by being reduced to using a lump of clay
and an old-fashioned modelling tool. But if the machine is one of the
aids man has created toward achieving further intellectual growth and
attaining maturity, if he treats this powerful automaton of his as a
challenge to his own development, if the exact arts fostered by the
machine have their own contribution to make to the mind, and are aids
in the orderly crystallization of experience, then these contributions
are vital ones indeed. The machine, which reached such overwhelming
dimensions in Western Civilization partly because it sprang out of a
disrupted and one-sided culture, nevertheless may help in enlarging
the provinces of culture itself and thereby in build- ing a greater
synthesis: in that case, it will carry an antidote to its own poison.
So let us consider the machine more closely as an instrument of
culture and examine the ways in which we have begun, during the last
century, to assimilate it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 83 11:18 PDT
From: WILLIAMS.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Re: Icons and Direct Manipulation
In response to
Date: Thu 4 Aug 83 10:15:30-PDT
From: Ken Laws
Subject: Icons and Direct Manipulation
WRONG! The smart machine paradigm (make the machine do more and more
of the work) is not the obvious way for people to get useful work out
of machines. I conjecture 2 principle arguments for this:
1. Opacity. As the machine takes on more and more of the work
its internal workings become successively more opaque to the user.
This is not a problem as long as the machine always does the right
thing. The difficulty comes when the machine does the wrong thing and
the user needs to recover. UNDO is not enough, the user needs to know
how to modify his request/command to achieve his/her purpose. As we
bring compuational machinery to succeedingly more complex tasks, we
find that ERROR RECOVERY becomes the central activity people perform
(Indeed, Lucy Suchman, a PARC anthropoligist, argues that 'management
of trouble' is most of what people do in the world). In some sense
the smart machine paradigm is a excuse for infinite research and a
ready account for any problems encountered with systems build under
its umbrella. The standard senario, the system fails in some pretty
awful ways, the builders say, "Aha, we need to make it smarter."
2. Goal uncertainty. In may circumstances the major problem
people are trying to solve in any situation is what they are trying to
achieve (for example in bringing a 'query' to a database, people often
times know only a very general goal, e.g. "I want to buy a car." "I
want to go to a restuarant." Imagine a smart machine (say a Natural
Language interface) what does the user do? Ask "What car should I
buy?" What is the correct machine response? BUY A FORD LTD STATION
WAGON ON SALE AT FRED'S WITH A/C, A/T, POWER STEERING, AND TWO TONED
DESIGNER COORDINATED BUCKET SEATS. or maybe I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT
QUESTION. or HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU HAVE? or what. [p.s. even the later
two options here are the opening ploys in a negotiation]) Most work
that people get done out of social systems (our principle case of
people trying to get work out an information processing system), is
achieved by negotiation. Even buying a hamburger at MacDonald's is a
complex negotiation (what if the burger will be late, what if you
didn't specify flavor of shake, what if this is your first time in
MacDonald's, what if you didn't mention needing an apple
fritter,...).
One final comment. Consider how you get an admistrative assistant to
do work for you. Consider how much of that activity is negotiation.
Mike Williams
------------------------------
Date: Fri 5 Aug 83 10:47:08-PDT
From: Richard Treitel
Subject: Icons debate
Why in the world do we need icons of Rolodex files and other things
which are probably going to be obsolete before long anyway? Does the
gas pedal in your car have an icon of a horse on it?
My own view is that many of these icons are like Cobol syntax: they
conceal an enormous and probably unwarranted contempt for the
intelligence of managers, while actually attempting to restrain rather
than assist the exercise of that intelligence. However, I've never
used one of these systems ...
- Richard
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #44
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-08-08 23:00:33 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 8 Aug 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 44
Today's Topics:
Administrivia - Lost Submitter Name,
Computers and People - Office Automation (2 msgs) &
The Worth of Technology &
Icons and User Friendliness
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 7 Aug 83 17:49:56 EDT
From: Charles
Subject: Administrivia
In Vol. 6 #42, there appeared a news article on non-ionizing radiation
and its possible effects. Due to an error, the 'From' portion of the
message was lost. The article was submitted by Lauren Weinstein.
------------------------------
Date: 30 JUL 1983 14:30
From: "TS1::BURROWS Jim Burrows c/o"
Subject: Secretaries and Managers -- whom to blame
I personally take the opposite view. I'm more concerned with the
satisfaction of actually getting something accomplished, and the
"power trip" in being able to do many things that many others
can't do, rather than covering my a-- when those inevitable
mistakes occur. Thus I prefer the machine, which I can trust will
do exactly what I commanded it to do once it has verified it got
the command correctly, to the human, which will often give some
ambiguous verification leaving me uncertain whether it (he/she)
understood my command or not and whether it (he/she) will do it
today or next month or ever. If I insert a word in a file, it's
really deleted, but if I ask a human to delete it, well maybe ...
maybe not ...
