Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (03/28/83)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Sunday, 27 Mar 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 13
Today's Topics:
Programming - Unix,
Technology - WorldNet (2 msgs) & EFT (4 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Feb 83 21:32 EST
From: Stephen Tihor <TIHOR.CMCL1@NYU.ARPA>
Subject: Typeahead buffers
While I usually prefer to avoid religious disputes one of the
comments in the current VMESS vs. Eunuchs debate got me wondering:
our VMS machines are configured with between 80 and 255 characters
of typeahead buffer and frankly I rarely use more that 100
characters even when doing very standard operations where I can
predict the necessary input well in advance (but not so well that I
make a shell script/command file to do it.) At least one person's
comments (csin!sjh@CCA-UNIX) implied that this is way too few ...
although I haven't heard word one in complaint for the user comunity
maybe they don't realize that it is easy to adjust. About how much
typeahead can people use, leaving aside the cases of when you are
inside of an screen editor or other RAW mode program?
------------------------------
Date: 23 February 1983 03:48 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-ML>
Subject: Do we really want a worldnet?
IMP44 has been providing absolutely terrible service to MIT-MC for
several weeks, blocking data from MIT-MC for 15 seconds at a time,
causing typing at normal rate to fill up the 64-character TAC buffer
and lose subsequent typeahead; this occurring several times a
minute, making it impossible to maintain one's train of thought when
typing a message. I have consequently delayed trying to answer this
message because I needed to have some train of thought. I am now
answering mail on other systems, MIT-ML currently, which don't
suffer that 15-second-blockage problem, thus I can now finally get
on with replying to this message:
Date: 8 February 1983 04:43 EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
[Re using EFT to replace cash in most cases, thus allowing a
person to get by without carrying more than perhaps $5 cash at
any time]
In all fairness I should note that most of the abuses listed
here are the result of improper control of the information
capability which might be offered by worldnet. Of course,
proper control can never QUITE be guaranteed.
It's important for us brilliant Arpanet/Internet people to make sure
WorldNet is designed properly, especially EFT and other aspects that
can really hurt people if mis-designed.
Instead we can create a system where you must have a worldnet
account to be a valid person. What if you lost your worldnet
card?
I don't propose having to carry a card that if you lose it you
become a non-person. Perhaps a card would be the primary and easiest
means of identification, perhaps fingerprints would, perhaps both
would be required for quick access, but if the card is lost or the
fingerprints are damaged it should be possible to get the card
replaced and some other physical identification such as tongueprint
registered, and then have quick-access available again.
What about people who haven't been able to join worldnet for
legal (undocumented aliens)
Let them suffer the pains of having to carry cash. I don't feel
sorry enough for them to avoid EFT just to avoid putting them at a
slight disadvantage.
or practical (illiteracy, poverty)
This is silly. People can be taught how to put a card in a machine
then to press their thumbprint in the glass window. Even a severely
mentally-retarded person who would have a conservator anyway can be
taught this kind of simple thing, and that's a lot easier than
counting change to avoid being cheated as is now the case (with
EFT-net, there'd be a record of every transaction, computed by the
computer not the human employee, thus not only would cheating not
happen in the first place unless the computer were programed to
cheat retarded people, but if cheated the conservator could later
take the case to court).
reasons? Are
these people unpersons in the worldnet economy?
Just in the EFT-net. Illegal aliens could still use cash or barter,
or go back where they belong.
This also brings to mind an interesting way to screw people over
in the worldnet economy -- just delete their accounts.
I would hope we'd have enough audit trail to prevent such misuse
from going undetected or unprovable in court.
Have you ever had trouble with your bank account? It's not
pleasant even today, but with worldnet it could prevent you from
eating.
I would hope we could have simple food staples available for free to
anyone who wanted them, thus solving both your EFT-net herring and
the "crime-to-eat" problem some claim we currently have. Thus money
would be needed only for food beyond the basic staples, such as
Chinese restaurants and your choice of soft drinks etc. A balanced
diet of surplus food would be free under REM's term as world-leader.
What good does the cashless society do about crime anyway?
Someone can always force you to transfer money to them. Do you
intend that credit transfer outlets are to be restricted? I can
just see having to visit the bank to lend a friend money.
The customer (account-holder) could set any rules on access that
were understandable to the computer, such as "no more than $100/day
and no more than $400 total between special authorizations". There'd
be a complete audit trail so later you could show you were coerced
into giving away your money for nothing in return, and sue to get it
back.
