human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (02/21/85)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers> HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 20 Feb 1985 Volume 8 : Issue 6 Today's Topics: Responses to Queries - Computer Ethics Research & Non-computer user's use of Electronic Mail, Computers and the Law - MOG-UR update, Computer Networks - Stargate (3 msgs), Computers and People - CDs vs Books ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: vis!greg@SDCSVAX To: RMXJITRY%CornellA.BitNet@wiscvm.ARPA Subject: Re: Computer Ethics Research Date: 09 Feb 85 11:49:54 PST (Sat) The most important practice I have discovered for supporting good computer ethics and avoiding computer abuse is maintaining a cooperative and fairly open social environment, with administrators and managers in good communication with users and restrictions minimized and downplayed. I have learned this lesson at both industrial and academic sites. This is actually no different from avoiding abuse in other social environments. On systems where computer management is heavy handed or isolated, some users become alienated and try to break system security. In general, the more security is touted, and the more access restrictions are tightened, the harder some users will try to break them. Many computer users are very interested in the systems they use. If most system information is gratuitously off-limits, they will not see any reason not to try to get at it. They quickly get used to breaking security. On more enlightened systems, access restrictions are minimized. Where restrictions must be applied, the users are notified, the situation explained, and their cooperation is requested. It is never implied that the security mechanisms are unbreakable. If anything, it is implied that they are breakable, but users are requested not to. Penalties are never alluded to. Note that this is similar to normal practices of physical security. If people started putting bank vaults in your office, and warning you about the heavy penalties of being caught hunting through other people's desks, etc., it would chill the social atmosphere. Yet with normal (easily breakable) curtesy locks on private materials, few people would consider breaking in. In line with this user oriented viewpoint, the security of personal files should always be a personal matter, with users able to limit the access to their own data from other users AND from administrators. Despite the current lack of legal protection for the privacy of user's data files, user files that are read protected should be treated as you would treat letters left in an employee's desk, i.e., as private. If systems people don't respect a user's privacy, why should a user respect the privacy of system files? As part of maintaining an open atmosphere, both personal and system files should default to being readable by anyone, and users should be encouraged to browse around in order to learn the system better. This is typical on most UNIX systems, and is very educational. When someone accidentally leaves some private matter unprotected, anyone noticing it is likely to send the owner a note letting them know. That's security! I think that as long as the impregnability of computer security mechanisms is not touted, it can be a useful exercise to design them well. Sophisticated users can be invited to try to break them, and to provide suggestions for their improvement. But they should never be counted on. _Greg ------------------------------ Date: Saturday, 9 Feb 1985 11:32:18-PST From: winalski%speedy.DEC@decwrl.ARPA (Paul S. Winalski) Subject: Re: non-computer user's use of Electronic Mail (HNT V8 Subject: number 5) MCI MAIL allows you to send electronic mail to anybody, whether or not they have an electronic mail account. If they cannot receive electronically, or if you elect to send paper mail, MCI MAIL prints your message ans it is sent by U. S. Snail (but posted locally, so presumably it will arrive in finite time). DEC's internal electronic mail system lets you address recipients by name and site code (using site codes the same as for interoffice paper mail). Messages to recipients who do not have computer accounts are printed at the recipient's site and distributed via interoffice paper mail. Both MCI MAIL and DEC's internal electronic mail system are based on DEC's Message Router electronic mail product, which uses the draft NBS standard message format. --PSW ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 85 11:47:27 est From: Larry Kolodney <lkk@mit-eddie> Subject: MOG-UR update From: lenoil@mit-eddie.UUCP (Robert Scott Lenoil) Newsgroups: net.general,net.legal,net.misc Subject: The final resolution of the MOG-UR (Tom Tcimpdis) Subject: prosecution. Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 22:26:51 EST I plucked this off of ARPANET's INFO-MICRO bulletin board; spread the word far and wide - we have won! --------------------------------------------------------------------- 7AM, 02/07/85: PURSUANT TO A TELEPHONE DISCUSSION WITH REGINALD DUNN, HEAD OF THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE L.A. CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I WAS INFORMED THAT THE PROSECUTION BELIEVES IT HAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONTINUE THE PROSECUTION OF TOM TCIMPIDIS, SYSOP OF MOG-UR. THIS DETERMINATION WAS MADE AFTER I REQUESTED A REVIEW OF THE CASE ON 1/11/85 AFTER THE DEPARTURE OF CITY ATTORNEY IRA REINER TO BECOME D.A., AND WHILE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS BEING RUN BY THE CIVIL SERVICE STAFF PENDING ELECTION OF A NEW CITY ATTORNEY. MR. DUNN HAS GIVEN ME HIS WORD THAT THE PEOPLE WILL SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGES AGAINST TOM UNDER CALIF. PENAL CODE SECTION 1385, I.E., DISMISSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE. UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, SUCH A DISMISSAL IS "WITH PREJUDICE" AND THE PEOPLE CANNOT REFILE THE CASE SUBSEQUENTLY. TO PUT IT SUCCINCTLY, A DISMISSAL WILL TERMINATE THE PROSECUTION PERMANENTLY. AS THE MEMBERS KNOW, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS PREVIOUSLY RENEGED ON REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO ME REGARDING DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGES....I WISH TO ASSURE EVERYONE THAT I HAVE KNOWN MR. DUNN FOR 10 YEARS, AND I TRUST HIS WORD COMPLETELY. IF HE SAYS THE CASE WILL BE DISMISSED, I AM SATISFIED THAT SUCH AN ACTION WILL OCCUR. WE WIN. WIN....WIN....WIN....WIN....WIN....MY THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO SUPPORTING TOM AND I IN THE DEFENSE OF THIS MATTER. I CONSIDER THIS TO BE A MAJOR VICTORY FOR THE RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH OVER THE "BIG BROTHER" MACHINATIONS OF THE PHONE COMPANY. I WOULD BE GRATEFUL IF YOU WOULD DOWNLOAD THIS MESSAGE AND PLACE IT ON OTHER SYSTEMS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.....THIS IS A VERY BIG VICTORY, AND THE BBS AND MODEM COMMUNITIES SHOULD KNOW ABOUT IT. AGAIN, THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT. BEST WISHES TO ALL, CHUCK LINDNER ATTORNEY FOR SYSOP TOM TCIMPIDIS , 8PM, 02/07/85: THE CASE OF PEOPLE V. TCIMPIDIS, AKA USE A MODEM, GO TO JAIL, WAS DISMISSED IN THE "INTERESTS OF JUSTICE" THIS MORNING, 2/7/85. AS NOTED EARLIER, THIS DISMISSAL IS WITH PREJUDICE, AND TOM IS NOW FREE OF THE PACTEL SCOURGE. ANOTHER SMALL STEP FOR SOMETHING RESEMBLING JUSTICE. CHUCK ------------------------------ Date: Sat 9 Feb 85 12:22:45-PST From: Ken Laws <Laws@SRI-AI.ARPA> Subject: Stargate To: teklds!hercules!franka%tektronix.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA Wed Jan 16 00:58:10 1985 From: "teklds!hercules!franka%tektronix.csnet"@csnet-relay ... Let the people who conceived of this know that it is not appreciated. E-Mail bomb them. Flame them until they drop. ... Frank Adrian I can't reply to net.news, so I'll put in my two cents worth on Human-Nets. Frank's paranoia is unjustified. I am a moderator on the Arpanet, and my AIList is certainly not restricted to just work-related items. That could change, granted, but so can any network policy. The people with ultimate responsibility in our society are those who pay the bills. If Usenetters want a guaranteed-free unmoderated message stream, they will have to pay for it. Frank's suggestion of a flame-bomb campaign is counterproductive. It is exactly such irresponsibility that will make moderation essential as the net grows. (There are other reasons why moderation adds value to a message stream, but I won't go into that here.) Action will have to be taken against any message source that swamps the system. We cannot allow a few individuals with home computers to tie up the net with millions of messages of any kind, even well-intentioned ones such as "Jesus Saves!". It can be argued that moderation is prior restraint and that offenders should instead be dealt with through legal sanctions after they have committed their offenses. A nice theory, but the net is not currently able to implement such a system. I suggest that a more reasonable model for net lists is that of the legislative council. There are small societies where anyone may get up and say his piece at a council meeting, but as societies become large (or polarized) a need develops to control who has the floor. The luxury of full communicative freedom is lost when the listeners have insufficient time to listen to all that the speakers wish to say; it is then up to a moderator or chairman to insure that each viewpoint receives a fair share of the time available. If all lists must be moderated, power lies in the ability to select moderators. I am not aware of any current restrictions on anyone who wishes to become a moderator and compete with existing lists. Eventually even this priviledge will have to be restricted, but it's far to early to mourn the death of lists as we know them. -- Ken Laws ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Feb 85 19:15 EST From: Dehn@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Joseph W. Dehn III) Subject: Stargate Perhaps someone who knows more than I do about Usenet can answer the following questions for us: 1) Who are these "backbone" nodes? How did they get to be such? 2) Are all the managers of such nodes agreed on this plan, or only some? 3) What is to stop other nodes, whose management is in favor of all or some of the unmoderated discussions, from becoming "backbone" nodes? 