Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request@rutgers) (01/17/84)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 17 Jan 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 12
Today's Topics:
Query - E-COM mail,
Response to Query - Terminal Elbow,
Computer Security - Telephone Circuit Security,
Computers and the Law - Cracker's-Eye View &
SSN Information Proposal,
Input Devices - Keyboards (3 msgs),
Computers and People - Augmented Global Consciousness
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 84 07:59 MST
From: Kubicar.Multics@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA (Mike Kubicar)
Subject: E-COM mail
Reply-to: Kubicar@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Does anyone know anything about the post office's E-COM mail? I
noticed an ad in Byte which allowed you to use this service from your
personal computer (if you bought the somewhat expensive software
package). How would I go about rolling my own?
Mike Kubicar
Kubicar @ MIT-Multics
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 16 Jan 1984 12:57:17-PST
From: decwrl!rhea!glivet!zurko@Shasta
Subject: sore elbows
DEC human factors folks have done some research on keyboard
characteristics and suggest 1) The distance from desktop to the middle
of the key cap surface at the home row shouldn't be over 30 mm (1.18
in). If yours is higher, work up a palm rest to counteract that with
about the same slope, etc. as the keyboard. 2) The recommended slope
of the keyboard is max 15 degrees, and min 5 degrees. For folks that
use the new DEC VT200 series terminals (they're the kind that come
with the various PCs DEC puts out), use those little black plastic
legs! They're designed to give you the right height, slope, etc.
Mez
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 1984 2229-PST
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #6
From: Ian H. Merritt <SWG.MERRITT@USC-ISIB>
Thanks for the description of the phone company CO or
tandem carrier shutdown. Hmmm, accepting a patch from a
random voice on the phone claiming to be so and so is
rather dangerous! I wonder whether every system
operator is immune to that now, or if the word still
needs to be passed around some more?
I'm afraid your latter speculation that the word still needs to be
passed around is more correct. In Los Angeles, sufficient abuse has
occured that the telephone company has grown wiser and made it much
more difficult for telephone vandalism to take place. It is still
possible, although it requires more ingenuity. Most other areas,
however, are substantially more vulnerable, since the word has
typicaly not spread very far out of the LA area.
Many computer system operators have not been exposed to these abuses,
and may not make the wisest decisions in such situations. Again, the
LA area has been the target of much of this kind of vandalism,
although it has been more widespread than the telephone problems.
Many sites have no official policy for dealing with a voice on the
telephone claiming to be 'so-and-so', and instructing the operator to
do something with a computer. I highly recommend such a policy for
all computer centers utilizing operator services.
A good policy which can significantly improve the security of a site
is to always require a call-back number before executing any
instructions given over the telephone. This, however, is not
fool-proof, and a second consultation is advised to determine the
validity of these instructions.
<>IHM<>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 84 08:58:51 pst
From: John Foderaro (on an h19-u) <jkf%ucbmike@Berkeley>
Subject: computer breakin
Those of you who remember last summer's computer breakins by Ron
Austin and the interesting description of tracking him down by Brian
Reid (published on various bboards) may be interested in reading the
article in the January issue of 'California' magazine. It describes
the incident from the point of view of Austin (and Poulsen, the other
kid involved). I think the article is too sympathetic to Austin, and
breaking in in general. The way I measure this is to ask myself, "If
I were a teenager just learning about computers, then after reading
this article would I be more or less likely to try breakins myself?".
I feel that this article would encourage me to try breakins.
Its conclusion:
"As to the fourteen counts of ``malicious access'', Ron has pleaded
not guilty, contending that the spirit in which the deads were
committed was not really malevolent. As he points out, he could
have wreaked untold havoc all across the Arpanet, and he didn't"
By this same argument, if I break into a house and steal things, I
shouldn't be charged because I could have killed the occupants, but
didn't.
- john foderaro
------------------------------
Date: 14 January 1984 01:15 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Review-Rise of the Computer State
I propose the following law: Once a year, any maintainer of a database
that contains information on people indexed by social security number
must inform each person so indexed (except those whose records haven't
been modified since the last notification) of the existance of such
records and of the means for examining them, either directly by
sending mail or telephoning them, or indirectly by passing the list of
SSNs to another database maintainer who promises (by sworn affidavit)
to inform the people, again either directly or indirectly. Most
database maintainers would pool their notifications to reduce
overhead, but private databases which don't want "big brother" to
know, just the individual persons to know, may opt for direct
notification, and of course the place where the buck stops will
directly notify on behalf of the whole consortium that feeds into it.
Debate on my proposal?