Excuse me but if you "insert a word" it most probably isn't "really
deleted", unless the machine isn't running up to snuff. That kind of
obvious mistake is exactly why many people prefer to trust people, who
understand the intent and detect the error, than machines which are
unlikely to realise that "insert" means "delete" in certain
circumstances or to recognise those circumstances.
Me, I trust human beings, and am deeply skeptical of machines. Oh, I
love to work with them, and use them. But given the choice, if I have
to count on something being done, I'll choose the human. Of course,
machines work cheaper, and don't talk back.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Aug 83 21:41:36 EDT
From: Mike Zaleski
Subject: Fear and Loathing of Office Automation
Periodically, the issue of whether executives will or won't accept
office automation systems and reasons why they will or won't has been
discussed on Human-Nets. A recent article in MIS Week (8/3/83, p. 28)
discussed this issue, especially with the viewpoint of trying to get
employees to accept office automation. I do not remember seeing some
of these points and so I present an excerpt from this article:
"The question is, then, why do so many white-collar workers
furtively - and openly - resist the new technologies that could make
their jobs infinitely easier?
"The answer, pure and simple, is fear; the clerical worker who
fears change, the unknown, and of being de-skilled; the middle manager
who fears losing control of his job or department, since total
automation means everyone, including the president, will have
immediate access to information and will no longer have to call on the
middle manager to present it to him; the executive who trembles at the
thought of putting his fingers on a keyboard (Me, type?); and those
who fear losing thier jobs altogether.
"These very real human fears can cause anxiety, depression, job
alienation, boredom, low morale, and outright sabotage. One thing
they won't cause is productivity."
The article also details the (probably ficticious) story of a
secretary who, having been office-automated in the "wrong" way (wrong
in the sense of the way the article believes it should be pursued),
grows increasingly unhappy and finally hands in her resignation (after
deleting the company's year-end report. The secretary was unhappy
because her work with a word-processor had removed much of the human
contact in her work. And although the article does not mention it
specifically, the reduction of human contact because of increasing use
of office automation may be yet another reason why people resist.
-- Mike^Z
------------------------------
Date: 03 Aug 1983
From: "JOHN CROLL at OBLIO c/o"
Subject: Has technology changed humankind for the better?
Answering this question would make an interesting book.
I think a better way to phrase the question is: How have advances
in science in general changed humankind? How did the invention
of the printing press change things? How did the rise of the
mechanistic view in physics change things? How did the advance
of the scientific method change things? How did the rise of the
quantum theory change things?
Given the state of the world six or seven hundred years ago,
before science and technology became something done for its own
sake, the answer to the question is obvious (at least to me).
I would much rather be sitting at my desk quietly avoiding the
legwork necessary to fix the race condition in the driver I just
wrote, than spend all day working my ass off just to get barely
enough food to keep me alive. Assuming I managed to survive to
the ripe old age of 27, of course.
Are things better than they used to be? Hell, yes!
John
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 83 11:26:23 CDT
From: Bob.Warfield
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #42
'I hope we will finally get past this "user-friendly man-machine
interface" fad so that we can concentrate on what happens to the
information once it is in the computer.'
-- Ken Laws
This is an interesting philosophy that is prevalent but unproductive.
Ken advocates that it would be better to program an administrative
assistant rather than a filing cabinet, a position I sympathize with.
What he overlooks however, is that programming an administrative
assistant is an AI problem and is much more difficult to accomplish
than improving the man machine interface on the system. The point I'm
making here is that too often projects get started before the proper
tools are available. If AI is ever going to be tackled successfully we
need the best non-AI tools possible. This means improving the quality
of the man-machine interface in order to increase the bandwidth of
information transfer between machines and men. Judging from the number
of window managers and such available for LISP machines (not to
mention that Xerox PARC is no lightweight in AI) I would say that the
majority of AI researchers have realized their tools are probably not
yet adequate and they are desirous of improvements. The ultimate
parody of the situation is just to say, "I don't understand why anyone
bothers with programming language research, let's get on and write
some AI stuff in assembly language."
Bob Warfield
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #47
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-08-18 01:46:11 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 18 Aug 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 47
Today's Topics:
Responce to Query - Who contributes to HN?,
Computers and People - National Database &
Technology and Civilization (2 msgs) &
System Limits and People &
"Calling Channel" mailing list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed 17 Aug 83 12:30:06-PDT
From: Richard Treitel
Subject: Who contributes?
