Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (03/28/83)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 28 Mar 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 14
Today's Topics:
Computers and People - Information Systems,
Definitions - of Weaving & of Algorithm,
Technology - EFT (2 msgs),
Computers and the Law - Computer Crime (2 msgs) &
Electronic Anklet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 February 1983 13:14 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-ML>
Subject: WorldKey at EPCOT.
Aha, so EPCOT needs some more design work before it'll be more than
a toy. It needs to permit orthogonal indexing methods (physical
location and category as separate indexes but ability to intersect
and de-intersect those modes at will), and it needs the ability to
use a keyword expression to jump into the middle of the indexing
system without needing to to go thru the levels to it but without
losing the ability to proceed along the indexing system once the
keyword-jump has occurred.
Systems for handling both keyword-jumps and hierarchy, including
multiple paths (one special topic under two different major topics),
already exist. For example, the INFO program (part of EMACS) here on
ITS. But does anybody know of a system that also has orthogonal
indexing modes properly implemented? (I'd like to hear about such a
system and get a demo.)
------------------------------
Date: Tue 15 Feb 83 13:56:39-EST
From: Susanne Humphrey <HUMPHREY@NLM-MCS.ARPA>
Subject: weaving
Regarding derivation of the word "system" as coming from "syn-"
(together with) and "histemai" (to weave): I don't think so.
A colleague here cites the Greek dictionary as follows:
under systema - "that which is put together - from synistemi";
under synistemi - "to place or set together".
The derivation is syn = with + histemi = to stand or to cause to
stand (from sta- = to stand).
Maybe Granger is thinking of histion = something woven, from histos
= the webbeam of a loom that stands (histemi) upright.
By the way, there are five entries for "I weave": hythaino, pleko,
empleko, histourgeo, and spathao.
------------------------------
Date: 15 February 1983 12:41 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-ML>
Subject: Definition of 'Algorithm'
Although it's interesting to learn how the word "algorithm" came
about from the earlier word "algorism", it's silly to attempt to
force all new usage for the word out, to try to roll back to
pre-math pre-computer usage. The word with its new spelling now has
a very useful meaning established in mathematics and computer
science. Rolling back the meaning would be rather like forcing
people to not use "sparkplug" in any way other than how it was used
before the internal combustion engine was invented. I abhor random
sloppy new uses when a better old definition exists, but I like new
definitions that are much better (more useful) than old ones.
Let's all decide that "algorism" means a number system that includes
zero while "algorithm" means a precisely-specified method for
solving a task, regardless of what they may have meant 500 years
ago, ok?
------------------------------
Date: 22 Feb 1983 2053-CST
From: Werner Uhrig <CS.WERNER@UTEXAS-20>
Subject: a case for EFT ?!!
DOES ANYONE care to AGREE or DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING?
---------------------------------------------------------------
- The cost of the merchandise should be listed seperately from the
overhead caused by the form of payment? (just like tax)
- Any savings or additional costs due to the form of payment should
be passed on to the buyer.
- Considering that
a) CASH needs to be counted and handled with more security, and
that losses can occur due to forgery, theft, fire, etc and
that it presents a special health problem and that it
presents additional insurance needs
b) CHECKS can be "hot", forged, lost due to accidents
c) CREDIT CARDs have similar problems as checks, plus the banks
are taking an additional bite in form of a percentage from
the merchant and an annual charge from the user
d) both Checks and Cards require too much information to be
disclosed to the merchant (the banks know anyway, which is a
whole different bag of worms)
Considering all that, there must be a better way.
- one that is safer from loss due to accident and crime
- one that is more economical in terms of overhead costs
and human time spend in transaction and accounting
- one that enables the customer to prove his "wealth"
and "ability to pay" without disclosing all kinds of
personal data which can be "abused"
- one which provides the merchant as well as the customer
to, automatically, gather information machine-readable,
for record-keeping and evaluation.
The Solution must come from an advance in the technology of
Point-of-Sale Equipment and EFT. And through modifying
procedures and laws, to protect the rights and interests of
all parties involved (the consumer, the merchant, the bank,
and the government), by avoiding monopolies and by keeping
the government responsive to everyone's needs, I am certain
that competition, finally, will get us an environment where
even the consumer gets a fair deal. Elimination of cash,
check, and card may never become desirable or neccessary
But wouldn't it be nice to be creditworthy on account of one's
fingerprint, voiceprint, look or smell, and not have to
show 2 ID's, 2 credit cards, driver's license, SSN,
birthdate, address, home and work-phone, plus patience, to
wait for all that information to get HANDWRITTEN down by a
barely literate -- something similar most of us have
experienced --
Therefore, here is my vision and proposal:
1) EFT, where my creditworthiness is shown by either or all of:
a) fingerprint or voice-check (or whatever I can take with
me with the same ease)
b) by responding correctly to a prompt for information which
only I can provide, and which should never be repeated
again. this prompt should be coming from the remote
EFT-site
c) some kind of physical item like a magnetic card, which
would require a correct prompt-reply sequence (or
self-destruct, maybe)
2) an interface, between the merchants Point-of-Sale equipment, and
my miniature portable data collector, where I get to record
all information about the transaction, for later
account-balancing and automatic bookkeeping (why should THEY
get all the benefits)
3) laws to guarantee that information about my spending habits are
not used or made available to anyone, without my explicit
consent for each transaction (why make it any easier for
THEM). I guess, some binding form of consent could also do,
but who ever heard of behavior like that from government,
banks, or whoever wants to get hold of the consumer's money.