Also, people can still take your car, or break into your home.
Not if they are adequately protected with security systems (see
preceding message to HUMAN-NETS about calling up the local
militia/citizenry if a crime wave or false-alarm wave breaks out).
Or do you intend that major expensive objects would be
inventoried in worldnet as well? (Clearly all major objects
should be equipped with location tracers to assure against
theft.)
Yup.
Re keeping track of your personal business by the transactions you
do, you can always withdraw cash for anything you want secret, and
thus risk robbery at such times. (But if hardly anyone carries cash,
and you don't tell anyone you're an exception, the potential robber
won't know to try hitting you, so you'll be safer than you are now
when robbery is rampant.) Re enforcing tax and minimum-wage laws, I
guess I'm in favor of that. After all, why should the dishonest
people get to rob me by not paying their fair share of taxes and
thus having the tax rate go up to compensate so I have to pay more
than my fair share?
------------------------------
Date: 26 Mar 1983 0909-EST
From: Andrew Scott Beals <RMS.G.BANDY%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC>
Subject: worldnet and non-persons
[enter rabid fascist mode - flames to /dev/null please]
Well, if someone is illiterate and there has been state provided
education his whole life, then tough.
Having non-persons might be a good way to weed out their genes from
the gene pool and thereby improve future generations. Hmm.... Better
yet, we could take away worldnet cards from everyone who has genes
for nasty genetic diseases. And take them away from repeat
offenders.
And since they [people without worldnet cards or info about them in
the computers...] aren't real people, they aren't protected under
the law, so.... (see Fred Pohl's Bipohl (first story (I can't
remember the name of it right now...sorry)))
Hoboy! Let's implement it today! [exit rabid fascist mode]
------------------------------
Date: 15 Feb 83 18:07:40 PST (Tuesday)
From: Purvy.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #10
With respect to Gellens' remark that "Supermarkets, department
stores, apartments, etc, all refuse to establish accounts (check
cashing cards, credit accounts, leases) without disclosure of my
social security number":
I've often refused to give my social security number and gotten away
with it. What do I mean by "gotten away with it"? I mean that I
got the credit card, rented the car, got the apartment, or whatever,
without giving them the number. In fact, I believe I even got my
American Express card that way. Try it!
Where the form asks for social security number, I write "(Privacy
Act)". If the clerk asks about it, just tell him/her that federal
law prohibits ANYONE from requiring a social security number, unless
they really require it, where "require" is strictly defined, i.e.
they are an employer, bank, brokerage house, or other institution
that reports tax information to the government. This happens to be
true.
Bob
------------------------------
Date: 19 February 1983 2323-EST (Saturday)
From: Thomas.Newton at CMU-CS-A
Subject: EFT/Crime
No one "drives" a person to crime, except maybe another
criminal. It's about time that people stop dismissing crime as the
result of our society. Human nature is such that there will always
be people willing to rob/maim/kill others for money or even just for
the "thrill" of it. The way to deal with criminals is to punish
them, not to tell them that it isn't their fault.
It seems to me that EFT is safer only when the robber isn't
smart enough to make you give him your password--which is unlikely.
There have been reports of robbers who wait by teller machines at
night waiting for people to come by, then rob them as they withdraw
their money or leave. On the other hand, EFT is convenient. I
would not like to see a total EFT system, but I would like to see
more stores that accept EFT cards as well as cash.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Feb 83 22:00:57-EST (Sat)
From: Henry Dreifus <dreifus.upenn@UDel-Relay>
Subject: ''Electronic cash: The Smart Card''
Henry Dreifus
The Wharton School of Business
University of Pennsylvania
Let me begin with a few useful references:
K.H. Humes, The cashless/checkless society? Don't bank on it!, The
Futurist, October, 1978. pp. 301-306.
M. Turoff and I.A. Mitroff, A case study of assessment applied to
the cashless society concept, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, vol. 7, 1975. pp. 317-325.
{see also: Hiltz and Turoff, The Network Nation.}
Arthur D. Little, Inc. The Consequences of Electronic Funds
Transfer, a Technology Assessment of Movement Towards a
Cashless/Checkless Society, Cambridge, Mass. 1975.
The lubricant of the American economy is the electronic transaction.
