human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (02/09/85)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers> HUMAN-NETS Digest Friday, 8 Feb 1985 Volume 8 : Issue 5 Today's Topics: Administrivia - Topology of BITNET/ available, Queries - Non-computer users use of electronic mail & Computer Ethics Research & Computer Environments Make a Difference?, Computer Networks - A Telesophy Project & Hello Stargate, Goodbye Mailing List Freedom? & Computers and People - CDs displacing books & More on Idea Processors, Computers on TV - Donahue on Computer Subculture (2 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 1 Feb 85 15:08:54-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: FYI: Topology of BITNET/EARN/NETNORTH follows BITNET/EARN/NETNORTH Topology as of 01/18/84 [Forwarded by Ken Laws (Laws@SRI-AI). This (large) message is available for ftp from <mcgrew.human-nets>bitnet.map on RUTGERS, which supports anonymous login. Anyone that can't obtain it by ftp, please send me mail and I'll mail it to you.] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Feb 85 13:14 IST From: Henry Nussbacher <VSHANK%weizmann.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA> Subject: Non computer users use of electronic mail Are there any networks or individual nodes who allow mail to be sent to "non-computer" users? Does mail that is destined for non-existant users go to some high speed printer and then torn off and stuck into an inter-office envelope? What are the pitfalls of such a setup? Is it necessary to assume that all "humans" on the network actually know how to use a computer to receive electronic mail? Is there any RFC standard for sending electronic mail to a node that should be printed as opposed to delivered? Hank Weizmann Inst. of Science Rechovot, Israel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 02 Feb 85 21:50:48 cet To: HUMAN-NETS@RUTGERS.ARPA From: RMXJITRY%CORNELLA.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA Subject: Computer Ethics Research Hello, I am doing research in the field of computer ethics and computer abuse policies. We here at Cornell University have begun to realize that as we connect our systems and lan's (local area networks) to the larger area networks, the issue of security and abuse becomes a far more complex one than the traditional formulations that we have applied in the past to a student's access to files, resources, etc. On a single machine. we want to establish a rational computer abuse policy here within the next year and a half (to allow time for adequate research and collecting of data from other educational and research institutions). I am collecting information about the abuse of computer network systems, particularly in respect to: Guidelines given to users Access given to student users Steps taken when those guidelines are not followed. Precautions taken to protect the system Precautions taken to detect abuse Clearly, some of those questions you may not wish to answer as they may compromise your system security. Also, the actual definitions of access (particularly in an open system like UNIX) and abuse are difficult to define. I would appreciate receiving (either by computer mail or overseas mail - physical address below) any information that anyone could supply. For example, your experiences in formulating and defining the guidelines that you currently follow, if any. Thank you very much in advance. sincerely, Gligor Tashkovich GLIGOR TASHKOVICH 305 THURSTON AVENUE SEAL & SERPENT SOCIETY ITHACA, NEW YORK U.S.A. 14850-2429 RMXJITRY @ CORNELLA.BITNET ------------------------------ Date: 03 February 85 22:44 EST From: RMXJITRY%CORNELLA.BITNET@Berkeley Subject: Do Computer Environments make a difference? As a follow-up to my request for information above, I would like to pose the following question to all: Does anyone think that there is a difference (in terms of Computer Ethics and responsibilities) of someone learning about computers in an IBM environment (4341's, 3081's - mainframes) and someone learning about computers in a DEC environment (PDP's, DECSTAR's, 2060's, etc.) and finally someone learning about systems in a UNIX environment? Each system is set up with different languages (read: Operating systems) that allow each user a certain degree of flexibility, some in more ways than others - Does this flexibility have ANY bearing on the ethical responsibilities that one assumes when using one mainframe over another? I would be most interested in hearing people's opinions on this topic. Send replies to: RMXJITRY @ CORNELLA.BITNET (using either the Berkeley gateway - BSMTP @ UCBJADE or the Wisconsin gateway - SMTPUSER @ WISCVM) ------------------------------ From: bellcore!r.schatz%b.CC@Berkeley Date: 1 Feb 1985 18:52 Subject: description of Telesophy Project the following project may be of interest to people on human-nets: Telesophy literally means "wisdom at a distance". The goal of the Telesophy Project is to build a system which makes obtaining information as transparent as telephony makes obtaining sound. The system could be viewed as a "WorldNet" browser, which lets one navigate an underlying information space. The information units in the space can contain any type of data and the system hides their actual physical location. In addition to these retrieval facilities, there are also storage facilities for generation of new items from old. The system thus supports the notion of an Information Community, permitting the users to browse for AnyThing AnyWhere and share their findings with others. These notions are old desires, undoubtably familiar to the readers of this digest. What is new is that these problems seem finally about to break because of coming mass availability