HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: ethics-l@UGA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"ethics-l@uga.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 11:22:00 EST
From:         BM2762@ALBNYVMS.BITNET
Subject:      David Bridge

David,

        I decided to post this message to the list instead of responding
to you personally.  I appreciate your perspective, and hope that you
don't think I was suggesting that every sysadmin is waiting with baited
breath to invade my mail.

        I AM suggesting, however, that there exist a number of unethical
folks who are willing to make that invasion.  David, I think we're on the
same side.  We both realize that this activity occurs; we both realize
that there are ethical and unethical people in positions which allow
them to take full advantage of their power; finally, and most importantly,
we realize that it DOES take a conscious effort to realize that this
sort of activity exists.  It is foolish to assume that everyone is either
ethical or unethical, and it is also foolish to assume that ethical and
unethical behavior will not occur.


Ben
bm2762@gemini.albany.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"ETHICS-L@POLYVM.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:58:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Ethics of email

        Just my two-cents worth.  I would never want to use a secret code
because anyone who was monitoring the mail would probably be attracted to
it like a shark to blood, by the presence of code.  Maybe there are codes
around that can't be cracked, and maybe it depends on who wants to read
your mail but I wouldn't want to trust anything.

        Now, if by secret code you are talking about something which uses
ordinary speech and words, and fits into the pattern and background of the
general message traffic in your network, I would say that is a different
story.  The question is whether such a code is flexible enough to meet
your message needs and how many people know of it.

                                                Chris Morrison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Priority:     normal
X-Mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R4).
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:25:19 CST
From:         PETERSEK@COLUMBIA.DSU.EDU

"unsubscribe Katie Petersen"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Acknowledge-To:  WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 09:05:00 EST
From:         WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Subject:      Computers in elementary education
Comments: To: ETHICS-L%UGA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

When did the "Carmina Burana" get to be less abstract than the (other
uses) of computers?

I believe, and try to tell young people, that the role of early
education is to master "abstract thought."  (One nephew told me that
he never does that.)  That is, they need to learn to think in motion,
sound, images, words, and numbers.  They need to need to study athletics
visual arts, music, language, literature, mathematics, and other
codes and symbols.  (I also point out to them that schooling focuses
on only a subset of these.  They must take responsibility for the rest
themselves.)

In the modern world, the computer is used for all of these things.
Indeed, in the modern world, one would be presumptious to call himself
a master of any any of these spheres if he did not understand the
application of the computer to that field.

William Hugh Murray, Executive Consultant, Information System Security
49 Locust Avenue, Suite 104; New Canaan, Connecticut 06840
1-0-ATT-0-700-WMURRAY; WHMurray at DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 13:31:00 EST
From:         YO LARRY!! <GM1116@ALBNYVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Ethics of email

        One problem with "private email" even if sent from your own home is
that many times it passes through other systems as well.  When I finish
this letter, it will be sent through my University's mailer to the Ethics
listserve mailer.  In the process it may be passed through other systems
as well.  After it reaches the ethics listserve it is then sent out to
all of you, passing again through other systems before reaching yours.
What are my rights if I wish to send private email to, I don't know, say
someone in Japan?  Does every system which the mail passes through have
the right to examine my mail, or just the system at my end and the system
at the Japan end?

Gary A Mort
GM1116@albnyvms
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:55:46 EST
From:         mpriestley@VNET.IBM.COM
Subject:      Waldorf et al
Comments: To: ethics-l%UGA.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu

I'm afraid I can't define a Steinerian position.  I honestly haven't read
much of his work, though I went through a school system that was based on
his philosophy.

I can tell what was done at my school, however.

While I don't recall being taught machine language,
we *were* introduced to logic circuits before we were introduced to computers.
We spent about two months creating simple programs using hardware only
on circuit boards, creating AND, NAND, NOT, OR, and NOR circuits (it's been
a long time).  We then created some simple on-line programs, with a clear
understanding of what this was being translated to in the hardware.

As far as word-processing goes, I think my school probably discouraged it
up until high school.  By then, my hand-writing was bad enough that they
probably happy to see me start using it :)

There was definitely the feeling that the hardware should be understood,
at least conceptually, before we began dealing with conceptual structures
that were built on top of or using the hardware.  This kept our
dealings with computers based in a complete and contiguous world-view,
so that a computer was understood as a tool, in a long line of tools
stretching back to the garden trowel we used in grade four.  We didn't
develop a feeling of "cyberspace", a feeling that HCI is somehow on a
different plane of existence than the rest of our lives.  Our world-view
remained continuous.

I hope this helps, though again, I am describing only what I experienced,
not necessarily what Steiner prescribed.


