human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (11/07/84)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 6 Nov 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 71
Today's Topics:
Query - Research for DoD -- A Moral Problem?,
Response to Query - Copyright Laws (2 msgs),
Computers and People - USIA Satellite Broadcasting,
Computer Networks - Cancelling E-Mail,
Information - Grad. Study Plan: Social Impacts of Computing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 84 21:51:24 pst
From: zauderer%ucbcory@Berkeley (Marvin M. Zauderer)
It seems that much of today's Computer Science research is funded
by Defense Department (DoD)-related agencies. Specifically, it seems
that much of the CS research in our nation's universities is funded by
the DoD. Although I've only been involved with CS research for a
short time, I've managed to get the following impression: a
significant number of researchers are uneasy about their
direct/indirect ties with the DoD. For example, a researcher may worry
that his DoD-funded work will be applied for immoral or unethical
purposes by our government. (I suppose "unethical" and "immoral" are
words defined by the particular researcher. Stay with me for a
moment.) Granted, not all researchers have to worry that their work
will aid in initiating global war. Yet some DO worry, and for good
reason, too.
To those who have wrestled with this dilemma: how have you resolved
it, or have you? Does forced ignorance run rampant, and is it the best
choice? Is it best to say,
"I want to do <so-and-so> research, and I want to do it at a
university, so more likely than not the money will come from
the DoD. If that prospect upsets me, I should go elsewhere."
or IS there a "best" philosophy? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this
issue. (Translation: flames encouraged). To those who have not
wrestled with this dilemma: what do YOU think?
I am a new "subscriber"; I apologize if this topic has been
discussed here before or if it is inappropriate for this digest. If
the latter, please suggest another forum. If the former, please don't
send me hate mail; I think a continuing discussion of this topic is of
primary importance.
-- Marvin
------------------------------
Date: Sun 4 Nov 84 20:38:16-MST
From: The alleged mind of Walt <Haas@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: copyright laws
One friend of mine is planning to purchase a personal computer, and we
were discussing what kind. I was advocating a certain system based on
its technical merits, but she had a compelling argument in favor of
another system: She knew where she could copy $20k worth of software
free.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 5 Nov 84 16:25:45-PST
From: Richard Treitel <TREITEL@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: more copyright
To: boebert@HI-MULTICS.ARPA, asp%mit-oz@MIT-MC.ARPA, bmg@MIT-XX.ARPA
Finally got hold of a copy of the original memo sent out by the
Washington lawyer. He requests comments on
(a) the desirability of any of five legislative options (see below)
(b) what other ways are there of providing access to backup copies
(c) do software sellers provide such access, in relation to encrypted
products
(d) can a legal definition of Locksmith programs be formulated so as
not to sweep up other products for which there is
unquestionably a need
(e) can software be so packaged as to be immune to accidental damage,
e.g. on a laser disk
(f) the impact of copy protection on ability of customers to customise
software they have bought.
Of course some of you have, in your replies to date, already commented
on several of these issues; but I'd still be interested in additional
comments on the others. Now here are the legislative options
mentioned:
(1) outlaw making backup copies, even. A drastic measure.
(2) leave it up to the courts to decide if Locksmith is legal under
present law
(3) give you the right to make your own backups *only* if there is no
other way to get one
(4) plain well outlaw locksmith programs
(5) like (4), but reduce the legal remedies available to software
sellers who fail to provide backups, when they sue other people
for copying.
My reactions are
(1) ridiculous (2) yuck (3) kludgy (4) impractical (5) all of the
above.
I'd like to get this wrapped up shortly. Thanks to all of you who
have replied.
- Richard
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 1984 21:17 EST
From: ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA
Subject: Effects of USIA satellite broadcasting
Does anyone deny that one of the main effects of USIA
satellite TV broadcasts would be cultural domination by the
U.S. over cultures that do not have the programming and
broadcasting resources to compete? Just what sort of
programming is envisioned for this project?
Since when has "cultural domination" been wrong, or even avoidable?
I'll admit that I don't trust any particular government to go out and
do it as national policy, but *our own* culture is based almost
*entirely* on the cultures of others. By cutting off societies from
one another, one merely encourages balkanization of the planet into
many mutually-distrustful ethnic blocs. I don't see cancelling
attempts to improve communication between peoples merely because you
suspect the motives of the persons implementing the system.
--Jim
------------------------------
Return-Path: <POURNE@MIT-MC>
Date: 1 November 1984 05:17-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: effects of USIA satellite television broadcasting
To: KIRK.TYM @ OFFICE-2
cc: Lippard @ MIT-MULTICS
Are you saying that everyone else's culture is so fragile that
mere exposure to US TV will result in US cultural domination?
I understand that freedom is not much in fashion, and the notion
that people ought to be able to get information not filtered
through a government is abhorrent to certain kinds of
personalities, but would it really be so horrid if people were
merely exposed to USIA broadcasts?
