Human-Nets-Request%rutgers@brl-bmd.UUCP (Human-Nets-Request@rutgers) (11/16/83)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Wednesday, 16 Nov 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 73
Today's Topics:
Comment - A plea for courtesy,
Computers annd the Law - Why break into machines?,
Computers and People - 'Improved' Error Messages &
Junk Mail
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri 11 Nov 83 06:28:38-PST
From: Mabry Tyson <Tyson@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: A plea for courtesy
There have been two recent events that have pointed out to me the
(probably unintentional) callousness of some people. In both
occasions readers of a message posted on a bulletin board/mailing list
flamed to the author of the message about the message's
appropriateness. In one case, the author wasn't responsible for the
public posting of the message. In the other, the author was fairly
new and didn't know the question he asked was like others than had
been posted and had been decided to be inappropriate for the bboard.
Especially in the first case the responses were much too intense for
the action.
I suggest that if you object to someone's posting a message to some
digest or bboard that you read, ask yourself if there might be someone
out there who might be interested in it. If you're sure not, be
courteous and not curt in your response. The author may not know
everything you know. And remember, you are reading the messages of
your own free will. If you don't like what is posted, don't read it.
I submit that much of the vitality of bboards/mailing lists is due to
a fairly unrestrained usage. If senders of messages are blasted often
enough, very few people will continue sending. (I wonder how many
people write letters to the newspaper.)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 83 12:05 EST
From: Henry Dreifus <Dreifus.UPenn@Rand-Relay>
Subject: Why are hackers spending all this time breaking into
Subject: machines?
It used to be (in the old days), that when a determined hacker
indeed gained entry into a system, found bugs, stole funds or
re-routed equipment he was instantly hired. Its not true anymore.
There is a "myth" that if someone is good enough to gain access,
they're good enough to be hired. Unless they were really good, in
which case they would "retire".
Assumption I: All hackers read these computer crime glamour stories.
It used to be (in the old days), that a new an innovative computer
simulation or game (cite: Empire - which tied up one Unix system
for 2.5 months, Adventure - when I first converted it over to
PR1ME - our entire programming staff did not produce a line of
code for over a month - save one "old programmer" - not myself,
and numerous other examples) could more than fill up a "hacker's
time". Either the games were too "trendY", or people have just
learned that once you've played one, you've played them all, and
there ain't anything new in game technology -- so play with the
O/S....oh what fun.
Assumption II: Games aren't what they've used to be.
Mice, traps and cheese. It seems that the creative mind stops
functioning after a certain age (We just get tooooooo old, and
become the establishment by default). Many hackers consider themselves
to be better mice. This is true. As an educated society as a
whole, we're better in tune with the notion of computers and
what & how they can do things. When I went to school (college
that is) Computer Science was still trying to figure out what to
teach. In a sense all departments will "try" to hit the same
moving target known as computer science -- but it's getting better
now. Especially if you can now assume that 99.9999% of all entrants
into a Computer Science programme have some computer background,
probably from high school. So what does this mean? Simply put,
there are smarter mice out there, and they will continue to get
smarter as we educate them more. A home computer in "every" home,
Logo in kindergarten (I repeated kindergarten; no Logo though) and
other changes will profoundly effect tomorrow's "mice".
Assumption III: Hackers today are smarter and better equiped than
yesterday. Hackers tomorrow ...
I remember the days when "hackers" were basically nice guys, honest
and trustworthy. Generally a "hacker" tended to be someone more
creative and more intelligent than the general programmer. Almost
all of those one time "hackers" have (a) gained respect in some
way and are now integrated into the establishment, or (b) faded
away. No more 4AM 10-way links.
Assumption IV: A hacker's definition has changed. Simple fun is
considered a trivial challenge, today's hacker needs something
really tough.
Today society has a lot more liesure time than ever before. Tommorrow
will be even worse. Just think, year around football!!@!!#@@! All
this "creative" energy in today's hacker needs to be directed
somewhere: yep, you guessed it - at *your* system. These are young
people looking for things to pass the time. It isn't bad to be
creative -- its that they're just running out of things to do on
this planet. Once you get calculus in the third grade (fourth if
you're really slow) its all over in terms of your educational
future. The creatives used to do mischief in the neighborhood --
I'm sure at least everyone reading this can remember a 'deed'
when they last did one -- but not anymore. The "neighborhood"
is now connected by a telephone, and the mischief is {TELENET}
or {TYMNET} or even (dare I say) {ARPAnet} just for starters.
Assumption V: Today's society is too easy - real creative challenges
are in craking computer systems, and keeping systems programmers
from getting good night sleeps. (Do you know our system programmer
now carries a beeper??? Outrageous!)
Where does it stop? Simple: Changing the laws and jailing children
will do something. Its not exactly a violent crime, but its a start.
But then courts will be after too many people. Imagine being
prosecuted for dialing a wrong number and accidently connecting your
terminal to it (I can see in my crystall plasma display days when
the traffic court will be ticketing violators of the phone-ways -
said in a deep booming voice). No this isn't the answer. Society
must add some more creative challenges (none come to mind off hand)
to divert this energy. Imagine some of these people part timing
it for NASA or some other agency. You write your best code when
you are really young. You get dumber as you get older. Two things
go when you get older .... your memory .... and I forget the other
thing just now. Companies should go right to high school and recruit
talent right there. Pay for the grubby little kid's education too.
If it works for basketball - it'll work for the computer industry.
Respect these kids, and give them reasonable responsibilities - and
they will probably do you proud.
Assumption VI: There probably is a constructive solution out there to
solve this problem -- I just don't know what it is just yet.
Henry Dreifus
Dreifus.Upenn@CSNET (I think through Rand or someother gateway.
This too keeps changing)
------------------------------
Date: 13 Nov 1983 09:29:33-PST
From: smith.umn-cs@Rand-Relay
Subject: 'Improved' Error Messages
I'm not a bit surprised that the users reacted favorably to the
'sarcastic' error messages. I'll bet the original error messages,
even if they were supposedly 'user friendly', were less personal than
the new ones. But there's even a more obvious reason why the users
liked the new messages: the Hawthorne Effect.
Back in the olden days when people were trying to do quantitative
analysis of 'worker performance' as affected by environment, the folks
at Western Electric's Hawthorne Works ran some experiments on the
effects of lighting on productivity. The result: turn the lights up,
productivity improves; turn the lights down, productivity STILL
improves.
Like any sociological process, you can interpret this in many ways.
One popular interpretation: if you act as if you care, your workers
start caring, too. I'm sure that the big topic of discussion in the
Hawthorne lunchroom was the lighting level, whether high or low.
Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 11 November 1983, 12:05-PST
From: cwr at SCRC-Tenex
Subject: Junk Mail
Date: 31 Oct 1983 10:21:45 EST (Monday)
From: Andy Adler <andya@BBN-UNIX>
Actually, it is to our advantage that junk mail comes with
ridiculous claims on the outside ("You may have wone the trip
of your dreams"). Such envelope decoration immediately marks
the item as junk mail and can be trashed immediately.
Andy Adler
Yes, but there is a new trick which is real annoying. I get lots of
junk mail these days (often requests for contirbutions to this or that
lobbying group) with nothing on the outside of the envelope besides my
address. No doubt the idea is that you have to at least open it to
see what it is -- which increases the chance that you will read it,
which increases the chance that you will respond to it ... The worst
part is that it seems to work! I have a hard time throwing away an
envelope without knowing what it is, I worry that it just possibly
could be something important. -c
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************