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
-----------------------------------