4) If the answer to (1) and (3) is "money" (i.e., to pay for machine capacity and communications facilities), what is so evil about some nodes deciding that they no longer want to subsidize everyone else? -jwd3 ------------------------------ Date: Sun 10 Feb 85 00:06:13-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: Re: [sasw: [bnl art/human-nets]] To: hercules!franka@UT-SALLY.ARPA it is unfortunate that the article by Frank Adrian was posted here 'out of context' as it's contents is 'totally out of whack', so to say (and that's saying it mildly). Anyone interested and with access to USENET should read up on recent messages in net.news.stargate and net.news.groups (as the topic is kind of "old" already, a lot of relevant articles may have been expired and deleted on most systems). I hope, that Lauren or someone else will post a rebuttal here on HUMAN-NETS, but if not, I will eventually expand on the topic to clarify. Generally, I am not in the habit to simply and briefly make condemning statements, but too many reasonable people have already spent too much time and energy on Mr. Adrian's posting, that I try to refrain to add to all that waste. The topic of STARGATE is most interesting, as is the future of USENET, in general. To anyone offended by the brevity of my statements so far, I apologize. Please read beween the lines and try to understand my reasons. PS: I have no part in organizing STARGATE or USENET but am but a simple beneficiary of and participant in discussions on USENET news-groups. PSPS: this is NOT an attack on Steven who brought the topic to the attention of this group (a good idea), nor do I think that Frank Adrian had any but the best intentions for USENET, however, something must have set off his "panick-button". But he probably calmed down quite a bit by now and increased his knowledge on what is involved with STARGATE and why so many people found his posting offensive - he certainly had a full mailbox to help him (-: hmm, thinking about it, and as a matter of courtesy, I'll send him a copy of this with an invitation to comment to this group, if he so desires. Fair enough ?? ------------------------------ Date: Sat 9 Feb 85 14:45:07-EST From: Ken Meltsner <MELTSNER%MIT-CHARON@MIT-MC.ARPA> Subject: A great, and dangerous, distribution method! With recent advances in CD technology, we can predict the time when CD roms will be commonplace means to store programs. However, how can we distribute individual pieces of software on disks that store 460MB? Any new rom costs ~$1000 for the first one, and only $10 for the rest of them. The solution is simple: A big computer company or software distributor gets the rights to sell a huge number of popular packages. They are put onto a disk in encrypted form. A smart "key" (microprocessor-based decryption key) is then sold for the use of any package. The advantages are clear: there are no more distribution costs. A customer just calls up the distributor, pays a license fee, and receives a key by overnight mail. All of your software is in place, and can be sold for a minimum incremental cost. Updates are easy: every six months (or more often, if necessary) a new CD is sent out. Corporations can contract for huge numbers of keys, with special encryption patterns for really proprietary software. Individuals can get disks with some unencrypted programs or demos of the "locked" versions. This is all based on the adoption of the ADAPSO hardware "key" system for copy-protection, but adds in the idea of pre-distribution of encrypted versions. The main danger is that a large company like IBM or DEC or Apple can lock their customers into their software set. I have a feeling that smaller producers (i.e. anyone with a less complete line of products than Microsoft) will have to band together. In summary: Advantages: 1) Cheap distribution of huge amounts of software. 2) Copy protection. (if keys can't be faked -- or the distributor can have 10000 different patterns to reduce the profit in faking keys.) 3) Easy updating methods, and software won't take up your entire mag disk. Disadvantages: 1) Huge anti-competitive possibilities (if you thought bundling was bad....) 2) Bug fixes are tougher (patch kits on magnetic media?). 3) Barrier to entry for small firms. If this idea is original (at least in its combination of ideas) and anyone out there makes any money on it, buy me a dinner or fly me out to Hawaii to be a keynote speaker. I'm a grad student -- I work cheap! Ken ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************