taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (06/18/86)
Computers and Society Digest, Number 2
Friday, October 25th 1985
Topics of discussion in this issue...
The Marketing of Computers
Reality hits the Technology Industries
Computers & Society
Strategic Defence Initiative
Comment on "Some Early Comments"
News on computer product liability...
Technology Dependence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 85 12:22:58 est
From: Wombat <hplabs!ihnp4!pur-ee!pucc-j!rsk>
Subject: The Marketing of Computers
I've been wondering about the marketing techniques that some people in
the computing business (notably the personal/home/small business end of
the market) have been using.
Many of the commercials and advertisements seem to be pushing the point
of view that *everyone* needs a computer...witness the plethora of ads
that attempt to convince parents that without his/her very own pc, their
child will be a failure in school...or the ads that try to convince
the average businessperson that they must have a computer in order to
keep up with their competition.
Now, these ads aren't entirely unreasonable; but I think that manufacturers
should be extremely careful about pushing this line as a sales pitch; I think
it's close to being unethical. Why? Simply because there are people out
there who have no business being anywhere *near* a computer; there are people
out there who have no need whatsoever for one; and there are people who
feel very caught between their dislike/fear of the little buggers and the
market pressure which tells them that they have to own one.
Are we (the computer/software industry) in danger of alienating the market
base for our products by pushing them too soon, too quickly, at a public
that's (to some degree) still afraid of them?
Rich Kulawiec, Purdue University Computing Center
rsk@pur-ee.uucp rsk@purdue.uucp rsk@purdue-asc.arpa
------------------------------
From: Dave Taylor (The Computers and Society Moderator)
Date: Tuesday, 22 October 85 14:30 MST
Subject: Reality hits the Technology Industries
Rich asks...
> Are we (the computer/software industry) in danger of alienating the market
> base for our products by pushing them too soon, too quickly, at a public
> that's (to some degree) still afraid of them?
Rather than agree that the public is afraid of technology, I
think that a better way to phrase it is that the public is 'wary' of "blind
innovation". Our particular cross-section of society are (usually :-)
quite comfortable using computers - viewing them as a 'tool' to improve
our productivity (more in another message on this topic) - yet the average
person sees a wierd conglomeration of omniscience and idiocy when they
view the machine.
Anyway, I think the answer is an emphatic YES! The computer industry
is growing at a fantastic rate (witness the progress in as short a period
of time as twenty years...) and since the industry needs a marketplace to
'feed' it (ie fund further developments), the public get the short end of
the stick!
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the industry has ALREADY
alienated the public towards computers. Innovation is a very ho-hum
thing nowadays, and new products that make professional programmers
drool with excitement are glossed over in the public arena with another
"look what they're foisting upon us now!" plug. Consider the lackluster
response to such innovative machines as the Apple Macintosh (tm)...the
Mac is a really impressive machine, but the public is jaded and keeps
asking the insistent question "so what?"
The market slump that we're in I view as a good thing (although I'm
not sure how HP Management would feel about this sentiment!) - it's the
awaited shake-up of the industry. FINALLY people are THINKING and asking
themselves why the heck they should rush out and buy the latest and greatest
<insert product here> simply because it's new...
It will force the companies in the computer/technology industry
to stop and actually LOOK at what the computers are being used for - most
companies have no IDEA what they're selling, why they're selling it, and
who they're selling it to!! (I'm not kidding either ... the industry is
rife with such tidbits as the president of DEC quoted as saying that he
thinks "Unix" is a passing fad... The marketing departments of Hewlett
Packard responding that they "don't really know" who the customers for
our products are ... the 'progress for the sake of progress' of such
companies as Apple (the Macintosh, of course) ... and so on and so on.)
Even in these relatively tough times for computer companies, some
are doing amazingly well. AST Technologies, for example, is making money
hand over fist building PC add-on boards. Compaq is streaking to the top
of the PC marketplace with their IBM PC clone. Why? Because they are
OFFERING WHAT THE CUSTOMER WANTS!
THAT is what needs to come out of this plethora of bankruptcies
and business slowdowns -- a harsh slap in the face by reality.
--- Dave Taylor
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 85 08:56:44 -0100
From: hplabs!utah-cs!seismo!enea!erix!mike (Mike Williams)
Subject: Computers & Society
A little known fact is that Sweden is one of the most computerised
nations in the world. By that I don't meen machines which sit in peoples
homes but rather machines used in industry and business. This has let to
both advantages and disadvantages. To combat the disadvantages Sweden has
a battery of laws which regulate the way in which companies can keep data-
bases with information about the population, and about the way in which
these data bases can be used. Such a data base (for example a data base
used by the Readers Digest to store info about which of their potiental
customers might be interested in what product) cannot be started and used
without permission from a central authority. (Datainpektionen). Nor can
the tax authorities runs two such data bases together without permission.