I too have talked with Val, and found his insights useful and productive.
But perhaps there is enough of a distance between your present perspectives
that right now you are having difficulty communicating.

I believe Waldorf deserves your interest, and hope you do look into it.

Thanks,


Michael Priestley
mpriestley@vnet.ibm.com

My opinions are my own, and should not be mistaken for anyone else's
opinion, living or dead.  Any resemblance to other's opinions is entirely
coincidental.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:45:08 -0800
From:         brochman@SFU.CA
Subject:      Re: un-crackable code

>a friend tells me a
>password is acceptable to the security folk(s) there if it takes
>more than 10 minutes to break it...
I am interested in this topic. Can someone direct me to recommended
readings, lists on this topic, etc.; is there an 'expert' out there who
might answer a few questions?


Harold Brochmann
brochman@sfu.ca
Teacher, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:55:10 -0600
From:         sja201@UTDALLAS.EDU
Subject:      Privacy of E-Mail
Comments: To: ethics-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

    It seems that this discussion is concerned with BOTH motivation and
fear:  that someone may have the motiviation to read others' E-Mail and
fear they may actually do so.  Neither implies the other as cause.
Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the debate.

-- Ron Roeder     /     sja201 at utdallas
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:45:12 -0800
From:         brochman@SFU.CA
Subject:      Re: W.H. Murray's post about buying an electronic keyobard for a
              kid

Michael Priestley explains:
>Waldorf tends to teach everything from the ground up; a child's education
>in a particular subject-matter follows the progression of the subject
>through history.
etc.

I have followed the discussion on this topic with some interest. I have
also corresponded with VW directly, and have found the exercise more than a
little frustrating. Michael's posting was lucid and informative,useful and
interesting. As a matter of fact, it makes me want to learn more about
Waldorf. My main 'complaint' against the 'regular' system is precisely that
that we lack a unifying structure.

Thank you.

Perhaps Michael could make one more comment on a specific point. Valdemar
seems uncompromising on his position that 'the child' must 'understand' the
 computer (he says on the 'machine language' level) before it can be used
for *anything*. My reaction was that the level of understanding 'required'
would surely depend on the function to which the tool was being put... and
so 'machine language level understanding' would be not be essential for
simply writing a letter to a friend. Could you speak 'for' the 'Steiner
position' on this point?

Harold Brochmann
brochman@sfu.ca
Teacher, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"ethics-l@uga"
Original_cc:  DAVID
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:40:00 EST
From:         "David Bridge, MSC VAX System Manager" <DAVID@SIMSC.BITNET>
Subject:      Privacy of E-mail and system administrators

Dear BM2762@ALBNYVMS:
(It is so nice to talk to people using their first name.)

Your posting today:
>    Consider me an idiot.  I don't understand what you're looking
> to find... do you want names?  My point was that there are thousands of
> people waiting to monitor your communiques, and, as the respondent from
> Alaska points out, it takes neither a mountain of motivation nor
> technical expertise to engage in this particular pasttime.

Privacy of electronic communications is an area that is largely NOT
covered by current laws of the United States.  The networks are
world-wide in scope and pass through, over and under many countries.  The
concepts of privacy, freedom of speech, individual liberty, etc. varies
widely from one country to another country.  We in the United States must
remember not to impose our concepts of these issues on to people in other
countries.

Your statement above makes a generalization that seems to imply that many
system administrators and other people with system privileges "monitor
your communiques".  As a system manager for a computer system with over
200 people on it I am very concerned about the use of E-mail and
protecting privacy of the users on our system.  I and my staff do not
read the mail of our clients.  All of my co-workers who operate other
systems also respect the "rights" of their users.  I also, believe that
most of the system managers that I have met at many meeting and
conferences, and over the net, do not read their clients E-mail.

So, I reject your implication that most system people read the general
E-mail.  I do agree that some people do read other peoples E-mail; and
that you can NOT tell who and when this does occur.

As you point out (at least under some conditions) "it takes neither a
mountain of motivation nor technical expertise" to read E-mail passing
through a system.  However, NOT reading clients E-mail does require a
sense of responsibility and a commitment to moral and ethical principles
to our clients and customers.  In addition many system managers are
operating under written guidelines or contracts with their clients, which
specify what thay can and can't do in the area of monitoring E-mail.

yours,
David Bridge
VAX System Manager
Museum Support Center
Smithsonian Institution
David@simsc.si.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: ethics-l@UGA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"ethics-l@uga.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 13:00:00 EST
From:         BM2762@ALBNYVMS.BITNET
Subject:      Assuming makes an ass out of u & me

        Consider me an idiot.  I don't understand what you're looking
to find... do you want names?  My point was that there are thousands of
people wqaiting to monitor your communiques, and, as the respondent from
Alaska points out, it takes neither a mountain of motivation nor technbical
expertise to engage in this particular pasttime.
        My post seeks to warn those of us who have not yet learned the
lessons to which the Alaska poster was privvy.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"ethics-l@dearn.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:13:00 CST
From:         joe kreitzer <JLKREITZER@STTHOMAS.EDU>
Subject:      un-crackable code

Regarding Chris Morrison's question, a friend at Cray tells me a
password is acceptable to the security folk(s) there if it takes
more than 10 minutes to break it...