4) a system which will allow me to have my computer double-check
with the EFT-computer, to make sure that all transactions are
correct.
---Werner (cs.werner@UTEXAS-20)
------------------------------
Date: 23 February 1983 03:04 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-ML>
Subject: Mugging, security-system design
Date: 13 Feb 83 17:35:14-EST (Sun)
From: the soapbox of Gene Spafford <spaf.gatech@UDel-Relay>
You made a suggestion about some kind of emergency beeper.
I don't think it is practical. ...
... If I were after somebody with something like that,
I'd just have four or five friends in the area have theirs
go off by "accident." By the time things were sorted out,
I'd have scored.
Obviously the simple call-the-police design wouldn't be practical.
I'd rather have citizen involvement. If a single beeper goes off,
the nearest on-duty security guard is notified electronically. If
more go off than there are nearby on duty guards, off-duty guards
are called in. If more than the total number of guards, the computer
declares a local emergency and wakes up normal citizens telling them
to get together with their neighbors to go out to investigate the
crime wave that is going on at that very moment in their
neighborhood. It's unlikely the number of criminals in any area
would be more than about 10% the total number of citizens, thus
massive calling up of the citizenry ought to be sufficient to locate
all the false alarms and the one real alarm and put all the under
mob attack, not just the ones doing the actual robbery. But it takes
a computer network to provide this sort of massive instant calling
up of reserves. Like you say, a group police dispatchers just can't
handle the sudden load in a timely manner, and thus would be
vulnerable to false alarms to mask the principal crime.
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 26 March 1983, 01:50-EST
From: Christopher C. Stacy <CStacy at MIT-MC>
Subject: Texas Legislature to consider a Computer Crime Law
Although I am completely ignorant of law, there are no laws that I
know about which concern themselves directly with the misuse of
vacuum cleaners. The same goes for automobiles (although there are
special laws about using automobiles and guns to commit separately
described felonies). So why are people concerning themselves with
laws about computers? Moreover, why do they think that the role of
computers in society is understood well enough to write laws about
their use?
Sec. 33.01 DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(2) "Computer software" means instructions or statements
that permit a computer system to perform a useful function.
------------
I wonder what "useful" means?
(3) "Computer system" means a device or set of devices that
stores data in an intangible form, or that, in response to
instructions or data given to it, analyzes data, converts data
from one form into another, or produces new data.
------------
It seems to me that humans (and other animals, and plants) are
included in this definition. So are telephones, thermostats, and
vacuum cleaners.
Sec. 33.03. BREACH OF SECURITY SYSTEM.
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective
consent of the operator of the computer system, he intentionally:
(3) gives information concerning a computer security
system to another person.
------------
I don't understand how this last can be reconciled with free speech.
What precedents are there (perhaps excluding Government classified
information) for making information sharing between people illegal?
Besides, what "information" are they talking about? I imagine that
if I decided a random fact (such as "grass is green") was a part of
my computer security, that I could attempt to have anyone who
repeated the fact criminally prosecuted.
This bill hardly bears discussion as a reasonable sort of law to
pass. It loudly proclaims how confused and scared the public and
lawmakers are of technology which they do not understand. These
people are scared enough to resort to completely random acts in
attempt to make everything all better and get their view of the
world under control.
I find this sort of thing basically terrifying.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: 26 Mar 1983 0822-EST
From: Andrew Scott Beals <RMS.G.BANDY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Texas Crime Law
Re: Computer crimes in texas
Holy bitblit, batman!
Well, it looks like the new fascism has taken root in texas. Under
these statues, if I have been forbidden to write and play games and
do so, I could be persecuted. What a mess.
Hopefully bills like these won't be passed... The worst part about
these is that they seem to prey upon the hacker mentality - ``Gee,
let's try this and find out what happens'' <- if a breach of
`security' (I don't think that that was defined) happens, that
hacker can be persecuted...
What's worse is that none of the legislators understand the bill...
(i would guess).
-andy
p.s. remind me not to be in texas if this bill is passed...
------------------------------
Date: Sun Mar 27 1983 18:18:22-PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM.ARPA>
Subject: electronic anklet
When I first heard about this device, I immediately began wondering
exactly how it was implemented -- so I did a little checking.
Apparently it is pretty straightforward. A clever crook could
presumably get around it -- but probably would not want to -- since
the result of slipping up would be jail instead of home! The people
for which this device is envisioned are the non-violent "county
jail" types -- not the hard-core "state prison" type criminal.
Apparently the anklet transmits a digital signal to a fairly simple
decoder box (locked) which is plugged into a standard phone outlet.
The decoder simply records the periods when the anklet "vanishes"
through being out of range of the decoder (1000 feet or something
like that). About once every 24 hours, the decoder dials the
central computer (some pay-tv systems have operated in this same
manner) and dumps the data regarding the anklet's comings and
goings. The computer compares the data with the prestored
information regarding "authorized" come/go times (for going to work,
etc.) If there is a discrepancy, a report is sent to the probation
officer, who then takes whatever action he/she sees fit.
There are presumably special codes recorded to handle exceptional
conditions such as "AC power fail", "decoder unplugged from phone
line", "anklet/decoder tampering", etc.
Whether or not such a system could be easily defeated would depend
largely on the sophistication of the digital signals being sent from
the anklet to the decoder and from the decoder to the central
computer. A system using good encryption, a local realtime clock,
and similar niceties, could be reasonably secure.
--Lauren--
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************