For example they cannot search their databases to find which people own
expensive cars and pay hardly any tax in order to find potential tax
evaders. Whereas the idea of a central authority smacks of unpleasant
state control, the result that it is harder to missuse information stored
in computers about people is very satisfactory. Anyone has the right to
find out what information is stored about himself in any data base and demand
that the information should be changed if he can show it to be incorrect.
Another curiosity is that everyone here has a personal number which is used
for everything (tax collection, drivers license, health insurance etc etc)
Hwreas this makes life a bit easier, it is a bit 1984-sh and would make the
correlation of data bases (see above) which is forbiden by law much easier.
All banks here are total computerised every teller has a terminal. The same
applies for post offices, insurance offices, car registeries etc etc. the
ammount of manual work required in the country is gradually decreasing.
It seems unlikely tha Sweden will every have full employment again.
It seems to me that the only sensible thing to do would be to decrease working
hours (40 hour week a present) or increase vacations (five weeks minimum at
present).
One thing that worries me is the power of the programmer. In a heavily
computerised society, it is the programmer who will determine what data is
available easily, they way in which millions of other people work etc etc.
Is it not about time that we software people realise this and draw and ethical
code of behaviour in the same way as has been done in the medical proffesion?
Mike Williams
{seismo,philabs,decvax}mcvax!enea!erix!mike
------------------------------
From: Jo Calder <seismo!ukc!cstvax!epistemi!jo>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 85 11:11:30 bst
Subject: Strategic Defence Initiative
[Moderator's Note: I've chosen to include this message as it is relevent
to the impact of technology on society, but I encourage people to seek
a more relevent forum for the POLITICAL ramifications and discussion
that this will result in. The further discussion that could be spawned
in this group would be about the 'appearance/omnipotence' of technology
in the Strategic Defence Initiative. -- Dave]
The following letter is being handed in to Downing Street on Friday 18th
October, along with the names of those of us within various
computing-related departments (the Departments of Artificial Intelligence
and Computer Science, and the Centre for Cognitive Science) at the
University of Edinburgh. The press are being informed that this is the
beginning of a British campaign of opposition to the SDI programme by
concerned computer scientists and those in technically related disciplines,
and that other such letters will also be sent to Downing Street. We would
be very grateful if you would solicit responses from those you can reach
within your area, and then send the letter to Downing Street as soon as
possible -- preferably before 24th October, since this is, I think, when
Thatcher actually meets with Reagan. Of course, there is no reason why you
should adhere to the wording of the letter below: feel free to make whatever
changes you feel are appropriate. Some variety in the petitions received by
Downing Street may well be a good thing. At least, do remove the Edinburgh
CSR name tag at the end!
Please send us a copy of whatever you send to Thatcher so that we have a
unified record of the response.
Thanks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The undersigned computer professionals have sent the following
letter to the Prime Minister on the occasion of her visit to the
United Stated to discuss possible British government support for
the Strategic Defence Initiative ("Star Wars") with President
Reagan.
18 October 1985
The Right Honourable Margaret Thatcher, MP
10 Downing Street
London
Dear Prime Minister
We share President Reagan's desire to see a world free from the
threat of nuclear weapons. However, it is our professional opin-
ion that his proposed Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) cannot
accomplish this and would in fact increase the risk of accidental
nuclear war, because SDI makes demands on computing technology
which can never be met.
In order to achieve its stated goals SDI requires total reliabil-
ity. That is, the computer system at the heart of SDI must
respond correctly under any circumstances to unerringly distin-
guish hostile attack from a myriad of alternative non-threatening
events, natural and man-made. But such a system cannot be
designed and cannot be built. No design can exhaustively antici-
pate all relevant detail. No system of the required size and
complexity can be proven to match its design, much less be real-
istically tested, safely maintained or effectively modified.
These problems are made all the more serious because the extreme-
ly short reaction times required of the critical parts of the
system preclude effective human supervision.
Although SDI is defensive in intent, it is active in nature - not
a shield but a cannon primed and ready. Thus a false alarm might
well trigger the firing of a vast array of weaponry directed at
Soviet territory and satellites. When such an assault would then
certainly (and probably automatically) provoke a real missile
launch, it would literally be suicidal to rely on necessarily un-
reliable computer systems in this way.
As British scientists we believe that Britain should have no part
in this dangerous and counter-productive plan. We urge you to
take to America a commitment to advise President Reagan to seek
alternative solutions to the problems of nuclear weapons, and to
assist him in doing so.
