Pleasant@Rutgers.arpa (02/15/83)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 15 Feb 1983 Volume 6 : Issue 10
Today's Topics:
Technology - EFT (6 msgs),
Humor - Systems Analyst & Valgol
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 Feb 1983 0158-EST
From: ZALESKI%RU-GREEN@RUTGERS (Mike Zaleski [Secular Humanist])
Subject: EFT as a Crimestopper?
I am prompted to write by Mr. Maas' recent experiences with the
criminal element and his expressed interest in Electronic Funds
Transfer (EFT - the so called "cashless" society), and in some sort
of emergency signaling device that people could use in the event of
similar attacks.
First, noting that it is not reasonable to expect every candy
machine and video game is going to accept a universal master credit
card, let us instead examine the idea of a "less cash" society.
Now, I don't argue that less cash might lead to less crime, but I
have serious doubts that EFT is likely in the near future. Three
reasons: (1) The cost of setting up and maintaining such a system.
[Who will pay and why should those who pay - merchants and bankers -
be motivated to do so? After all, they pay a large initial cost for
a rather small gain.] (2) The technology for an UNQUESTIONABLY
reliable nationwide network is simply not there. [This is money,
not network mail that will be lost or stolen.] (3) The public does
not seem to have much demand or interest in such a system. [In
fact, we would be well advised to be wary of any system with the
potential for monitoring our every expense, our spending habits, and
ultimately our every movement.
Second, the emergency signaling device idea. The technology may be
available for this, but again I am wary. Again, something that can
monitor my every movement makes me nervous. But even a transmit
only device has its problems. First, the technical one of
monitoring and sorting out all the distress signals. The 911 number
in New York has problems with this now and I see no reason to expect
that any emergency paging system would have different results.
Second, unless the long arm of the law is right around the corner,
signaling for help will serve no purpose, as the perpetrators will
probably flee quickly. Finally, without some way of indicating some
detail about the emergency situation (i.e. auto accident, fire,
heart attack, crazed killer) such a device is unlikely to be of much
value. Just reporting "emergency at 7th Avenue and 34th Street"
isn't enough.
What I found most interesting about Mr. Maas' message is his
interest in the use of technology to make us less vulnerable or less
attractive to the criminal element. Yet, even if he had no cash,
Mr. Maas might still have been a prime target because he had a fancy
watch, an expensive jacket or some other article which cannot be
electronically filed away. Or, perhaps to the urban psychopaths
with whom he tangled part of the joy of the criminal act was simply
in beating him up. If I read the original message correctly, there
must have been at least two people taking on Mr. Maas - one armed
with a knife. Presumably under such circumstances little resistance
was offered and the only explanation for the bloody nose is that the
urban psychopaths enjoy beating people up. (Perhaps my analysis of
this particular incident is wrong. Nevertheless, there are
criminals out there who enjoy hurting others.) So what am I leading
up to...???
I suggest an application of 19th century technology is required
here. A rope, with a noose at the end, placed round the neck of
anyone convicted of three violent or armed criminal acts. Note that
the noose is at a height somewhat higher than the neck of the
multiply convicted criminal. This ultimately leads to the permanent
reform of those criminals who present the violent menace to our
society. I do not argue that this idea will reform, nor do I argue
that it will deter the first and second time offender. But what it
does - unquestionably - do is permanently remove a repeat offender
from society. And if repeat offenders are responsible for most
crime, every one that is executed makes society just a little safer.
Awaiting the backlash, -- Mike^Z (Zaleski%Green@Rutgers or
..mhtsa!pwbcc!mzal)
------------------------------
Date: 8 February 1983 22:42 EST
From: Thomas L. Davenport <TLD @ MIT-MC>
Subject: EFT etc.
Robert, I understand how awful being robbed is. I have also been
robbed. However, I don't ever want to see the day that I can't use
cash, and must use some form of EFT. I don't want my identification
tacked on to every transaction that I make. Three cheers for the
underground economy!