One of our local BBoards here at Gotham City U. is used for unfettered
general discussion, and is dominated by a group whose composition
changes, but rarely has more than about 10 people at the core. Some
numerical data have been collected, but I don't have them. Most of
what goes on (apart from used cars for sale) consists of semi-private
arguments between these people. They tend to forget about the rest of
their audience, which never says anything. On HUMAN-NETS, it seems to
me that the writing is rather less exclusive, but it would equally be
interesting to know who does the reading. I wonder if this knowledge
would dissuade some of us from making our usual contributions ...
- Richard
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 83 01:33:47 PDT
From: fair%ucbarpa@Berkeley (Erik E. Fair)
Subject: Re: HN V6 #46: Doesn't anyone know about us?
Clearly that clown hasn't ever heard of the ARPAnet or CSnet. Or he's
fishing for new money, based on Congress' short memory for such
things. Has Argonne done anything significant recently? Obviously
they're not reading the literature in computer science...
For that matter, what is the deputy directoro of Argonne doing
testifying to congress about 5th Generation computers and Networks?
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucb-arpa
------------------------------
Date: 17 August 1983 01:40 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: The influence of technology to our well being
Although it's true that the median living human today isn't much
better than 2000 years ago, when you start at the top and compare
person for person you find people are much better off now than then.
There are millions alive today who are living much better than the top
millions back then. Further down the line there are billions living
today in poverty who wouldn't have been alive at all back then. Pick
any level of quality of life, from barely-living to very rich, and
you'll find more people living above that level today than back then.
It would be trivial to bring the median person up to our level. Just
kill off the bottom 80% of humanity. There'd still be more people
living today then back then, and they'd be way up in quality of life
too. Now give those bottom 80% the choice of death or poverty. Which
would they choose? It's always possible to lower the apparent median
by including more of the unfortunate people in the survey. That's what
you're in effect doing by comparing the billions who are alive today
with the mere millions who were alive back then. To be fair you should
include all the billions back then who were never even born. Then the
median back then would be dead while the median now would be poverty.
When comparing apples and oranges, there are many "correct" ways to
interpret the data, yours and mine included. Perhaps we should simply
choose which world/society we'd prefer, where 4.6 billion humans can
live, mostly in poverty, a few in luxury, or where only a few million
can live, where probably you and I wouldn't be among the chosen few to
live. (Remember you can claim "well, I'd be alive, it'd be those other
guys who'd be dead"; but to be fair you have to consider that maybe
you would be among the dead if we reverted to pre-industrial society.)
------------------------------
Date: 27 July 1983 14:12 cdt
From: Bibbero.PMSDMKT
Subject: Technology and Civilization
In reply to the question raised by esherman at BBN
Has any technological development fundamentally changed
men and women for the better?
The answer to this question depends so much on what you define as
"better." If you mean a better life-style for the common man/women in
the sense of more leisure, more access to knowledge and more
development of the intellectual and physical resources of the human
body, to say nothing of better health and longevity, there is no doubt
that nearly every technological development has helped. At least
those preceding the ages of nuclear and chemical pollution in which we
are now residing. The ultimate result of the industrial revolution
was more goods for all and, indirectly, a better status for the
working man or woman. We tend to forget all to easily that the Middle
Ages were a time when life was "short and brutal" for most people. So
far as health is concerned, it is obvious that more people are
surviving diseases that killed them off just a few decades ago (like
TB and pneumonia) and that infant mortality has plummeted as longevity
has risen. Although it is not perhaps immediately clear that a longer
life is a better life, the opposite is certainly true. It is hard to
be "good" or to enjoy life when you are not around.
>From a longer range standpoint, that is, genetically, it is probably
too early to say whether the change in life-style from survival,
food-bound to a motive-bound economy has any lasting effect on the
fundamental patterns of the race. Generally, these changes take
millenia rather than years to become obvious. But it seems that the
gene pool is bound to change when the emphasis is altered from
survival of the most powerful physically to that of the most agile
mentally. There are no doubt more geniuses surviving today (like the
conductor Perlman, for example) who would have perished in the bad old
days. And these live to transmit their superior characteristics to
the race. The history of the Jews might be an indication of what a
few thousand years of intellectual emphasis does to a gene pool.
As far as the "spiritual" aspect of technology's effect on making a
person "better" this is beyond my sphere of expertise. I don't know
what a spirit is much less what makes it better, or even what is
better. But it seems reasonable that a more relaxed physical life
would offer personal opportunities to be kinder and more considerate
of one's fellows. Rather than "spirit" I prefer to think of the
advancement of the human race as a trek toward cooperation, even
cooperation between "machines" (computers) and humans. If this is the
future of the human race, and one to be desired, there is no doubt
that technology is a major driving force in shaping that future.