You may be sure that they will be exposed to others,
regardless of what we do.
------------------------------
Date: 1 Nov 84 23:58:42 EST
From: Mike <ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Canceling Electronic Mail
It seems to me that a good electronic mail system would always
provide an ability to attempt to cancel mail messages (practical
considerations may not always allow it to be done, of course).
In fact, it is hard for me to imagine why people would object to
a mail system which allows one to attempt to cancel messages.
Clearly if *I* sent a message that I wanted to cancel, I should be
able to. After all, the computer is there to serve me and it
should be able to do whatever I want (within reason). Saying:
"The Post Office doesn't ..." or "It would be too hard ..." just
isn't good enough.
If someone else sends me a message and they want to cancel it,
why should I complain? Oh sure, I may miss some interesting
flames, juicy gossip, misdirected mail, and other choice stuff,
but I think I could live without it and respect another person's
right to change his/her mind about what sending me somethng.
Finally, why should anyone object to other people having the right
to try to cancel mail they sent to anyone else?
Aside from these, I can't think of any other cases of mail
canceling to consider.
-- Mike^Z [ ihnp4!, allegra! ] pegasus!mzal Zaleski@Rutgers
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 84 12:45:17 EST
From: Brint <abc@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
Subject: Cancelling e-mail
Surely you wouldn't want anyone, including a sender, to reach into
your own mailbox for anything? So clearly, point of no return exists
at the recipient's mailbox door.
Now, the question is, should recovery of in-transit mail be allowed?
Consider:
1. the risk that an imperfect e-mail system (and it is flawed)
might permit unauthorized tampering in a global arena;
2. the additional traffic that could be geneated if large
scale recalls were permitted;
3. the irresponsibility that unlimited recall priveleges
fosters.
You might conclude, then that you should be permitted to recall mail
that is in your possession or that of your local agent only.
Brint
------------------------------
Date: 3 Nov 1984 1157-PST
From: Rob-Kling <Kling%UCI-20B@UCI-750a>
Subject: Social Impacts of Computing: Graduate Study at UC-Irvine
CORPS
-------
Graduate Education in
Computing, Organizations, Policy, and Society
at the University of California, Irvine
This graduate concentration at the University of California,
Irvine provides an opportunity for scholars and students to
investigate the social dimensions of computerization in a setting
which supports reflective and sustained inquiry.
The primary educational opportunities are PhD concentrations in
the Department of Information and Computer Science (ICS) and MS and
PhD concentrations in the Graduate School of Management (GSM).
Students in each concentration can specialize in studying the social
dimensions of computing.
The faculty at Irvine have been active in this area, with many
interdisciplinary projects, since the early 1970's. The faculty and
students in the CORPS have approached them with methods drawn from the
social sciences.
The CORPS concentration focuses upon four related areas of
inquiry:
1. Examining the social consequences of different kinds of
computerization on social life in organizations and in the larger
society.
2. Examining the social dimensions of the work and organizational
worlds in which computer technologies are developed, marketed,
disseminated, deployed, and sustained.
3. Evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for managing the
deployment and use of computer-based technologies.
4. Evaluating and proposing public policies which facilitate the
development and use of computing in pro-social ways.
Studies of these questions have focussed on complex information
systems, computer-based modelling, decision-support systems, the
myriad forms of office automation, electronic funds transfer systems,
expert systems, instructional computing, personal computers, automated
command and control systems, and computing at home. The questions
vary from study to study. They have included questions about the
effectiveness of these technologies, effective ways to manage them,
the social choices that they open or close off, the kind of social and
cultural life that develops around them, their political consequences,
and their social carrying costs.
CORPS studies at Irvine have a distinctive orientation -
(i) in focussing on both public and private sectors,
(ii) in examining computerization in public life as well as within
organizations,
(iii) by examining advanced and common computer-based technologies "in
vivo" in ordinary settings, and
(iv) by employing analytical methods drawn from the social sciences.
Organizational Arrangements and Admissions for CORPS
The CORPS concentration is a special track within the normal
graduate degree programs of ICS and GSM. Admission requirements for
this concentration are the same as for students who apply for a PhD in
ICS or an MS or PhD in GSM. Students with varying backgrounds are
encouraged to apply for the PhD programs if they show strong research
promise.
The seven primary faculty in the CORPS concentration hold
appointments in the Department of Information and Computer Science and
the Graduate School of Management. Additional faculty in the School
of Social Sciences, and the program on Social Ecology, have
collaborated in research or have taught key courses for CORPS
students. Research is administered through an interdisciplinary
research institute at UCI which is part of the Graduate Division, the
Public Policy Research Organization.
Students who wish additional information about the CORPS concentration
should write to:
Professor Rob Kling (Kling@uci)
Department of Information and Computer Science
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, Ca. 92717
714-856-5955 or 856-7403
or to:
Professor Kenneth Kraemer (Kraemer@uci)
Graduate School of Management
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, Ca. 92717
714-856-5246
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************