Right now there's no way to find out all the places that have data on
me, although if I happen to accidently find out one place I have
thelegal right to ask to see that data. But finding out who has data
about me is rather like guessing a password, you have to ask a lot of
people at random if they have data on you before you have a hit.
But would pooling of lists of SSNs tend to excite pooling of the data
itself? Maybe if we then had the right to examine the data and force
the deletion of incorrect and none-of-your-business data, we'd win
more than we'd lose? As it is now we can't even find out if the data
exists and if so where it is kept, and so we can't really inspect it
or correct it.
------------------------------
Date: 12 January 1984 1449-cst
From: Paul Stachour <Stachour @ HI-MULTICS>
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #9 , Doug Monk, Keyboard ...
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 84 13:42:58 CDT
From: Doug Monk <bro.rice@RAND-RELAY>
Subject: Re: The Keyboard as an OUTPUT device
... and 'the' comes out 'teh' a lot. With programmable
keyboards, we might all come up with our own designs, customized for
our own personal idiosyncracies, muscular and tendon faults, and
vocabularies. ...
One of my friends, who uses Multics EMACS in <fill-mode> almost
exclusively, has bound the end-of-word keys (like space, ...) to
look for the sequence 'teh' preceding the space and change it to
'the'. He says that's been quite helpful to him. ...Paul
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 84 11:46 MST
From: "Charles Spitzer"@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Re: Keyboard as an OUTPUT device
Reply-to: Spitzer%pco@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA
This has gotten out of hand, with people thinking up all these neat
whiz-bang goodies.
Re: Changing keycaps under micro control: If someone gave me a
keyboard where the letters got shuffled around or changed from under
me while I was using it, I'd through it out the window! I can't
imagine anything less "user-friendly", and I don't know about anyone
else but I very infrequently look at the keyboard, being a
touch-typist. How many "computer professionals" do you know who
aren't (or who aren't very fast with only a few fingers)? I'd bet
they would be in the minority. This might be marginally useful for
function keys, but even then they should be able to display much more
than is possible to display on a keycap.
Re: Having personal overlays: Where would you put them? On the
keyboards I've used, there is no room between the keys for any kind of
overlay.
Re: Mirrors or display devices in front or back of the keys: Where do
you get the room for these? There is a standard for keyboards in
Europe, and it calls for a very flat keyboard (I've seen some
Norwegian keyboards where the key is only about 1/8 inch high with
very short travel). Yes, I know that there are existing terminals
that do use the front of the keys (Tektronix APL/ASCII keyboards come
to mind). How many people who have actually used them find them
usable? I find it bothersome in the highest degree to move my hands
away from the keyboard to hunt for a key, as I don't often use the APL
set.
Charlie Spitzer
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 1984 02:13:15-EST
From: ima!inmet!tower@CCA-UNIX
Subject: The Keyboard as an Output Device
The submission in V 7 # 6 by Makey.DODCSC at MIT-MULTICS spoke of
having the keyboard display the current function each key had. This
reminded me of a keyboard described in a sci-fi story of a few years
back. The keyboard was a 3-D space above the typing surface, with the
areas designated holographically, and there being some (undescribed)
method for sensing the position of the fingers. The nifty part was
that the system guru type was dynamically changing the keyboard as she
worked to get the exact functionality she wanted (BTW she was
attempting to break into a machine, and it killed her a few mintutes
later). Can't remember the title or author. Apologies.
-len tower harpo!inmet!tower Cambridge, MA
------------------------------
Date: 12-Jan-84 16:28 PST
From: Kirk Kelley <KIRK.TYM@OFFICE-2>
Subject: simulation for decision analysis vs prediction
This refers to the augmented global consciousness project (V6 #83, V7
#1 and #2).
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
I don't see how the behaviour of a communications/conferencing
network can be predicted more than about one step ahead, thus the
model must run in real time with respect to the system (itself)
it's modeling, making the exercise rather moot. Maybe I don't
understand the mode of your proposed self-modeling.
I agree with your premise and the last sentence. I think "prediction"
is too hard a word to use on the results of a long-term simulation in
the current state of the art. Instead, what I imagine is a decision
analysis. Given (1) all of the project's best justified guesses about
what interrelationships might hold true (and might appear) in the
future, and (2) alternatives which the project could help decide;
determine which alternatives most significantly affect the simulated
total lifetime of the project. It would NOT be trying to predict the
future, just augmenting the ability of humans to account for a
multitude of justified relationships when deciding between
alternatives. And in the process, focusing and structuring research
on what ever appears to be the most significant problems.
-- kirk
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************