daveb@gonzo.UUCP (Dave Brower) (11/13/88)
Jon Carrol's Wednesday column in the SF Chronicle is an interesting
example of the level of "popular journalism". It gyrates wildly between
keen insight and gross misinterpretation, arriving at something near a
balanced perspective.
It does suggests a metaphor for these events, in the spirit of the
tcp-ip swamp: The worm "frogged" the Internet. We could refer to
painfully visible spelunking as "frogging".
-dB
----------------
"Random Thoughts About the Worm"
As faithful followers of the media and the hypermedia are already aware,
a computer "worm" infected numerous extremely large computer systems
around the country last week. The worm's name was ":sed
'1,l$/d':/bin/sh," or "sh" to its friends. It did no real damage, but
it did eat up an enormous amount of column inches and TV air time.
In conversations with people who know more about computers and worms
that I do (approximately half the known world), the following facts
and/or plausible opinions have emerged.
1. The difference between a worm and a virus is similar to the
difference between a common cold and brain cancer. A worm does not eat
up or change existing cells; it just fills up empty information cavities
with disgusting gunk.
2. Interestingly, there is no direct cybernetic evidence that Robert
Morse Jr. is the worm-master. Computer technology being what it is, the
"telltale files" could have been planted by anyone, including Barry
Manilow. I make no accusations here; I merely note the possibility.
3. What allowed the worm to enter the systsems was a programming
structure called a "trapdoor," which is a device built into a computer
system that allows the very smartest people to move more quickly through
the system than the ordinary user. Such holes exists in virtually every
system, including the ones that allow you to withdraw $100 on Saturday
and the ones that launch large pizzas at Leningrad.
4. WHATEVER ITS CAUSES, the Worm Event was essentially a benign
occurance. Given the sophistication of the worm program, it is easily
possible that the worm master could have introduced a curious anomaly
into, say FedWire, which is responsible for transferring $500 billion
(think: half-a-trill) around the planet each and every day.
5. It is an interesting question, not yet decided, whether members of
the affected networks (like the University of California) could sue UNIX
(from whom they bought the program with the trapdoor that let the worm
begin to burrow) for lost revenues. Although there is no case law on
the matter, there is also no reason why not.
6. It is necessary to make a distinction beween "hackers" (who are
simply people who understand computers very well and are unwilling to
accept authoritarian definitions of what they should do with their
knowledge) and "crackers," who invade extant computer system with malign
intent. It seems probable that the worm-master was a hacker. To blame
him (or, possibly her) for the trapdoor is like blaming Cassandra for
the fall of Troy.
7. THE MOST IMPORTANT thing to understand is that computer programming
is an extremeley intense art form. It is also a scientific discipline,
but its addictive fascination lies in its creative component. Creating
a truly innovative program is (for the artist) exactly like painting the
roof of the Sistine Chapel.
Therefore, the hole that the worm went through may bee seen (in
aesthetic terms) as a big blank piece between the figure of Adam and the
figure of God on said ceiling. The hacker/artist saw the hole and said,
"I'll bet the original artist meant for the two hands to be touching
there. How stupid of him to have forgotten to put that in."
So the angry artist, upset at the unlovely disunity, decides to draw a
big frog between God and Adam. "This," he says to himself, "will
probably call attention to the problem."
- Jon Carrolcsg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (11/16/88)
In article <457@gonzo.UUCP> daveb@gonzo.UUCP (Dave Brower) writes: >Jon Carrol's Wednesday column in the SF Chronicle is an interesting >example of the level of "popular journalism". And Dave's posting is an interesting example of copyright violation. It is AGAINST THE LAW (to say nothing of highly inethical) to reprint coyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder. Newspaper articles are no exception. I asked Dave (via e-mail) to cancel the posting; he refused. I have cancelled it myself. <csg>
erc@unisec.usi.com (Ed Carp) (11/16/88)
In article <47235@pyramid.pyramid.com>, csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > In article <457@gonzo.UUCP> daveb@gonzo.UUCP (Dave Brower) writes: > >Jon Carrol's Wednesday column in the SF Chronicle is an interesting > >example of the level of "popular journalism". > > And Dave's posting is an interesting example of copyright violation. It is > AGAINST THE LAW (to say nothing of highly inethical) to reprint coyrighted > works without the permission of the copyright holder. Newspaper articles are > no exception. > Well, that isn't true all the time. You may reprint short excerpts under certain circumstances. > I asked Dave (via e-mail) to cancel the posting; he refused. I have cancelled > it myself. > Why? What do you care if someone gets in trouble? It's not YOUR hide! -- Ed Carp N7EKG/5 (28.3-28.5) erc@unisec.usi.com UniSecure Systems, Inc.; OS/2, Just say No! Round Rock, Tx; (home) (512) 834-2507 UUCP: {ut-sally!uiucuxc!kitty}!unisec!erc "I can't deal with this -- I'm outta here" --Don Johnson
dkhusema@faui49.UUCP (Dirk Husemann (Inf4 - hiwi),0.058I4,7908,09131-302036) (11/17/88)