------------------------------
Date: 17 AUG 83 16:55 PDT
From: Hathaway@AMES-TSS.ARPA
Subject: Re: system limits and people
I'm afraid our "outrage" at the 80-character company name limitation
is caused simply because we realize the origin of the seemingly rather
arbitrary value of 80 (presumably screen width). There have of course
always been limitations on company names: a few years ago I tried to
3
register the name T ["T cubed"], and was turned down on the grounds
that superscripts and subscripts were not allowed; I would have had
to register "T3" (and that was not available because somebody else
had already registered "3T"!). And obviously there are "arbitrary"
limits on countless other things and we accept them quite well
(e.g., I am only allowed to have seven letters on my personalized
license plate).
I'm afraid this is like the joke about the dude propositioning a
woman for a million dollars and then dropping to five bucks: I think
we all agree on the need for some sort of limits, we're just haggling
over the price.
Wayne
PS: I too had a hard time relating the 80-character limit to the pi=3
episode, as well as to the lousy programming of a billing system.
------------------------------
Date: 17 August 1983 22:25 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: "Calling Channel" mailing list
One major problem with mailing lists like this is that there's no
control on how many people see a message after it's obsolete because
the first person to see it already answered the question. Sometimes
several people answer the same question. Sometimes everybody figures
this is going to happen to avoid duplication they don't answer the
question, and the result is nobody answers at all. It would be nice to
have a way to send a query to say ten different people. Any subset of
these ten can answer the question, but if fewer than two answer then
the question is sent to ten more or twenty more or whatever. Ideally
only three should get the question but each of the three who doesn't
answer it should forward to somebody more knowledgable in the subject
matter. Even more ideally as soon as one of the three has forwarded
the message to an expert OR answered it directly the question should
dissappear from the other's mailboxes. Or, ... lots of parameters to
adjust to achieve good performance, but simply having a BBOARD mailing
list doesn't seem at all the right way.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #48
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-08-23 10:48:24 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 22 Aug 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 48
Today's Topics:
Computers and People - The Worth of Technology (2 msgs) &
Impact of Computers on our Culture (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 12-Aug-83 11:50 PDT
From: DRH.TYM@OFFICE-2
Subject: The influence of technology to our well being
It is truly gratifying to see a comment on this subject which reflects
the truth of the real world, not just the wished-for reality of the
technocrats. Often it seems that in our efforts to expend our energy
on new technology, we fail to look into the philosophical
ramifications of what we are doing, the impact not just on ourselves,
but others too. The point is well taken regarding the reality that
human beings haven't changed one bit. That is, their persons haven't
changed. Their natures certainly have.
In the context of philosophy (as opposed to normal linguistic usage),
nature refers to all the things that can be said to describe an
entity. Such things as hair color, height, weight, behavioral
characteristics, attitudes, all are part of ones nature. Person, on
the other hand, cannot be described. It is the indescribable essence
of the individual which exists apart from that individual's nature.
Thus, any aspect of a human being that can be described is part of
nature, not person.
Now, the advent of modern technology has certainly not changed our
persons one bit. But the environment does markedly change the nature
of the persons who are part of it. When I stop to think about the
differences in the attitudes and behavior of my parents (who grew up
in a fairly sophisticated technological age) and my grandparents (who
were primarily concerned with survival, food, shelter from the
elements, etc.) I seriously wonder whether our technology has made any
improvement in our natures at all or rather has produced generations
which are morally, socially and philosophically confused.
After all, the more technologically optimistic people are now saying
that wonders from the laboratory are making nuclear war a survivable
option! Our government is now encouraging citizens to make plans for
evacuation of major cities in case of a thermo-nuclear explosion (the
implied assumptions being that there will be someone left to be
evacuated, and that the survivors will find an environment worth
living in). The government is once again making noises about cleaning
up toxic waste dumps all over the country, toxic waste that was
produced by the very technology that is supposed to clean it up (talk
about the fox guarding the hen house)!
Medical science is producing a society which is more and more
dominated by retired people, whose life expectancy is growing
dramatically. Wonderful. But twenty or thirty years or fifty from
now, who is going to pay the price? Demographic projections show that
eventually the proportion of working people supporting the elderly
will be such that Social Security (if it even exists) will take a
larger chunk out of payrolls than the IRS! Technology is changing our
natures, but is it for the better?
Are we any better off? No. We are just learning how to use our
technology to reduce the standard of living for some while raising the
standard of living for those cultures which produce the technology.