-Tom-
------------------------------
Date: 9 Feb 83 00:06:09 PST (Wed)
From: UCBARPA.fair@Berkeley (Erik E. Fair)
Subject: EFT Theft
Around here, there is a new columnist in the paper, who
recently did a column on EFT theft. Modus Operandi: Thief comes up
to you (behind you, from side, etc), with some lethal weapon, and
says "Yer money, or yer life!". You, being a non-confrontational
soul, hand over your wallet. You, also being no dummy in \this/ part
of town, have no cash. Thief espies your Automatic Teller Machine
card, and demands your secret (password, number, ID, etc). You tell
him. Highly (intelligent, experienced, lucky, etc) thief takes you
to the nearest branch of (your bank here), up to the ATM, puts in
your card, and punches in your number. What you told him had better
be right, since your life depends upon it right now. Thief can now
draw on LOTS of money in $20 increments, up to your limit, whatever
that may be, until you can get to the bank, and cancel the card.
Point: EFT isn't really safe either.
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@Berkeley
------------------------------
Date: 10 February 1983 00:00 EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC>
Subject: EFT etc.
No, I don't want to outlaw cash, I just want another option, doing
95% of my transactions using non-cash. Currently only about half my
transactions can be done by written check, which is time-consuming
and uncomfortable, and works only at stores that know you, and
almost none can be done by credit card. (Ever try to buy groceries
on Mastercard or VISA or any of the less common credit cards?)
------------------------------
Date: 8 Feb 83 23:50:00-EST (Tue)
From: Randall Gellens <randall.udel-cc-unixa@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V6 #7
In order to reduce crime, no one uses tangable instruments of
negotiation, relying instead on validated access to central credit
information and financial processing centers? Sounds awful to me.
Sure, we can eliminate crime to an arbitrary extent by
correspondingly eliminating personal freedoms, privacies, and
perogatives; sacrificing these to a powerful central authority.
I think too much has already occurred along these lines. If
victimless crimes were legalized, most of their ill effects would
vanish. If drugs could be freely purchased in pharmacies, assuring
the customer of standards of quality and price, then the violent
crime, disease, etc now associated with their present illegal use
would be gone. If prostitution were a legal, licensed, professional
practice, then the current conditions of exploitation, corruption,
and disease could be eliminated.
On the other hand, if someone gives me a check, I have trouble
cashing it (even at the bank on which it is drawn) without
presenting id and answering irrelevant questions. Supermarkets,
department stores, apartments, etc, all refuse to establish
accounts (check cashing cards, credit accounts, leases) without
disclosure of my social security number. Even though all
information necessary for the account (bank account, bad check
history, previous credit, lease etc handling) can all be verified
without it, they insist on it.
In a society such as REM desires, there would be no easy way to make
a private transaction (buying certain substances, publications, or
services) nor prevent disclosure of virtually all private
information (bank balance, credit history, transaction history, etc)
form persons both authorized (the "authorities") and not (clerks
etc). [Hey, Senator Sam buys "Orgies in the Casbah" magazine, buys
$850 of booze a week, and transfers $5k to "Jack Armstrong" every 2
weeks!]
------------------------------
Date: 13 Feb 83 17:35:14-EST (Sun)
From: the soapbox of Gene Spafford <spaf.gatech@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Mugging
I finally saw the news item about your mugging.
I don't think EFT is going to take the place of cash, nor do I think
it will decrease the incidence of the type of crime you experienced.
First of all, there are so many types of transactions which depend
on pocket money I doubt that any form of EFT would meet with enough
approval to be successful. For instance, think of the whole class
of people who live on gratuities. With EFT they would be less
likely to get "keep the change" tips. They'd even have to account
for it to the IRS!
How about vending machines? Is it going to be worthwhile to set up
electronics and communications for each soda machine and every
cigarette machine? Doubtful. How about phone booths? Here in
Atlanta the trains and buses are entered with coins, not tokens.
How about all those nice tollway booths on the roads in NJ and
Virginia and the like (if you've never travelled up I-95 then you
may not be aware of how many quarters it takes for all those cars).
We also have our alternative economic forms to worry about. How are
pushers and pimps going to deal with electronic funds? Fences? Car
strippers? Politicians taking bribes?
This is just a first reaction. I'm not sure how many people would
feel secure knowing that their life savings have been reduced to
magnetic bits on disk somewhere. I realize that this is the current
state for some, but it is not the general case. And even if all our
funds and finances were to be done electronically, you would still
be worth mugging. There will always be types out there who will not
be able to afford your clothes, your watch or your shoes. There
will always be some who will covet your escort and want to take out
their hostility on you. In fact, if all you were carrying was
credit cards you might have been killed; that way, they could do a
little shopping spree without you reporting the cards as missing.
