zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!
      cleveland.Freenet.Edu!bx953
Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Help, please forward this message
From: bx953@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (David R. Cohen)
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:09:03 GMT

I have no idea where this message should be posted, I only know that it
**should** be posted.  I'm posting here only because I know this board is
widely read and someone should be able to get this message to the right place.

In [the 21 July 1992] Cleveland Plain Dealer, it was reported that a 22-year
old male got arrested for distributing pornography, and possibly for
contributing to the delinquency of a minor.  His "crime" was running a bulletin
board out of his home ... the cops found out that minors were able to get ahold
of pornographic gif files.  The arrestee had apparently set things up so that
"adult" files were supposed to be restricted, but either the files weren't
restricted after all, or someone else had "unrestricted" them.  The paper
reports that this type of arrest is one of the first of its kind in the state.
The cops used a "cooperative" 15 year old -- after the kid accessed the adult
files, the cops grabbed the alleged criminal.

If any Ohio law enforcement types are reading this, I am an Ohio attorney,
and I think this sucks.

David   David R. Cohen or Tracey L. Ridgeway   bx953@cleveland.freenet.edu

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

Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 18:30:08 PDT
From: bertrand@eiffel.com (Bertrand Meyer, Interactive Software Engineering)
Subject: The role of expertise in technological advances 

This note is a call for argued opinions about the effect of technological
advances on the value of people's expertise and qualifications.  In particular
it would be interesting to hear views about the relative merits of the
following two opposite conjectures:

  A. The introduction of a new technology gives the highest advantage to people
  who are already the most advanced experts, as they are in the best position
  to understand the new developments, and thus will benefit the most from them.
  The advances will in face increase the lead that the best people already had
  over the others.

  B. Introducing a new technology makes it possible for many people to do what
  was previously the exclusive specialty of a few experts.  So it levels off
  the field, putting everyone at the same position.

I can see serious arguments and examples supporting both conjectures.  To keep
this note short, I have selected just two widely different examples, one for
each. Only the second is computer-related. (My personal interest in this
discussion is with respect to advances in software engineering, but the problem
is more general.)

A. In his book ``Tristes Tropiques'', the ethnologist Claude Levi-Strauss
recounts how he visited a South American tribe that didn't know writing. He
introduced it to them; writing was immediately put to good use by the tribe's
chief, who could see how the ability to record and retrieve his decisions would
increase his power.

B. It used to be quite hard to get a taxi in Paris. The situation has
considerably improved thanks to the installation by the biggest taxi company of
a computer-based system. This might at first seem to be an argument for A since
this system has (at least temporarily) given the company a big lead over its
competitors, but here is the other side. In a recent stay in Paris in which I
frequently needed taxis to pick me up, I was able almost every time to obtain
one in about five minutes.  I once complimented a driver on this efficiency. He
responded by heaping tons of abuse on the system. After a period of
astonishment, I understood the reason for his anger. He has been in the
business for twenty years or so, and knows every street and lane in the city;
he also knows the best itineraries, and where he should and should not be at
each time of day and year to get good business (go to the Gare d'Austerlitz at
certain times, to the airports at certain others and so on).  But now the new
system puts every upstart driver, who has just passed his exam and paid for his
license, at the same level as him! You just key in a certain code to indicate
where you are, and get queued for customers' requests in that area. Then when
your turn comes you get the next customer. The computer system apparently also
indicates where the hottest areas are at any time of day. Very little advantage
remains for an experienced professional driver. He was looking with even more
horror to a future (apparently promised) extension of the system, whereby ``the
computer'' would show recommended itineraries!

Please note that the discussion is not about people whose job is simply made
obsolete by the new advances (as craftsmen at the time of the industrial
revolution, or draughtsmen at the time of the introduction of computer-aided
design). Assuming people are experts in a field, and remain in that field, is
new technology a way to increase their lead or should they fear losing their
advantage?

  [Please respond directly to Bernard, who will share the results with us. PGN]

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


Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 92 09:16:03 CET
From: "E. Kristiansen - WMS" <EKRISTIA@estec.estec.esa.nl>
Subject:      Telephone wiretapping [Cross-posted to privacy@cv.vortex.com]

NRC Handelsblad, a Dutch newspaper, of 20 July has two articles concerning
telephone wiretapping.