Whether we physically have our VISA card embossed on a four part
carbon, or write a check, nothing "physically" happens until a
computer somewhere, someplace is given this information. It
classically has been this translation process, from paper to
computer data which we class "The computer made a mistake with our
billing". This even happens literally right under our noses! Once
an associate rented a car in Denver, and upon returning the customer
service person punched in return mileage: 1010240 when she should
have said 10240, thus charging him (he found later) for 100,000
extra miles. Had this and other information been captured and
recorded automatically, a $27,000.00+ bill may not have occurred.
Imagine driving 100,000 miles in two days.
One study hazards a rough guess of 15 million retail transactions
per hour take place in America today (from Colton et. al., Computers
and Banking, Plenum Press, 1980). I place the number somewhat
higher. If indeed we are at the mercy of a transactional economy,
moving at very high speed, how can the consumer protect himself?
Legally the issue is far from controlled. At present it is
state-by-state legislation of EFT and electronic cash. Socially
consumer preference, given a choice between paying cash and using a
credit card, tends strongly to use the credit method. Protecting
the public is a problem. In case of a stolen card the maximum
liability an individual must assume is $ 50.00. Most stolen credit
cards never surface again into the economy. The equivalent amount in
cash will always be honored in our economy.
The real concern is protection from the electronic jungle. A number
of proposed solutions revolve around providing a two way credit (or
debit) card, which store a second copy of the transaction. This
electronic receipt is consumer protection. VISA corporation, a
marketing company, will soon be distributing a read/write credit
card, which will store information on the magnetic stripe. The
capacity on today's cards is at most 1,800 bits. The new VISA card
will have approximately 100K bits. My feeling is a card will need to
store at least 1.5 to 2.0 megabytes. If a card can record every
transaction, the consumer can have a legal form of proof for his
protection. If this card contained his private key, the transactions
can also be encrypted - as a part of a transaction's validation.
Personal questions, a bit encoded signature pattern, and other
improved forms of identification could also be encoded. If a card
is stolen, it can be programmed out of the system, and immediately
suspended (and tracked down).
Burroughs corporation, G.T.E., Smart Card, Inc., Payment Systems,
Inc., and other high technology companies are moving into this
field. There is a large push taking place in the industry to
innovating the smart-card. Jerry Drexler's Drexler Technology
Corporation has a 1 mb laser stripe which has the same geometry as
the magnetic stripe. Unfortunately, the terminal reader does not
exist as of yet. There is a good deal of quiet competition taking
place. The major issue to tackle is standardization. At present,
there exist no standard "universal transaction", which ultimately
will be needed for these cards.
The French and British have been using Smart Cards since 1979. The
reaction thus far has been mixed. Clearly, these cards are useful,
and people are willing to use them. There are numerous applications
which this card can be used in place of cash. Direct purchase of
oil and gas is one such field receiving much attention. I would
personally not be surprised if ARCO (Atlantic Richfield Corporation)
does not offer a debit form of electronic card for point of sale
operations. They have removed the "credit" dumb card, and are
probably the only company in a position to offer such a service at
this time.
With human intervention necessary for transaction keying and
processing, the cost per transaction can be as high as $ 2.50. A
totally electronic transaction should cost no more than $0.18 to
$0.25. Unfortunately, to handle a completely electronic transaction,
many things will have to occur. Retailers will have to install
terminals capable of handling the cards. The 1980 median cost for
such a terminal was $ 1,975.00. The cost will have to drop to
between $ 250.00 and $ 400.00 before retailers will be willing to
cooperate.
Cash will never disappear. The smart card will happen. I only hope
it is done correctly.
Henry Dreifus
------------------------------
Date: 22 Feb 1983 2047-CST
From: Werner Uhrig <CS.WERNER@UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Cost of Credit Card Purchases to Merchants
WHAT ARE THE REAL COST TO THE MERCHANT OF CREDIT CARD PURCHASES?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone out there KNOW for certain? (I know, but only from
hear-say)
- what charges the banks make in each card-transaction to the
merchant?
- are there fixed charges to the merchants (startup, periodic)?
- are charges always a fixed percentage of the purchase, or are
there variations?
- how do the costs of handling checks and cash compare with cards?
If anyone remembers having seen anything in print or electronic
media regarding this topic, by all means, let me know, too.
---Werner (cs.werner@utexas-20)
P.S.: Send replies to me. If I receive more than 5 requests for
copies, I assume there is enough interest for this
information to send a summary to the BBOARD
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************