Pleasant@Rutgers.ARPA (03/26/83)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Saturday, 26 Mar 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 12
Today's Topics:
Queries - Network Protocols &
Electronic Mail Resource Usage Statistics,
Technology - EFT (2 msgs) & WorldNet (2 msgs),
Computers and the Law - Stay-Home Ankle Bracelet (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri 7 Jan 83 03:41:54-EST
From: Marc Shapiro <Shapiro@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: Request for info
I need info on the following topics:
* Are there any implementations of either TCP/IP or TCP alone
*above* X.25 for DEC-20 and/or Vax/unix
* all possible info on Ethernet/X.25 gateways, supported
protocols and what they are worth.
Thanks. Please reply directly to SHAPIRO@MIT-XX.
------------------------------
Date: 9-Mar-83 16:42 PST
From: WBD.TYM@OFFICE-3
Subject: Electronic Mail System Info Wanted
Does anyone have a list of references for EM system usage? Has
anyone done any studies on electronic mail usage and comparisons of
mail systems? Thanks, --Bill
------------------------------
Date: 14 Feb 83 23:28:39 EST (Mon)
From: Ron Natalie <ron@Brl-Bmd.ARPA>
Subject: EFT
Charles Osgood (CBS News) tells a story of a man who gets angry at a
malfunction 24-hour teller machine and starts beating on it. A
couple of days later the police come and arrest him for criminal
damage of property (or something like that). The moral being...
...Before you hit a machine, make sure it doesn't know where
you live.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Feb 83 10:59:13 PST (Tuesday)
From: Poskanzer.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA
Subject: Bleeding-heart Libertarian objection to EFT.
Please don't object to EFT of the basis of Big-Brotherism /
infringement of personal freedoms. The current non-cash systems
(checks, credit / debit cards) are far more prone to mis-use and
error than any reasonable EFT system would be.
It is certainly true that EFT systems will leave audit trails for
all transactions. However, these audit trails \need not/ be
available to {insert favorite bogeyman}. The crucial element is a
proven trapdoor encipherment scheme. Here is a scenario:
You pull into the Mustang Ranch for some good clean fun. Since
you're on the board of directors of the Moral Majority, you don't
want your "indiscretion" to become public. But not to worry -
you're carrying the American EFTpress card. The card contains an
encrypting circuit, your private key Ypri, your bank's public key
Bpub, some storage, a clock, and a numeric keypad. You punch the
amount of the transfer into the card: $50.00. It composes an inner
message saying "pay bearer $50, the time is 030015feb83 and this
is transaction #5678". It enciphers that using Ypri, and adds a
preamble saying "this is from Jef Poskanzer and the time is
030015feb83". This message it saves, enciphers with Bpub, and
adds another preamble saying "send me to DataBank of Kansas". Now
you're ready - you plug the card into the appropriate receptacle.
The card transmits its message, which is basically equivalent to a
$50 check made out to CASH. Now the whorehouse's computer
enciphers and sends the message to its bank, Clearinghouse of
Nevada. (I'm leaving out some steps now.) That bank deciphers,
verifies the whorehouse's identity, and sends to your bank. Your
bank deciphers with Bpri, sees your name and the date, deciphers
with Ypub, checks that the two dates match, checks that your
transaction #5678 has not already been used, and then debits your
account and transfers $50 to Clearinghouse of Nevada. There the
$50 is credited to the Mustang Ranch's account and a confirming
message is sent back to the ranch, where a little green light
comes on. All in less then ten seconds.
Now, note that \no-one/ knows both who you are and where you are.
The ranch and its bank know that someone with an account at the
DataBank of Kansas likes a little fun. The DataBank knows that you
just paid $50 to someone with an account at Clearinghouse of Nevada.
Of course, the banks could conspire and pool their information, but
then why are you banking with a company you can't trust? And
remember that the point is not to achieve perfect security and
privacy, but to have \better/ security and privacy than we have
right now.
And if you're still not happy, you can always use cash! As long as
you don't worry about fingerprints...
Jef
------------------------------
Date: 7 February 1983 07:35 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Re: Worldnet & Lawyers
I think the way of distinguishing libel slander and free-speech will
have to change. (I.e. I want it to change.) Instead of the
distinction being on whether it was spoken, handwritten, typed,
typeset, or computer-mailed, the distinction should be on whether
the utterer allows the victim reasonable redress.
If I send out a message to HUMAN-NETS saying "John Doe is a rotten
programmer and shouldn't be trusted to write a 10-line program", and
if John Doe is on this mailing list and has the ability to reply to
rebut my claim, then he has been offered reasonable redress and
although my statement might be nasty and unsociable it's within the
range of free discussion.
But if I print up 10,000 leaflets and distribute them around town,
making the same statement, and I don't offer John Doe a chance to
rebut my statements in the same manner, or if I broadcast my
statement on television or radio and the station or network doesn't
offer John Doe a chance to speak in rebuttal, then I'm not offering
reasonable redress, and it's slander or whatever.
If I broadcast my statement on nationwide TV, but then offer a
chance to reply, it's borderline, because the harm to his reputation
may have been already done by the time he can reply.
Perhaps on future networks the law can be that anyone making a
derogatory claim about anyone else is subject to slander suit unless
he first offers the slandered person a chance to reply. If the reply
is given, ten counter-reply is allowed, etc. until one or the other
passes. Then all the back and forth stuff is put in the public
domain at the same time. Like bills to be signed by the President,
if the offer to reply isn't answered within a prescribed time (2
working days?) then it's an automatic pass.