The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Colonialism is not
dead, just computerized.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 83 1539 PDT
From: David Lowe
Subject: The value of technology
The answers given so far to the question of whether technology has
improved our lives have tended to ignore the distinction between
individual choice and effects on society. So while most of us choose
to buy cars, computers and electricity--and therefore obviously prefer
to have those things rather than go without them in our social
context--the long-term effects on our happiness and social conditions
are far less obvious. In fact, there are many arguments which can be
made to the effect that several hundred years of technological
development have not improved human happiness or satisfaction with
life. The incidence of suicide and clinical depression have generally
risen greatly, although there are of course many complicating factors
in using these statistics as a measure of unhappiness. I have seen
some statistics which claim that in opinion polls people would
generally say they are less happy now then they would have one hundred
years ago in Western countries. And this discussion has generally
ignored effects on the majority of humans--those living in the Third
World--who have often had actual decreases in living standards with
loss of land and with cash crop farming, and have certainly often had
decreases in political welfare.
My own opinion is that the overall human condition is no worse and
often quite a bit better than it was several hundred years ago. But
it is remarkable that the large advances in technology and ability to
control nature have not had a better effect than they have. I would
lay part of the blame on scientists and technologists who do not care
much about how their work is applied. It is rather sad to think that
even hundreds of years from now, after the great advances in science
and technology that we are working on, it is quite possible that the
world will be no more pleasant to live in than it is now.
A factor in human happiness that many people ignore is that it is
often relative rather than absolute wealth that makes people satisfied
with their economic condition. So saying that even poor people can
now have things that the richest king in the Middle Ages could not
afford (and so they should shut up and stop complaining?) is not
addressing the important factor. And, of course, economic wealth is
only one factor in human satisfaction. The unfortunate thing is that
many people trade things which are important to their social
well-being for economic rewards (as when they accept split shifts that
cut them off from social events, or move away from their friends for a
better job, or accept an unrewarding, meaningless occupation). And if
they turned down these offers for economic improvement, they would
also suffer social loss through reduction in self-esteem, reduced
status as compared to their neighbors (important for securing friends
and partners), and so on--as long as their neighbors continue to take
the other direction. The obvious solutions to some of these problems,
such as working towards economic equality or deemphsizing the
importance of economic wealth, are not technological problems and we
cannot expect improved technology to solve them. In fact, the demands
of technology can exaccerbate them in political and social ways that
I'm sure you all understand. Well, isn't technology necessary for the
world to avoid famine and feed itself? Yes, but we could do that now
and we don't.
There is one objection to this argument that I'll try to answer before
anyone makes it. I think most people intuitively realize that greater
wealth does not in itself increase human satisfaction, so the argument
for technological growth that is most often given is the impact it has
had on medicine and life expectancy. Who could argue against life and
health? However, the same argument holds to some extent that
satisfaction is relative. You are content with a life span that is
above average. For example, a person in their 90s might feel
satisfied with the length of their life as much as a person of age 60
in the previous century. One valuable contribution that modern
medicine can make is a reduction in the amount of physical pain that
people must suffer, but unfortunately people are often still made to
suffer extreme pain in modern medical practice. A basic contribution
of modern medicine is that it has tended to equalize life expectancy,
so the tragedy of early death is less frequent. While I think
medicine has made important contributions to human welfare (to that
fraction of the world's population to which it is available), there is
a tendency to greatly overestimate its value by concentating on
individual rather than social impact.
In summary, I think technology has been a good thing overall, but far
less than individual choices in the current social context would
indicate. It is also not going to solve all our problems.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 1983 1620-MDT
From: Walt
Subject: Re: Impact of the computer on our culture
One of the most important differences between computer networks and
the other forms of cultural memory is that the computer network is, at
least potentially, a much more unified cultural memory. Printed
libraries take months to diseminate new information, whereas bulletins
such as newspapers and the electronic news media usually present
information organized on the basis of how current the information is.
A few specialized systems, such as the stock exchange and the airline
reservations systems, have made some special kinds of current
information indirectly available for reference by the public.
It will be interesting to see how the voting public will be affected
when at any moment each voter can look up, for example, what economic
theory Politician X advocated in the past and how that theory has
subsequently fared. Right now this information is available to the
public only if a publication like Newsweek decides to put all the
facts together in an article. I know that I for one would like to be
able to access up-to-the minute data on whoever was running for
office, or whatever major purchase I was about to make, among other
things.
Incidentally the Bureau of Reclamation makes available a dialup data
base which allows you to find out the current flow in the various
rivers around here. This service is vary popular with the local river
runners.