You made a suggestion about some kind of emergency beeper. I don't
think it is practical. It might be someday, or for very high-risk
individuals, but I doubt it. How would you determine if somebody
was eligible for one? Who would pay for it? 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. I also know 20 or 30 ways
of incapacitating someone so they couldn't press a button, but they
wouldn't have any change of vital signs to trigger an implicit
alarm.
Crime is a problem that we need to solve, and not by minimizing our
losses, but by minimizing the criminal element. We don't do much in
this country to deal with the rage and frustration of people in
their 20's and 30's with families and no job. We spend billions on
weapons we never hope to use to "protect" them. We spend billions
more to prop up petty dictatorships in other countries. And our
poor see that their benefits shrink, more of them are unemployed,
their funds for education are cut, and their is talk of taxing what
little they are given.
I'm sorry you got mugged, and I hope you suffered no lasting damage.
I don't believe there is any excuse for one person to do damage to
another. I believe that our funds might be better spent eliminating
the things which drive people to crime, rather than developing
systems which would minimize our losses.
------------------------------
Date: 8 Feb 1983 2106-EST
From: John S. Labovitz <RMS.G.HNIJ at MIT-OZ>
This was from some issue of ComputerWorld between July and November
1982, in another column by Jean Tricebook. I don't know how
applicable it is to the `hacker world,' but I think it's amusing.
*****
`REAL ANALYSTS' DON'T LOST SLEEP OVER WALKTHROUGHS
The person who was once a Real Programmer and is now struggling
to become a Real Analyst has a difficult transition to make. Like
it or not, he must organize and plan projects, attempting to please
such diverse groups as operations, programming and users. He's
probably already noticed that yelling at a programmer elicits a
response he never experienced when cursing at a terminal.
If he's been an analyst since the days when his work was
mysterious and his word was law, the analyst needs new guidance now.
In this age of structured walk-throughs, standards manuals and tech
bulletins, how is an analyst to cope?
Guidance is here. The suggestions below should help the
systems analyst get his act together -- and they are listed in
unstructured format:
- Real Analysts speak English.
- Real Analysts have read at least one Yourdon book (with
which they did not fully agree).
- Real analysts are not baffled by complex equipment, such
as the copier or telephone.
- Real Analysts do not lose sleep before a walk-through.
- Real Analysts say ``I don't know'' when they don't.
- Real Analysts understand the more exotic Cobol verbs,
but cannot get a simple WRITE statement to work.
- Real Analysts write in English.
- Real Analysts know who does what in operations.
- Real Analysts do not read code.
- Real Analysts always leave the user smiling.
- Real Analysts know what they are doing.
- Real Analysts know each of the unique names by which
operations, programming, users and management refer to the same
system.
- Real Analysts lack facility with TSS commands.
- Real Analysts can maintain a cooperative relationship
with quality assurance.
- Real Analysts can install a software package without
psychiatric treatment for hostility and anxiety.
- Real Analysts are not intimidated by contractors.
- Real Analysts can attend a meeting of the Technical
Standards Committee and still work the rest of the day.
- Real Analysts don't work on weekends.
- Real Analysts can't write JCL.
- Real Analysts don't tell war stories about the good old
days.
- Real Analysts are kind to programmers.
- Real Analysts dress for success when they have a walk-
through.
- Real Analysts read books like ``Effective Listening and
Communication Skills.''
------------------------------
Date: 9-Feb-83 11:52 PST
From: WBD.TYM@OFFICE-3
Subject: The TRUE History Of VALGOL
From: Don Andrews (dia.tym@office)
VALGOL I and II were developed by Val Shorre about the ed
Compilers). The VALGOL's were ALGOL-like languages implemented in
Val's Meta II compiler writing system. All were revealed in "A
Syntax-Oriented Compiler Writing Language", D. V. Shorre, but my
hardcopy does not have the name of the publication on it!! Ah,
here we go-- it's the Proceedings of the 19th National Conference of
the ACM, 1964. --Don
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************