I agree with a prior writer, that sending code is only likely to
encourage someone's snooping.  The best defense against snoopers is to
be _really_ boring.  At least it seems to work for me.  ;-)



*****************************************************************************
Joe Kreitzer, Associate Professor           Internet: jlkreitzer@stthomas.edu
Departments of Economics                       voice: (612) 647-5869
 & Software Design & Development                 fax: (612) 647-5879
University of St. Thomas
St. Paul, MN  55105-1096
*****************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Acknowledge-To:  WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 09:02:00 EST
From:         WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Subject:      Ethics of email
Comments: To: ETHICS-L%UGA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

>        One problem with "private email" even if sent from your own
home is
>that many times it passes through other systems as well.  When I finish
>this letter, it will be sent through my University's mailer to the Ethics
>listserve mailer.  In the process it may be passed through other systems
>as well.  After it reaches the ethics listserve it is then sent out to
>all of you, passing again through other systems before reaching yours.
>What are my rights if I wish to send private email to, I don't know, say
>someone in Japan?  Does every system which the mail passes through have
>the right to examine my mail, or just the system at my end and the system
>at the Japan end?

Collectively, the operators of these systems will treat your mail much
like first class mail.  That is, you may assume that your mail is about
as confidential as a piece of paper in a single white envelope.

However, individually it is a different story.  There are, for example,
more than a million systems in the internet.  Each of them has one or
more privileged users.  A privileged user can view any traffic that
passes through his system.  While your message will pass through only a
small subset of these systems, there will still be a number of people
who have the capability to see your message.  Unlike the well established
postal services, the tradition of concern for the privacy of users
is not well settled and agreed to by all of these operators.

Therefore, the "user's conservative
rule" would suggest that if confidentiality is important for your
message, use a secret code.  The computer makes the use of such codes
very easy.


William Hugh Murray, Executive Consultant, Information System Security
49 Locust Avenue, Suite 104; New Canaan, Connecticut 06840
1-0-ATT-0-700-WMURRAY; WHMurray at DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:49:33 EST
From:         David Alexander <MDA@VTVM1.BITNET>

unscribe M. David Alexander
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:19:03 PST
From:         Woody Weaver <woody@STMARYS-CA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Ethics of email
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

CMORRISO%SNYESCVA.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu (Chris Morrison) writes,
>        Just my two-cents worth.  I would never want to use a secret code
>because anyone who was monitoring the mail would probably be attracted to
>it like a shark to blood, by the presence of code.

The act of communicating conveys information.  There are solutions to this.
One can set up comm channels that are in constant use, so that the black hat
won't be able to know when you are communicating.  As for the specific
problem you describe, secure messages, after encryption, are usually
converted from binary to text via something like uuencode.  There are lots
of uuencoded files flying to and fro through the net.  Its unlikely that
merely being uuencoded would be sufficient to draw signficant attention.

>Maybe there are codes
>around that can't be cracked, and maybe it depends on who wants to read
>your mail but I wouldn't want to trust anything.

Without something like a one-time pad, there are no codes that can not be
cracked.  But there are ways to ensure pretty good privacy, and if you and
your recipient care enough, ways to ensure even the NSA won't read it this
decade without extraordinary means.


--woody
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 17:32:15 -0800
From:         brochman@SFU.CA
Subject:      Re: Ethics of email

>who have the capability to see your message.  Unlike the well established
>postal services, the tradition of concern for the privacy of users
>is not well settled and agreed to by all of these operators.
>
>Therefore, the "user's conservative
>rule" would suggest that if confidentiality is important for your
>message, use a secret code.  The computer makes the use of such codes
>very easy.
Interesting.... can someone tell me ... is there a "secret code" discussion
list?....
Harold Brochmann
brochman@sfu.ca
Teacher, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: 75300.3232@COMPUSERVE.COM (Mich Kabay / JINBU Corp.)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Subject: un-crackable code
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:53:34 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@vm.gmd.de

To: >Internet: ETHICS-L@vm.gmd.de

Harold Brochmann(brochman@sfu.ca) asks
<<readings, lists on this topic, etc.; is there an 'expert' out there who
might answer a few questions?>>

1) As Director of Education of the National Computer Security Association,
I will be happy to answer questions if possible.  Ask away!