------------------------------
Date: 20 August 1983 07:08 edt
From: Ithiel de Sola Pool
Subject: Wyland (Ag 11) on Impact of Computers on Culture
Wyland makes a number of excellent points in his August
8 meassage on the impact of computers on culture including the
speeding up of diversity and therefore change. Certainly he is right
and the Orwellian view wrong because "the usefulness of computers go
up in proportion to their numbers, not their size."
However, I believe he minimizes the importance of network effects in
what he calls the "improvement in the capabilities of public, cultural
memory." These are points I deal with at some length in a new book
"Technologies of Freedom" just published by the Harvard University
Press, most particularly in the Chapter on Electronic Publishing. The
explosion of individual cultural products in constantly modified form
on personal computers with large knowledge bases does not make a
workable culture. The ability to interact on line, and to find
conventions for limiting the things to be taken seriously is also
essential.
Certainly "our computer networks ... are different from
telephone/telegraph/mail/newspaper systems because of the capability
to store and manipulate messages: to select and abstract the
information", but the two functions are intextricably intertrwined in
complex ways.
Certainly, "the 1984 style central computer will give way to
individual personal machines, as the railroad gave way to the car and
the truck", but cars and trucks don't work without road systems, gas
stations, and standards.
Incidentally, I'd be very grateful for any comments on the book from
the informed population of Human-Nets members, to the extent that this
population is still reading books (which would be an interesting
subject to survey.)
P.S. 8/20/83
Since sending the above, Richard Treitel (Treitel -at SUMEX-AIM)
has suggested a different survey of the message reading and writing
habits of Human-Nets members. Do the members think a small on-line
survey would be a good idea?
------------------------------
Date: 21 August 1983 14:44 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Impact of computer on culture/advantages of personal computer
I don't agree that personal computers give you total security of data,
although they do help. If you don't live in a fortress, somebody can
break into your home and access your data. If it's not encrypted,
you're unprotected. If you use your computer for any sort of
communications, it's possible for somebody to plant a trojan horse
program in your system by one means or another (deceit, or break-in)
and then any time you are connected to another computer there's the
chance the trojan password will be entered and your system will enter
slave mode and give out any info the other computer asks for. If you
have any truly valuable data on your computer, these scenerios aren't
farfetched. If you store military data of course you can be personally
tortured until you reveal your encryption key.
But still you're better off than on a timesharing system I agree.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************
From: Human-Nets-Request@rutgers (Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP)
Subject: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #49
Newsgroups: fa.human-nets
Date: 1983-08-23 21:50:19 PST
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 23 Aug 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 49
Today's Topics:
Queries -- Public Reaction to WarGames &
On-line tech reports &
Mathematic Typesetting,
Computers and People - Calling Channel & Bboards (2 msgs) &
The Worth of Technology &
A Flame on Micros, Keyboards, and Users
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 August 1983 03:27 edt
From: TMPLee.DODCSC at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Query -- Public Reaction to WarGames
It is with some trepidation that I send this, but here goes. Does
anyone know of any public opinion polls that were done in the wake of
the movie WarGames? Some of you may know that back in about 1978 the
Lou Harris organization, under the direction of Prof. Alan Westin of
Columbia did an opinion poll that discovered that 54% of the sample
felt computers were a threat to their privacy and that 63% of them
felt that their security was so poor that future use of computers
should be curtailed. (The study has many more details, such as
breaking the poll down between the hoi polloi and those who knew
something about computers and those who were executives (which may or
may not have known about computers.)
Anyway, I would be very interested in hearing from anyone who knows
POSITIVELY of any such opinion polls conducted in the wake of WarGames
to see whether the public felt more or less (presumably) comfortably
about computer security as a consequence of it.
Please reply to me directly. I do NOT, repeat, do NOT want comments
of any sort about the movie itself, merely whether anyone knows and
can report on any valid study of public opinion about computer
security. I also do NOT want anything about arms control, the
liklihood of accidental nuclear war (unless it involves a failure of
computer security).
Thanks all
#Ted Lee
p.s. -- this is also being sent to some addressees that won't show up
in the header fields; privacy and security, you know.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Aug 83 19:21:34 PDT (Friday)
From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: On-line tech reports?
I raised this issue on Human-nets nearly two years ago and didn't seem
to get more than a big yawn for a response.