of new technology. In particular, because of the speed and transmission characteristics of optical fibers, it is now feasible to consider the idea of building what is logically a single computer physically distributed over a wide area. This potentially worldwide single computer provides the hardware upon which an operating environment permitting the transparent fetching and manipulation of uniform objects can be built. My dream is a worldwide information community, a greatly generalized USENET. I work for Bell Communications Research, the central research organization for the local telephone companies (like Bell Labs before the divestiture). The fiber optic telephone network of the near future will likely obtain end-to-end speeds much closer to gigabits/second than the current kilobits. To utilize this, I have been investigating the architecture of a Telesophy System. Thus far, a long paper has been written describing the underlying philosophical and technological issues. I am now actively seeking colleagues to help build a first version on a local-area network of Apollo workstations. For more information, please contact me at one of the following addresses (a fuller description has been posted to net.jobs): Bruce Schatz physical: Bell Communications Research 435 South Street, Room 2A275 Morristown, New Jersey 07960 phone: (201) 829-4744 USENET: bellcore!bambi!schatz ARPAnet: bellcore!bambi!schatz@BERKELEY ------------------------------ Date: 29 January 1985 21:58-EST From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC> Subject: [sasw: [bnl art/human-nets]] The following message is forwarded from the usenet. It appears to address an issue which is quite political, and even emotionally presented. But--it is quite related to the problems of human relations in a network environment. I think it is important for HUMAN-NETS, so please send no flames if you are uninterested in usenet, stargate, moderated versus posted lists, and so on. Date: 22 Jan 85 22:56:48 EST From: Steven Akiba Swernofsky <sasw at BNL> To: sasw Re: [bnl art/human-nets] From: sbcs!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax !tektronix!teklds!hercules!franka Wed Jan 16 00:58:10 1985 Path: bnl!sbcs!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad !decvax!tektronix!teklds!hercules!franka From: franka@hercules.UUCP (Frank Adrian) Subject: WARNING First of all, let me apologize for the multiple post- ings, posting to groups where I am not allowed (net.women.only), and, in general, making a mess of the net. Also, let me say that ALL RESPONSES to this should either use net.news or private mail to me. Again I apologize for the inconvenience, but in this case, due to this mes- sage's importance, I feel this is justified. Also, the opinions posted here are my own and in no way reflect those of my employer or any of its other employees. Primarily, the message is that, unless something is done shortly, this newsgroup may not exist a year or two from now. To understand why requires a bit of history. The USENET was at first a very small net. Being a very small network, the news software was written as an unmo- derated bulletin board system, where anyone could post items thought to be of interest to all. As time went on, the suc- cess of this concept became evident, as shown by the increased number of machines on the news network and the corresponding increased volume of news items. In fact, the volume of news items increased so much that some of the backbone sites were finding it hard to justify the cost of news forwarding over long distance phone lines. A few months ago, a group of network administrators got together and decided to fund a project called "STARGATE". Basicly, this was a sound idea. News sources would be routed to the STARGATE transmitter which would beam the mes- sages to a satellite which would, in turn, relay the mes- sages to more localized network hubs, thus alleviating the need for as many long distance calls. A satellite carrier was found and the plans for designing hardware and software put into motion. Unfortunately, the people who have promoted this scheme could not leave well enough alone. They felt that the volume of "garbage" flowing through the net was too high. They felt that the carrier of these messages might be able to be sued for possibly libelous messages. They felt that this was their chance to play God and they took it. In short, the new network will have no unmoderated news. Any message that is to be transmitted through STARGATE will be screened by a moderator for "suitability of con- tent", "possibility of libel", and other vague criteria which only he moderators will know. You won't be able to protest a bounced message, because the moderator is the only person with a right to relay your message to the STARGATE. If your article is bounced or edited beyond recognition you won't be able to defend yourself - how are you going to get a message past the moderator? In short, you can call it moderation, but it's still a euphemism for censorship. "Fine," you say, "We'll just post it in groups that don't go through the STARGATE." Well, I wish that were pos- sible. Unfortunately, the backbone sites have decided that since they have STARGATE, and all of the "important" groups are there, they don't have to forward news articles in other "less popular" groups. The net, except for STARGATE ser- vice, has effectively been destroyed. The only people for whom the net exists freely is the moderators. The modera- tors decide what are "acceptable" topics for the net. They have the power to say what you can say. The new people in power bleat, "We're saving the net. Without this the backbone sites will desert, anyway." What good is saving the net if only