From article <47235@pyramid.pyramid.com>, by csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst): > In article <457@gonzo.UUCP> daveb@gonzo.UUCP (Dave Brower) writes: >>Jon Carrol's Wednesday column in the SF Chronicle is an interesting >>example of the level of "popular journalism". > > And Dave's posting is an interesting example of copyright violation. It is > AGAINST THE LAW (to say nothing of highly inethical) to reprint coyrighted > works without the permission of the copyright holder. Newspaper articles are > no exception. I'm not so sure about that: At least in West Germany the copyright laws state that news (as printed in newspaper articles) receive protection only for a very limited time (~ 2 days or so). As West Germany signed the international copyright treaty, I can imagine that this rule originates there. The USA did sign this treaty recently, also, thus it could be the case that the copyright protection for news is restricted in the US also! > > I asked Dave (via e-mail) to cancel the posting; he refused. I have cancelled > it myself. Might have been a little bit too early ... > > <csg> ------------------ Smile, tomorrow will be worse! -------------- Email: dkhusema@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de Or: {pyramid,unido}!fauern!faui44!dkhusema Mail: Dirk Husemann, Aufsess-Str. 19, D-8520 Erlangen, (Home) West Germany (Busi- University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Computer Science Dep., ness) IMMD IV, Martensstr. 1, D-8520 Erlangen, West Germany Phone: (Home) +49 9131 302036, (Business) +49 9131 857908 -- Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here! -- --------------- My opinions are mine, mine, mine ---------------
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (11/20/88)
[Time to move this discussion to news.misc.] It has been pointed out to me by several people (notably RFW Clark, thanks) that my reply to Dirk was pretty snot-nosed. I've been embroiled in a lot of really stupid copyright arguments over the last few months, and have long since gotten exasperated with people who like to write lengthy postings, but who don't know the first thing about copyright law. So here comes Dirk, with an intelligent, reasonable posting fer Gawdsake, and I act like an idiot. I'm sorry Dirk. Let me try to answer your posting with equal intelligence. In article <735@faui10.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> (Dirk Husemann) writes: > I'm not so sure about that: At least in West Germany the copyright >laws state that news (as printed in newspaper articles) receive protection >only for a very limited time (~ 2 days or so). As West Germany signed the >international copyright treaty, I can imagine that this rule originates there. >The USA did sign this treaty recently, also, thus it could be the case that >the copyright protection for news is restricted in the US also! I haven't kept up on the discussion on the international copyright agreement; last I knew for sure, the U.S. was still balking over a number of many items, notably copyrights on fonts (which many countries do not recognize). A U.S. signing would normally mean nothing to publications within America, however; a separate act of congress is necessary to change the existing laws as they apply within the U.S. I hadn't heard of a two-day limit on newspaper articles, although I can see where it makes sense, and can also see where the publishing industry in the U.S. would scream bloody murder over it. Newspapers in the U.S. print a lot of articles that are not, strictly speaking, "news." There are columns, features, and "research" papers that are equally relevant (or irrelevant) over time. And these are what sell papers in the U.S., not the news. With regard to Jon Carroll's column, the Chronicle's Legal Department flatly stated that posting of the column to Usenet without prior written permission was a violation of their copyright. The lawyer was a little irked, apparently since one other computer bulletin board *had* written for permission before posting. The lawyer was willing to ignore the violation if the article was cancelled. (I do wonder what he would have done if it was not -- how would he know?) The lawyer implied, but did not state explicitly, that they owned full rights to the column. Even still, I would not unilaterally cancel a posting that had Carroll's blessing, since he has accepted resposibility. (Note that I, as an employee of Pyramid Technology, cannot post software I developed here; I don't own the copyright. But for all the articles I have ever published, I retained copyright.) I haven't called the lawyer since the reposting since he isn't in on weekends :-), but I wonder if he and Carroll would say the same things? <csg>
gmp@rayssd.ray.com (Gregory M. Paris) (11/26/88)
In <47235@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > And Dave's posting is an interesting example of copyright violation. It is ... > I asked Dave (via e-mail) to cancel the posting; he refused. I have cancelled > it myself. I find it strange that Carl thinks he has the right to cancel somebody else's article. If typing in a copyrighted article is illegal, then let the appropriate law enforcement agencies take care of it. Those of you concerned with copyright infringment should notify the copyright holder. We don't need vigilantism here any more than we need it anywhere else. -- Greg Paris <gmp@rayssd.ray.com> {decuac,garp,gatech,necntc,spdcc,sun,uiucdcs,ukma}!rayssd!gmp (Sing along.) Yes, I brush with Liquid Vanish.