Here's an example of what I had to go through recently: I saw an
interesting-looking CMU tech report (Newell, "Intellectual Issues in
the History of AI") listed in SIGART News. It looked like I could
order it from CMU. No ARPANET address was listed, so I wrote -- I
even gave them my ARPANET address. They sent me back a form letter
via US Snail referring me to NTIS. So then I phoned NTIS. I talked
to an answering machine and left my US Snail address and the order
number of the tech report. They sent me back a postcard giving the
price, something like $7. I sent them back their order form,
including my credit card#. A week or so later I got back a moderately
legible document, probably reproduced from microfiche, that looks
suspiciously like a Bravo document that's probably on line somewhere,
if I only knew where. I'm not picking on CMU -- this is a general
problem.
There's GOT to be a better way. How about: (1) Have a standard
directory at each major ARPA host, containing at least a catalog with
abstracts of all recent tech reports, and info on how to order, and
hopefully full text of at least the most recent and/or popular ones,
available for FTP, perhaps at off-peak hours only. (2) Hook NTIS into
ARPANET, so that folks could browse their catalogs and submit orders
electronically.
RUTGERS used to have an electronic mailing list to which they
periodically sent updated tech report catalogs, but that's about the
only activity of this sort that I've seen.
We've got this terrific electronic highway. Let's make it useful for
more than mailing around collections of flames, like this one!
--Bruce
------------------------------
Date: 22 Aug 1983 16:17:01-EDT
From: Joseph I Pallas
Reply-to: joe@cvl
Subject: Typesetting mathematics
I don't know if anyone's raised this before.... In Knuth's
introduction to TEX, he compares three systems for typesetting
mathematics--one used by typesetters, EQN (Bell Labs), and TEX. Both
EQN and TEX claim to be easy to learn. What I'd like to know is
whether anyone has some data (not speculation) on how easy it is for
(a) secretaries with little or no math background, (b) computer
science types, and (c) mathematicians with little or no computer
experience, to use these two systems. Does either one have a
particular advantage in either learning time or normal usage error
rate (i.e., error rate after learning curve has reached plateau)?
The reason for this inquiry is fairly simple. We've recently started
using EQN quite a bit, with secretaries doing some input, and authors
doing some. The verbosity of EQN is one problem. The overall
inability of TROFF to produce output as well-arranged as that of TEX
is another concern. Any real evidence to support a decision either to
stay with EQN or switch to TEX would be appreciated.
Joe Pallas
joe@cvl.arpa
joe@cvl.uucp {rlgvax!cvl!joe}
joe.cvl@umcp-cs.csnet
------------------------------
Date: 19 August 1983 04:12 edt
From: TMPLee.DODCSC at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: calling channel & bboards
There is an NBS standard or whatever concerning electronic mailsystems
that defines a "circulate-to" field -- the msg is supposed to be sent
seriatum to each addressee; presumaly one who answers passes on to the
successors both the query and his answer, thus eliminating multiple
answers (unless the later recipients really want to say something)
------------------------------
Date: 21 August 1983 20:29 EDT
From: Robert Elton Maas
Subject: Finding your way in the InterNet / design of "calling
Subject: channel"
I'm not caught up on my mail-reading, so this may duplicate somebody
else's idea, but here it is anyway:
Let's set it up this way. First a bunch of people submit questions.
They are examined (computer or human-with-editor or truly-hybrid
system) for keywords, which are attached to them. (Or submitters can
be required to supply keywords initially; probably a good idea to
eliminate the need for software development or labor at this point in
the process.) These keyword&query items are accumulated until the
keywords themselves are enough to warrant a digest. Just the
accumulated keywords are sent out. Readers of the digest who see
keywords in subjects where they have expertise then send back the
keywords and are sent the corresponding questions. They then send in
the answers, which are distributed to the person who asked them. Since
original submissions, requests for full questions, and answers, all
pass through the same point, it's easy to collect statistics on who
actually answers questions and which questions remain unanswered etc.
Three pseudo-in-mailboxes need to exist: (1) for submitting original
questions, (2) for requesting full text of questions, (3) for
answering questions. (A fourth, the -REQUEST, is also useful.) One
out-distribution-list needs to exist, for distributing the latest list
of keywords at regular intervals and for occasionally distributing
statistics and from-the-moderator info.
A refinement would allow answerers to have a standing order for all
questions with certain keywords or combinations. If a question fits
somebody's standing order, it goes there immediately upon submission.
If a question doesn't fit any standing order, or the person with the
standing order doesn't answer the question, then the keywords are sent
out with the next batch as in the first design.
------------------------------
Date: 22 Aug 83 21:06:45 PDT (Monday)
From: Hamilton.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Techno-philosophy
As long as we're flaming... I'll keep it (relatively) short and sweet.
I see two major problems threatening civilization as we know it. Both
are indirect effects of higher technology.
