Human-Nets-Request@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles McGrew, The Moderator) (12/20/85)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 19 Dec 1985 Volume 8 : Issue 38
Today's Topics:
Computers and the Law - The 10 Most Wanted Fugitives,
Computers and People - The "Hacker" Game (3 msgs) &
Computer Etiquette
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: <DAUL@OFFICE-1.ARPA>
Date: 3 Dec 85 00:10 PST
From: William Daul / McDonnell-Douglas / APD-ASD
From: <WBD.TYM@OFFICE-1.ARPA>
Subject: "10 Most Wanted Fugitives"
FROM COMPUTERWORLD (Dec 2?)
Washington, D.C. -- Biographies and digitial pictures of fugitives
who appear on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's "10 Most Wanted
Fugitives" list are now available on the Compuserve Information
Service, from Compuserve, Inc. of Columbus, Ohio.
Compuserve and FBI officials worked together to produce the online
service, hoping it will turn up some clues that will lead to the
apprehension of the fugitives.
"Many of our subscribers are professionals such as doctors, lawyers
and dentists. Like everyone else, the fugitives require the use of
their services.
In addition, many of these fugitives have distinct scars, tatoos and
limps ... so alert subscribers may spot one of them," according to a
Compuserve spokesman.
------------------------------
Return-path: <KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 85 11:28:22 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Hacker game
To: BEC.SHAPIN@USC-ECL.ARPA
Cc: risks@SRI-CSL.ARPA
Date: Mon 18 Nov 85 11:54:52-PST
From: Ted Shapin <BEC.SHAPIN@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Activision
HACKER
Makes you feel like you've unlocked someone else's computer
system!
...
This "product" is socially irresponsible! It leads young people
to think breaking into unknown systems is OK. The "world" they
discover may be the world of the penal system!
I don't see what's wrong with this. This is better than cracking
for real, and I doubt that anyone will learn any useful cracking
techniques from this game.
Do you also think that toy guns should be banned? What about
Adventure, Zork, and Dungeons and Dragons, which teach people to kill
and to steal?
I think fantasy role playing games are of great benefit. They give
people of all ages a chance to 'get it out of their system' in a
harmless way.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: <CMP.WERNER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Date: Sat 23 Nov 85 13:28:39-CST
From: Werner Uhrig <CMP.WERNER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: is game similating security of *REAL* machines?
Subject: (Re: Irresponsible)
To: BEC.SHAPIN@USC-ECL.ARPA
Cc: risks@SRI-CSL.ARPA
I wouldn't be surprised if this game actually simulates the security
features (or lack thereof) of some real-life systems ...
... in which case, it's *REALLY* time to be alarmed. On the other
hand, this just might cause a lot of sites to decide to pay attention
to improving their security, or cause efforts which advance the state
of the art of security, which wouldn't be that bad, when you think
about it.
has someone with access to the game and knowledge of the security
features of different minis/mainframes checked this out yet?
------------------------------
Return-path: <BEC.SHAPIN@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Date: Mon 2 Dec 85 10:34:02-PST
From: Ted Shapin <BEC.SHAPIN@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Re: is game similating security of *REAL* machines?
Subject: (Re: Irresponsible)
To: CMP.WERNER@R20.UTEXAS.EDU
Cc: risks@SRI-CSL.ARPA
No, I heard the game is a maze type game, not a simulation of security
on any real system. The advertisement is just hype to sell the game.
Ted.
------------------------------
Return-path: <steve@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
Subject: Try again
Date: 15 Dec 85 09:54:01 GMT (Sun)
From: Steve Kille <steve@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>
[Ed. Note: Due to the rather convoluted forwarding path of this
message, I have included all forwarding information.]
---- Forwarded Message ----
From: Peter Lloyd (on ICF GEC 4090 at Cardiff)
From: <XMCF10@uk.ac.cardiff.geca>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 85 19:25 GMT
Subject: Electronic mail etiquette
----- Start of forwarded message.
Date: Wed 4 Dec 85 14:38:11-GMT
From: Alan Greig <CCD-ARG@uk.ac.dct>
Subject: Mailgroup messages
To: mailgroup@UK.AC.Ucl.Cs
Snail-Mail: Computer Centre/Dundee College of Tech/Dundee/Scotland
Sender: mailgroup-request@UK.AC.Ucl.Cs
This appeared in the New York Times a year or so ago and I think went
out on usenet. I apologise in advance if you don't think it has any
relevance but considering the recent comments about the quality of
mailgroup, well it seems relevant to me.