------------------------------
Date: 8 February 1983 04:43 EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
Subject: Do we really want a worldnet?
Robert,
I read your message with interest, but I don't think my attitude is
quite the same as yours.
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM>
"Anybody want to warn about some of the Orwell-style misuses
possible with what I claim I want?"
I spent five (5) minutes listing all the abuses I could think of. I
have let my fantasy run wild, so please do not mail me responses of
the form "THIS CAN'T HAPPEN HERE." Thank you.
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.
"I don't like the current system where one must carry around
papers to prove you are a valid person . . ."
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?
You'd be the worst kind of unperson without the proper worldnet
validation.
What about people who haven't been able to join worldnet for legal
(undocumented aliens) or practical (illiteracy, poverty) reasons?
Are these people unpersons in the worldnet economy? This also
brings to mind an interesting way to screw people over in the
worldnet economy -- just delete their accounts.
". . . not having to carry around cash would reduce the
incentive to get robbed in the first place . . ."
Have you ever had trouble with your bank account? It's not pleasant
even today, but with worldnet it could prevent you from eating. In
the cashless society, credit problems are serious business.
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. Also, people can still
take your car, or break into your home. 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.)
It has been pointed out before (in HUMAN-NETS, I think) that there
is great potential for tracing the everyday activity of an
individual (or perhaps I should say, "account-id") when all
transactions are EFT. I'd like to also note the wonderful potential
for regulation and planning of the economy. Why fill out tax
returns when the IRS can simply assess charges against your worldnet
account? They can surely do a better job than you can -- they have
all your records!
And what better method for enforcing the law than a computerized
record of what you've been doing recently? There are already laws
about the amount of cash you can take out of the country in one
year. What about enforcing the minimum wage laws for a change? How
about really cracking down on illegal gambling? Which reminds me,
who needs a search warrant? Why should the police need to ask
anyone about looking into your personal effects, when everything
anyone would want to know is available on file?
"Why can't they accept thumbprints as an alternate way of
identifying people?"
Why not voiceprints, for that matter? This sounds like another
excellent way of keeping track of everyone's personal movements.
And if fingerprint and voiceprint identifying equipment is
sufficiently widespread, there is no need to carry ID. There's also
no way to hide your everyday movements from anyone, either.
"Or why can't they connect with TRW or other major credit firm
and identify I'm really me by asking me personal questions that
aren't known to anybody except me and the credit agencies?"
Here you must mean "aren't known to anybody except me, TRW, and
people who can connect with TRW to read this information."
"if everybody carried around a little radio transmitter that
detected your . . . losing vital functions . . ."
Do you really expect to be rescued in time? Instead of creating an
incentive for people not to rob you, rather they will shoot first
and remove your wallet later! Of course, equipment like this makes
all the previous computer work at finding your location rather
useless, as all the data is right there for the taking.
Making medical data available on-line makes for some interesting
possibilities. Data connections are two-way, so you could have a
remotely-controlled sedative inducer when you got too excited.
Another possibility is described in the SF story, "Shadrach in the
Furnace," by Robert Silverberg.
Lest you think I haven't been sufficiently paranoid, I draw your
attention to the synergetic effects which can be obtained from
widely available voiceprinting, recording devices, psychological
stress evaluators (a form of "lie detector"), and AI
word-recognition techniques. Not to mention the potentials of
subliminal advertising and color display terminals.
I hope I'm just kidding,
-- Steve
------------------------------
Date: 15 March 1983 22:47 EST
From: Steven A. Swernofsky <SASW @ MIT-MC>
Subject: The future is now?
NEWSWEEK, March 21, 1983, p. 53:
``WEARING A JAIL CELL AROUND YOUR ANKLE''
It's waterproof, two inches wide, worn on the ankle and it tells
your probation officer when you've left home. Beginning this week
in an Albuquerque district court, small-time criminals will have a
choice: go to jail or agree to wear an electronic device that will
alert authorities when they are more than 200 feet from their home
phones. ``The idea is to substitute a curfew at home for jail,''
says Judge Jack Love, who got the idea for the anklet from a
Spider-Man cartoon. Whenever offenders leave home -- or try to
remove the anklet -- a transmitter planted in their telephones will
send a special signal to a probation-department computer. If the
offender doesn't have a good excuse for leaving, he could go
directly to jail.
Public defender Bruce Kelly opposes the anklet and will challenge
its constitutionality as soon as one of his clients is asked to wear
one. ``The idea of having Big Brother monitoring people at all
times should be resisted,'' he says. But the New Mexico Civil
Liberties Union endorsed the anklet as a way to reduce jail
crowding. And the company that makes them, National Incarceration
Monitor and Control Services, hopes that the 30 units New Mexico has
purchased will lead to sales of 200,000 nationwide.
------------------------------
Date: 15 March 1983 23:31 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: The future is now?
I think the stay-home ankle bracelet is a great use for technology,
making easy something that was totally impossible 200 years ago when
this nation started. But it shouldn't be used in any case except as
an alternative to jail/prison. Perhaps *all* nonviolent convicted
criminals should be kept at home with these devices instead of jail,
being sent to jail only after they have broken this computerized
curfew.
------------------------------
Date: 16 Mar 1983 0106-EST
From: ZALESKI@RUTGERS (Mike Zaleski)
Subject: Stay-home Ankle Bracelet
Although this seems like a good idea, I wonder how well it will work
in practice, since presumably the criminal working in the privacy of
his/her home will be able to work out some method of circumventing
this device. (Such as building a radio transmitter which transmits
on the same frequency and "looks" like the real thing.)
-- Mike^Z
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************