(1) POPULATION. When are the media going to stop ranting and raving
about "poverty", "hunger", "injustice", etc., and focus on the real
problem: why are all those crazy peasants having all these kids that
neither they nor their environment have the means to support? Will
the media ever dare to suggest that every statement the Pope makes
against birth control is at least as dangerous and immoral as all the
infanticides we read about in China?
(2) PURPOSE. With a sense of purpose, man can endure the most
unspeakable horrors. (Witness the survivors of the Gulag and the
Concentration Camps.) Without that sense of purpose, even the
greatest wealth and the adulation of millions can only lead to
self-destruction. (Witness Elvis, Janis, ...) In the bad old days,
Survival was enough of a challenge that relatively few people needed
the challenge of a higher purpose. But in this brave new world of
"safety nets" below and "golden parachutes" above, the only challenges
some people can find are to either trip out or to put their brains (or
somebody else's) to the wall with a .44.
We live in a culture which constantly bombards us with morally
contradictory messages. And the public schools are scared to death to
help students develop the tools (philosophy and morality) to sort out
those messages, because they don't think people trust the schools to
separate from .
WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH HUMAN-NETS: Sure, most of us 140+ IQ R&D
Netlanders can find satisfaction in intellectual or artistic pursuits,
even if the robots take over. But what about Joe Average, who used to
take pride in assembling that car or whatever. He probably doesn't
give a **** about all the great information and flaming discourse
available on WorldNet. Do we really want to define some sort of
anarchic, bread-and-circuses hedonism to pacify the masses, with all
its attendant violence, ugliness, and degradation? HOW CAN WE HELP
JOE AVERAGE DEFINE A PURPOSE -- other than with some sort of
religio-political brainwashing?
Ayn Rand's "life of the mind" is great, but like most idealistic
systems, she assumes a model of human that only describes a small
minority. I'm still looking for a system that is rooted in , not "faith", but doesn't assume that the human race is
composed entirely of rational, enterpreneurial, geniuses.
--Bruce
------------------------------
Date: 19 August 1983 02:00 EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch
Subject: Losers
Date: 17 Aug 1983 0308-PDT
From: Eric P. Scott
To: Info-VAX at SRI-CSL
Most of the time the losers will simply screw themselves up,
but when they send me MAIL with BACK SPACEs in it, *I* get
pissed.
What is REALLY obnoxious is when someone uses the left arrow key on
a VT100 instead of a delete.
Most users don't seem to look at their outgoing mail. I think the
mail documentation should be changed to emphasize that the normal way
to use mail is (or should be) to edit a file and then mail the file,
rather than to just type the message in at the keyboard. I am so
tired of messages where glaring typos in one line are apologized for
in the next, or which stop in the middle and have an apology in a
second message. (I.e. "SORRY HAD TO GET OUT OF MAIL TO ANSWER A
SEND").
One of my tasks is to sell management on the concept that the vax is
useful. I often have to deal with people who have no computer
background or, much worse, an APPLE ][ background or an IBM
background. The APPLE people are upset that the arrow keys don't "do
the right thing" and have a hard time understanding such concepts as
the need to link (or even to compile) programs and the need for an
editor or for the TYPE command. APPLE people (actually I guess I mean
mostly microcomputer BASIC people) seem to have a very hard time
learning ANYTHING. They particularly seem to have mental blocks when
it comes to the notion of data types (they have a very hard time
understanding the difference between integers and floating point
numbers, or they insist that this is just an artifact of the language
being used. Not one that I know of has ever been able to understand
why -1 to the integer 3 is -1 but -1 to the floating 3 is undefined.)
or has fully understood that an equal sign has two totally different
meanings in a line of BASIC depending on context.
IBM people have their own special problems. I once spent several
hours trying to implement fixed column sequential line numbers in
Gosling's Emacs because an IBM type wanted to be able to edit the
numbers and then use the VMS SORT command on the resulting file to get
the manually renumbered lines back into order. It seemed like a
strange requirement, but...
It finally turned out that he wanted this so that he could MOVE A
LINE AROUND IN THE FILE. I nearly gave up computers that day.
...and of course these people then decide that the vax is not
usable. Sigh. Maybe I'm just not a very good teacher. But it is
hard to teach someone when the mistakes they make are just so bizarre
you never could possibly have made errors like that (but you never
TOLD me not to put ketchup in my ear!). I guess it comes from
different people having radically different mental models of what is
going on in the machine. Better education (preferably early) is the
only cure. GET THOSE &(@&#%^ APPLES OUT OF THE CLASSROOM NOW!!!
One solution is to patch the terminal driver to convert BACK
SPACE to DELETE except in PASSALL.
How is this done?
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************