Oh by the way I have my fire extinguisher at the ready...
Alan
/* TOP */
[From The New York Times, Tuesday, October 2, 1984, p. C1]
EMOTIONAL OUTBURSTS PUNCTUATE CONVERSATIONS BY COMPUTER
by Erik Eckholm
Computer buffs call it "flaming." Now scientists are documenting
and trying to explain the surprising prevalence of rudeness,
profanity, exultation and other emotional outbursts by people when
they carry on discussions via computer.
The frequent resort to emotional language is just one of several
special traits of computer communications discovered by behavioral
scientists studying how this new medium affects the message.
Observing both experimental groups and actual working
environments, scientists at Carnegie-Mellon University are comparing
decision-making through face-to-face discussions with that conducted
electronically.
In the experiments, in addition to calling each other more names
and generally showing more emotion, people "talking" by computer took
longer to agree, and their final decisions tended to be more extreme,
involving either greater or lesser risk than the more
middle-of-the-road decisions reached by groups meeting in person.
Curiously, those who made such decisions through electronic
give-and-take believed more strongly in the rightness of their
choices.
As small computers proliferate in offices and homes, more business
discussions that were once pursued face-to-face, by telephone or on
paper are now taking place by way of keyboards and video display
terminals. With electronic mail, messages are left in a central
computer for reading by correspondents on their own computers at their
own convenience. Computer conferences can be carried on
simultaneously or not.
In some offices, observers say, the traditional typed memorandum
is all but extinct, and computer mail is replacing even telephone
calls. Employees in one corporation studied received or sent an
average of 24 computer messages a day.
The unusual characteristics showing up in computer communications
should not be seen as entirely negative, say the researchers. When it
is not insulting, language that is uninhibited and informal helps to
bridge social barriers and may help to draw out some people's ideas.
And more extreme decisions can be innovative and creative instead of
foolish.
Moreover, members of groups talking electronically tend to
contribute much more equally to the discussion.
"This is unusual group democracy," said Dr. Sara Kiesler, a
psychologist at Carnegie-Mellon. "There is less of a tendency for one
person to dominate the conversation, or for others to defer to the one
with the highest status."
LOOSER STANDARDS FOR DISCUSSIONS
Studies of electronic mail is several Fortune 500 corporations
have confirmed the tendency for people to use more informal and
expressive language on the computer than when communicating in person,
by telephone or by memo.
"Whatever the company's pre-existing standards for the expression
of opinion, electronic mail seems to loosen them," Dr. Lee Sproull, a
sociologist at Carnegie-Mellon, said in an interview, But in contrast
with the experimental findings, in the corporate world positive
emotional expressions greatly outnumbered negative ones.
The company studies also indicate that computers are permitting
much wider participation in discussions than in the past, with
employees far from headquarters now able to follow debates and make
their views known.
Unusually expressive language has been one of the most striking
characteristics of computer discussions studied in many different
contexts. "It's mazing," said Dr. Kiesler. "We've seen messages sent
out by managers -- messages that will be seen by thousands of people
-- that use language normally heard in locker rooms."
COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS
The frequent use of exuberant and offensive terms has long been
noted by observers of computer bulletin boards. In 1982 the Defense
Communications Agency, which manages the world's oldest and largest
computer network for use by Pentagon employees and contractors, issued
the following message to potential bulletin board contributors: "Due
to past problems with messages deemed in bad taste by 'the
authorities,' messages sent to this address are manually screened
(generally, every couple of days) before being remailed to the
Boards."
Struggling to explain the free-wheeling language that people use
on computers, the Carnegie-Mellon scientists note that electronic
communications convey none of the non-verbal cues of personal
conversation -- the eye contact, facial expressions and voice
inflections that provide social feedback and my inhibit extreme
behavior. Even a memo, with its letterhead and chosen form, carries
more nonverbal information than does a message on a screen. Also, no
strong rules of etiquette for computer conversation have yet evolved.
Computer writers often become deeply engrossed in their message,
the researchers have found, but their focus tends to be on the text
itself rather than their audience, perhaps another consequence of the
lack of non-verbal feedback.
In a forthcoming paper, Dr. Kiesler and three colleagues posit
that "using computers to communicate draws attention to the technology
and to the content of communication and away from people and
relationships with people."
/* BOTTOM */
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************