taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (06/21/86)
Computers and Society Digest, Number 8 Monday, January 6th 1986 Topics of discussion in this issue... Re: Computers and Society Digest #7 Worms and the unreadability of binaries. Personality changes from electronic communication... Re: Computers and Society Digest #5 Killer Robots ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Computers and Society Digest #7 Date: 21 Dec 85 22:41:56 PST (Sat) From: Bob Desinger <hpda!hpitg!bd> I don't take drugs either, but I *do* take computers. (Perhaps we should start a discussion about computer-work as means to escape reality. On the other hand, maybe the psychological studies about workaholics have covered all the answers already.) Uh, this is just one man's opinion, but I thought the last C&SD about the pharmaceutical database was long compared with the point it was trying to make. (Actually, the excerpt was long; your comments were much more thought-provoking and to the point.) Maybe I'm just a malcontent. Just wanted to keep you posted, plus let you know that I do read the stuff. Written on a Saturday night by -- bd ------------------------------ Subject: Worms and the unreadability of binaries. Date: 21 Dec 85 20:41:23 N (Sat) From: Jack Jansen <hplabs!utah-cs!seismo!mcvax!jack> I think the problem of worms in commercially available software touches on one of the greatest misfeatures of the current generation of computer-software: You cannot find out in any feasible way *how* they do something. Dis-asembling object code is clearly out for 99.99% of the microcomputer owners, and even if they have the manpower to do it, it's probably easier to rewrite your application from scratch. This issue also came up in net.dcom (I think) recently, in a slightly different form. The problem posed there was that there is *no way* you can be sure that your in-house telephone exchange hasn't got some 'features' built into the firmware that allows eavesdropping on even in-house calls by someone phoning in from outside. The issue is fundamentally different from, say, making sure that Ford hasn't put a bomb in the engine of your new car. It will take the average car-technician a few minutes to run through the motor to assure you it isn't bugged. This is clearly not the case with software. One possible solution would be to have all software in some more readable form than binary object code, in some lisp-like language, for instance. This might sound ridiculous, but, aside from the fact that it makes software at least a bit more readable (yes, I *do* believe that lisp is more readable than object code, albeit marginally so:-), it also makes it possible for a reasonably trained person to customize small bits of the program to the customers need (Think of output in different languages, different screen layouts, etc). So, even though the software will probably run slower, it might very well pay off. Jack Jansen, jack@mcvax.UUCP The shell is my oyster. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Dec 85 18:26:56 MST From: hpcnou!dat (Dave Taylor) Subject: Personality changes from electronic communication... [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." ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Computers and Society Digest #5 Date: 16 Dec 85 14:29:05 PST (Mon) From: Bob Desinger <hpda!hpitg!bd> Gary North may have a valid basis to worry, but his melodramatic tone is better suited to Firesign Theatre albums. His tone reminded me of Dr. Happy Harry Cox ("This is no crazed sterno bum. This is a respected law enforcement official, Sheriff Luger Axehandle of Hellmouth County, California." [Everything You Know is Wrong]). I suspect that most of the people on the C&SD mailing list are technologists (like me) who were pretty turned off by the hyperbole (like me) despite the interesting points. Really, how can I take a guy seriously if he tries to show us How Serious It All Is by relating the situation to "War Games"? It would be amusing except for the real-life stories (as opposed to his alarmist "what-if" scenarios) about Microsoft, and the similar story in C&SD digest #6. Don't *tell* us a situation is serious, *show* us that it's serious by the facts. Save the fiction for comic books and late movies. Bob Desinger PS: Keep the C&SD coming -- it's thought-provoking! ------------------------------ From: JP Massar at ihnp4!godot!massar Subject: Killer Robots Date: copied January 6th, 1986 [from net.general] "A much more sinister arrival on the robot scene is named Prowler. Created by Robot Defense Systems in Colorado, Prowler has been designed for use as a sentry to guard military installations, warehouses and other sites where security is important. When made available in the near future, this squat, sturdy, mobile device will carry microcomputers, software and sensors capable of locating intruders. Chillingly, buyers will be able to arm Prowler with machine guns and grenade launchers; they'll also be able to program the robot to fire at will. The manufacturer claims that interest in Prowler has been high, both among domestic companies who see it as a comparatively low-cost replacement for 24-hour human security, and certain foreign countries where government officials might prefer guards that will never revolt." -- US Air magazine -- JP Massar, Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA -- ihnp4!godot!massar, massar@think.com.arpa -- 617-876-1111 [The question is - what are people going to think about technology after the first person is killed through an accident by one of these metal demons? Are we really advanced enough in hardware/software to create these? Would you want to WORK at a place that used these fellows to guard the premises? -- Dave] ----------------------------------- To have your item included in this digest, please mail it to any of the addresses; ihnp4!hplabs!taylor, or taylor@HPLABS.CSNET. You can also simply respond to this mailing. ----------------------------------- End of Computers and Society Digest -----------------------------------