The first article describes several cases of alleged unauthorized wiretaps
performed by PTT Telecon, the Dutch telephone company.  The PTT is accused of
establishing wiretaps on telephone lines without the required court order, on
request of the police and legal authorities (district attorney).  In one case,
a PTT employee has allegedly passed on information obtained from illegally
bugging a phone line, to a criminal (drug dealer). The employee has been fired.
A PTT spokesperson says that "according to current procedure", the police
cannot request a wiretap directly. The request is to be submitted through the
proper legal channels.  From a technical point of view, the article suggests,
without giving much detail, that it is very easy to establish a wiretap, and
that the only control is through procedures, relying on "highly trusted
personnel".  Further, it is said that the PTT never performs wiretapping
itself, it only establishes the tap to a line going to the police office. It is
not said that the PTT CANNOT do wiretapping, and I would assume that they can,
e.g.  for technical monitoring of line quality.

The other article describes how an on-hook telephone set can be used for
bugging the room in which it is installed. The trick can be performed by
anybody who can gain access, legally or illegally, to any point of the wire
pair connecting the telephone set to the exchange.  A high frequency signal is
injected into the line. This signal bypasses the hook switch of the set
(capacitive coupling, I suppose). The microphone modulates the signal
(technical details not given), and the intruder can demodulate, and listen to
the conversation in the room.  When this trick was published in the press, PTT
says it will shortly be offering a telephone plug with a built-in capacitor to
short the HF signal.  The plug will sell for about Dfl.5 (USD 3). Consumer
organizations urge that the plug should be available free of charge to anybody
asking for it.  It is not said whether the trick will work on all current types
of phones, or only on particular brands.
                                                  Erling Kristiansen

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 09:07:20 -0700
From: Emmanuel Goldstein <emmanuel@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: Bellcore threatens 2600 with lawsuit over Busy Line Verification item

THE FOLLOWING CERTIFIED LETTER HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY 2600 MAGAZINE.
WE WELCOME ANY COMMENTS AND/OR INTERPRETATIONS.
 
 Leonard Charles Suchyta
 General Attorney
 Intellectual Property Matters
 
 Emanuel [sic] Golstein [sic], Editor
 2600 Magazine
 P.O. Box 752
 Middle Island, New York 11953-0752
 
 Dear Mr. Golstein:
 
 It has come to our attention that you have somehow obtained and published
 in the 1991-1992 Winter edition of 2600 Magazine portions of certain
 Bellcore proprietary internal documents.
 
 This letter is to formally advise you that, if at any time in the future
 you (or your magazine) come into possession of, publish, or otherwise
 disclose any Bellcore information or documentation which either (i) you
 have any reason to believe is proprietary to Bellcore or has not been
 made publicly available by Bellcore or (ii) is marked "proprietary,"
 "confidential," "restricted," or with any other legend denoting
 Bellcore's proprietary interest therein, Bellcore will vigorously
 pursue all legal remedies available to it including, but not limited
 to, injunctive relief and monetary damages, against you, your magazine,
 and its sources.
 
 We trust that you fully understand Bellcore's position on this matter.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 LCS/sms      
                             [The 2600 article in question will not appear
                             in RISKS, for the obvious reasons.  PGN]

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

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 14:45:34 EDT
From: denning@cs.georgetown.edu (Dorothy Denning)
Subject: Export of 40-Digit RSA

I talked with Dennis Branstad at NIST and found out that the 40-digit system
approved for export is not the RSA public-key system (PKS) but rather the
systems RC-2 and RC-4 which are single-key systems marketed by RSA Data
Security.  These systems can be "married to" a 512-bit RSA PKS used for key
management and the whole package can be exported.
                                                       Dorothy Denning

   [Dorothy and I had an earlier off-line dialogue on the fact that 40-digit
   RSA was child's-play to break.  This clarification is very helpful.  PGN]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 04:28:42 GMT
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Qantas airliner challenged by US Pacific fleet (RISKS-13.66)

>The Qantas pilot radioed the Federal Aviation Authority in Los Angeles which
>put him on a frequency to the warship.  [Why was this necessary?]  The FAA
>resolved the crisis by putting the Qantas flight on a path bypassing the
>Cowpens which was taking part in a military exercise.

