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
************************