(Signed)
Edinburgh Computing and Social Responsibility Group
3 Buccleugh Terrace
Edinburgh EH8 9NB
We would be pleased to provide more detailed technical informa-
tion as to the impossibility of the SDI computing system to you
and your technical advisers on request.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Oct 1985 0932-EDT (Wednesday)
From: hplabs!ihnp4!vax135!petsd!clarise (Clarise Samuels)
Subject: Comment on "Some Early Comments"
"Unused information is indistinguishable from useless information."
I think that the above statement is not only erroneous, but in its
wider implications, could be almost dangerous. My personal feeling
is that such a belief has promoted the establishment of the
"computer nerd" syndrome, otherwise known as the "bithead." Take the
example of an assembler programmer. It is quite possible that a competent
assembler programmer could reach a rather high salary level, never
needing to "use" any other information but that which concerns the
immediate realm of assembler language. This is a frightening prospect.
Just think of an intelligent adult only storing away the information
needed for assembly programs, going through life completely ignorant
of the history of Western civilization, of culture and the humanities,
and generally speaking, not having the wide range of "information"
needed for ethical considerations and an appreciation and understanding
of the world around us.
Which brings us to the next question: how do we know that information
is actually "unused"? Information comes into play in the human mind in
much more subtle ways than it does in the computer. Analogy and debate
activate a complicated web of knowledge and experience, that are interrelated
in a vast network that is
in some ways similar to a giant crossword puzzle. The words at
the top do not seem to have any connection to those at the bottom, but it
is not hard to trace an interconnected path with one's finger.
I have been told that in some studies it has been
found that people with knowledge of Classical languages
are good programmers, because their rigorous training in the elaborate
grammar and syntax of Greek, Latin and Hebrew provided good background
for the manipulation of programming logic. Yet they are not "using" their
knowledge of Greek and Latin; therefore, according to the above precept,
it is "useless knowledge."
In conclusion, unused "information," or as I would prefer to call it
when relating it to the mind, unused knowledge, is never entirely unused,
and can never be fully rendered useless.
-------
Clarise Samuels
ihnp4!vax135!petsd!petfe!clarise
------------------------------
From: Dave Taylor (The Computers and Society Moderator)
Date: Thursday, October 24, 1985, 9:58 MST
Subject: News on computer product liability...
"Damage limitation clauses in contracts can be rejected where a default is
total and fundamental, holds a U.S. appeals court. It negates a clause
in a computer-software company's contract limiting liability to the price
of it's product. A business customer sued for general and consequential
damages after the company was unable to 'debug' a system it provided. The
court finds the failure so basic that it effectively expunged the contracts
limitation."
["U.S.News and World Report", Oct. 21, '85, page 77]
Shall we take it that software companies aren't as free from liability
with it's software as they'd like to think? In fact, this is a good
ruling since there are some software companies that are more than willing
to leave the customers holding the proverbial short end of the stick if
their software doesn't work.
-- Dave
------------------------------
Date: Thu 24 Oct 85 10:11:52-PDT
From: Ken Laws <hplabs!Laws%sri-ai.arpa@CSNET-RELAY>
Subject: Technology Dependence
In response to Jeff Lichtman, The Risks of Over-Automation:
Safeway did have a backup system -- adding machines and human ingenuity.
We manage to bumble through somehow. The chief danger for Safeway is that
they will lose customers and cash flow if they are bumbling while their
competitors are running efficient operations. This would not be the case
during a major power outage.
Another anecdote: My father tried to make a loan payment once when his
bank's computer was down. It took the [middle-aged] bank officer about
half an hour to compute the payment from books of tables, even though this
was something he used to do a dozen times per day. And when the computer
came up, it claimed the officer hadn't got it right.
About the spread of low-tech jobs: About 90% of the workforce for the
year 2000 is already in place. The end of the baby boom means that there
is no large pool of teenagers (outside the ghettos) to take the jobs
as boxboys and burger clerks; already the big-city department stores
are having trouble hiring Christmas sales staffs. While we could adopt
a system where the elderly and the unambitious take over these low-wage
jobs, I think it more likely that the U.S. will respond adequately with
more adult education, flexibility in job tasks, automation, and self-reliance
on the part of the customer. People who can't handle retraining will end
up in service jobs caring for the elderly, but most skilled wage earners
will do what it takes to keep up with our changing society.
-- Ken Laws
-------
-----------------------------------
To have your item included in this digest, please mail it to any
of the addresses; ihnp4!hpfcla!d_taylor, {ucbvax} !hplabs!hpcnof!dat or
hpcnof!dat@HPLABS.CSNET. You can also simply respond to this mailing.
-----------------------------------
End of Computers and Society Digest
-----------------------------------