2) A well-designed, easy book on computer security is _Computer Security_,
part of the TIME-LIFE series, _Understanding Computers_.  ISBN
0-8094-5670-2.  Chapter 4, "Impenetrable Ciphers" has a good discussion of
the Data Encryption Standard.

3) A goldmine of information on information security is the Datapro
_Reports on Information Security_ (Delran, NJ).  Cost of a subscription is
about $1000/yr, so it tends to be available only in specialized libraries.
Maybe the Simon Fraser librarian can locate a copy for you.  A recent
article summarizes the current state of the art in encryption.

4) There are many titles in the NCSA library shelf; one of our goals is to
serve as a clearinghouse for good-quality security texts and other security
training and awareness materials.

How to reach the National Computer Security Association:

Robert C. Bales / Executive Director
Paul R. Gates / Membership Director
NCSA / 10 SOUTH COURTHOUSE AVENUE / CARLISLE, PA 17013
Voice 717-258-1816 / Fax 717-243-8642

5) I note in the discussion a confusion of vocabulary.  "Codes" refer to a
mapping of symbol to meaning.  "The white cat ate 3 mice" could, by
reference to a book of codes, mean, "Meet me at the 3rd platform in the
train station at noon Thursday."  Encryption means the garbling of
information so that it becomes unreadable without knowledge of a special
"key" and an appropriate algorithm.

More info available.  Explain your interest in more detail and I'll do my
best to help.


Best wishes,

Mich

Michel E. Kabay, Ph.D. / NCSA Director of Education

Internet:  75300.3232@compuserve.com




Distribution:
  >Internet: ETHICS-L@vm.gmd.de
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Acknowledge-To:  WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 11:00:00 EST
From:         WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Subject:      Computers in elementary education
Comments: To: ETHICS-L%UGA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

Yesterday I was in a large computer store (F.A.O. Schwartz)
on Fifth Avenue in New York.  I was considering the
purchase of a computer for my eight year old niece, and
feeling very guilty about distorting her growth and
maturation.

The computer under consideration had a special set of
input/output devices (piano-style keyboard, audio
speaker, and labelled single-purpose keys.)  The
computer came with a language (musical notation), a
number of primitives (voices of musical instruments)
and programs (Jingle Bells, the last movement of
Beethoven's Ninth, a Chopin Nocturne, et. al.) all in
ROM.

I was running the Beethoven program when a young end-user
(musician) the same age as my niece came up and began
to follow it on one of the input devices (keyboard.)  I
stopped the program and she continued to play it back
into the keyboard from her own memory.

Needless to say, I was concerned.  Only eight and already
ruined.  Her dear little mind was already contaminated
with abstractions.

About this time the hacker's mother walked up, checked
out the quality of the input, smiled and nodded with
satisfaction.  She went on to tell me that the child
had a pedant simulator computer at home (named "Miracle")
on which the child practiced her programming (and, I
thought, was being programmed.)

Of course, I bought the computer anyway.  First,
I wished that I could play any part of any Beethoven.
Second, the child was having so much fun.

William Hugh Murray, Executive Consultant, Information System Security
49 Locust Avenue, Suite 104; New Canaan, Connecticut 06840
1-0-ATT-0-700-WMURRAY; WHMurray at DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL13]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1328
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.aix-l
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:00:10 -0500
From:         Everett Dowd <edowd@ESUSDA.GOV>
Subject:      Re: Name server problem.
              92 02:19:19 pm

Do you have your nameserver pointing to a gateway outside of the domain?
Also, is the host registered that you want to be the nameserver?

Try setting the default route to your InterNet gateway and that should
help. I have our system (320) running primary nameservices but it is a
registered nameserver.

Tim Tyler asks
>
> Nameserving outside of domain?????
> I believe that this problem was -questioned by another AIXlistserve member
> recently, but I did not see any  response to it.  I want to post it again to
> see if anyone can shed some light on the problem:   We have just configured
> our Risc 220 to be a primary name server.  When it makes a query for a name
> lookup (via telnet, ftp, etc,) outside of the domain for the first time, it
> times out.  However, it always connects on the next attempt to the same host
> and continues to work thereafter for that host.  This seems to be true for
> all hosts outside of our domain.   Even if I abort the telnet
> attempt before it times out, it still works on the next attempt and
> thereafter.  Is this a known bug?  Or did I miss something in my
> configuration?  I assume that others must have an AIX primary nameserver
> working properly?????    Any thoughts will be much appreciated!
>
> Tim Tyler
> Network Manager - Beloit College
> tyler@beloit.edu
>


--
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.aix-l