the people in power can enjoy it? If they cared about the net (and not just their cozy little portion of it) they'd fight in their institutions to save it. The news network, as it stands now, is something unique and should not be drastically altered. What can we do about this? I really can't think of much. The net has always been voluntary. One thing is cer- tain, though. As soon as STARGATE goes into effect, the chances for a free network surviving is nil. The institu- tions involved can point to STARGATE and say that there's a perfectly good network right there. There will be very lit- tle chance to start a new network at that time. So the only thing I can suggest is to try to stop STARGATE in any way possible. Let the people who conceived of this know that it is not appreciated. E-Mail bomb them. Flame them until they drop. If you see them in public, spit on them. Hide dog turds in their desks. Disrupt the next USENIX meeting. Check with your local ACLU to see if there are any legal means to stop this. Harass them in any way possible. In the mean time, organize. Let your institution know that you appreciate this service they provide to you. Let them know that any change in the posting criteria of one of the last free bulletin board systems is not appreciated. Set up an alternative network to take this net's place when it folds. Hopefully, there will be a place for unmoderated news posting when this is over. The organizers have been less than honest with you. They hide in net.news (and net.news.stargate), discussing these things which will alter your news service, without generally informing the public. The first you would have heard about it is when backbone sites would have said, "We're not transmitting anything but moderated groups from now on." You wouldn't have been able to stop them. Goodbye, net.women. Goodbye, net.motss. Goodbye, net.singles. Goodbye, net.rec.*. Goodbye, net.flame. Goodbye, every news group that doesn't relate directly with what you do at work, is politically unpopular, or that your administrator just doesn't like. It looks as if a great experiment is coming to an end. But it doesn't have to be this way, if we work together. Save the net. Stop the STARGATE. Don't let them take away a unique and wonderful resource from us. Together, we can stop them. Stop the STARGATE, Frank Adrian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jan 85 11:43:00 est From: bellcore!amsler@Berkeley (Robert Amsler) Subject: CDs displacing books However... Nobody I knows takes their copy of the Third International Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica volumes, or other expensive books to the beach, or scribbles in them, etc. The CD book will have a role to play. We shouldn't expect new media to eliminate old media; however they create new methods of access. Videotape rock performamces didn't replace audio recordings--but they have added something. ------------------------------ Date: Sat 2 Feb 85 13:14:20-EST From: Wayne McGuire <MDC.WAYNE%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA> Subject: Xerox NoteCards Apropos the recent discussion about idea processors and general purpose personal assistants appears below a message from Info-Mac about Xerox NoteCards. Can anyone here offer any further information about this product? Date: 24 Jan 1985 7:05:38 EST (Thursday) From: Mark Zimmerman <mex101@mitre> Subject: Xerox NoteCards on Mac? To: info-mac@sumex I just saw a demo of Xerox's NoteCards system and want to tell people about it, so we can start working on a version for the Mac! NoteCards is like an extension of the desktop metaphor: your screen has windows on electronic index cards, each of which can contain text, pictures, etc., and links to other cards. Links can be of various types: references/sourcing, argumentation, proof, refutation, consequences, etc. Cards can be filed in boxes, which can contain other boxes, etc. One can display graphically the links between cards, to get an overall view of the information, or zoom in to look at all the gory details when needed. Esther Dyson wrote about NoteCards in the 31 Dec 84 issue of her newsletter, RELease1.0 ... see that for further impressions. Perhaps if there are experts at Xerox PARC or elsewhere listening they can correct/extend my comments. The Mac's TE and windowing should do a fair fraction of the work for a Mac version/analog of NoteCards ... I am dreaming about writing up a first hack at it in MacFORTH. NoteCards is sort of a multidimensional ThinkTank (or rather, ThinkTank is a 1-dimensional shadow of NoteCards) ... it looks likely to be a great tool for gathering/organizing/presenting complicated data. (Besides other features described above, one can ask NoteCards to search along various types of links to find various items, reorganize links, embed pointers to other cards within the text/picture on a card, etc.) Best, Zimmermann at MITRE ------------------------------ Date: Thu 7 Feb 85 09:03:02-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: "Computer Subculture" is topic of Donohoe-TV-show thought I let my fellow-TV-junkies know. if anyone has a chance to tape the show, please let me know, in case I get querries. ------------------------------ Date: Fri 8 Feb 85 03:20:53-CST From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@UTEXAS-20.ARPA> Subject: they postponed "Donahue: Computer Subculture" due to more urgent topics ("The New York Subway Vigilante") the computer topic was postponed. newspapers receive the schedule weeks in advance, so they (and I - and you, not to forget) resulted misinformed. sorry. I am trying to find out more about the contents adn timing of the show. ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************