It was probably necessary to use such a roundabout means of communication
because the airliner had no idea what frequencies the ship was using, and
likely *couldn't* respond on many of them if it wanted to!

>Elly Brekke, a spokeswoman for the FAA in Los Angeles, confirmed that the
>airliner, following its predetermined flight path, was told it risked risked
>facing hostile action.  Ms Brekke said the Qantas flight was "where it should
>have been", and the FAA had not been told that the US Navy was conducting
>manoeuvres that would require any restriction of airspace.

Somebody goofed. My guess is the military *should* have warned the ATC center!

>The Pacific Fleet spokesman said the Cowpens had inadvertently [!]  used "an
>international distress frequency" in trying to contact planes taking part in
>the exercise.

The inadvertently part is all too simple. And it has bearing on my comment
above about why the airliner may not have been able to directly contact the
ship.

All those nice agreements about which frequencies are used for what have
a *large* loophole. All governments are allowed to ignore the international
frequency allocations when it comes to *military* use. 

Most military gear can tune all sort of civilian (and other) frequencies.  And
for peacetime operations, they do have the civilian frequncies set up. Somebody
may have done something as simple as punch the wrong "general frequency"
button!

There are two risks here. First, from the pictures that I've seen of military
radio gear, the "user interface" is lacking in a few areas.  Mainly in that the
user has no idea that some of the "channels" are not strictly military.

The second risk is the usual one of what happens when folks that are allowed to
"ignore the standards" get to share the operating environment with folks that
*do* have to follow them...

Leonard Erickson  leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com  70465.203@compuserve.com
CIS: [70465,203]  FIDO: 1:105/56   Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org

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

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 18:08:28 GMT
From: rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Rusty)
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactor control (Park, Re: RISKS-13.66)

	I suspect that, given the context in which they were mentioned, that
Bill is correct.  However, what I first think of when the phrase "magnetic core
systems" comes up in discussions of reactor safety is something rather
different.  It is the practice in many PWR reactors to have the cadmium control
rods, which must be withdrawn partly from the reactor core for substantial
fission to take place, lifted vertically up and out of the core by
electromagnets, which are themselves powered by the output of the generators
driven by the reactor.  If there is a sudden drop in reactor output for some
reason, the magnets cut out, and the rods drop back into the core.  Gravitic
passive safety! However, this does not help at all in cases where the reactor
is running out of control but still producing steam and power, nor will it do
any good if something has happened to prevent the reinsertion of the damper
rods themselves...
                     Russ Teasdale -- rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -- (Rusty)

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 11:00:44 PDT
From: bnfb@ursamajor.UVic.CA (Bjorn Freeman-Benson)
Subject: Countering Urban Myths re: Airbus

In RISKS 13.64, I read these two stories about the A320:
>> #1  A Pan Am Airbus A300 or A310 (I don't remember which) was on final ...
>> #2  Apparently as a safety feature derived from the crash of the ...

And I immediately recalled that the same article was posted to sci.aeronautics
and then immediately countered as a collection of Urban Myths.  I'm sorry that
I cannot quote the sci.aeronautics article, but the local news system has
already erased it.

Not a fan of the A320, yet also a crusader against misinformation,
Bjorn N. Freeman-Benson

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

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 18:13:35 CDT
From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: AVIATION restructuring in progress

Rec.aviation is currently in the request-for-discussion period of a
comprehensive re-organization proposal.  A number of proposed sub-groups may
be of interest to RISKS users, including two airliners proposals (in the sci
and rec hierarchies), a safety-group, a generic airplane-group, and others.

The RFD was posted last week; a "survey" of user preferences (which will be
used to shape the final CFV) was posted about the same time.  The survey was
re-posted this afternoon.

Copies of both documents are available on rec.aviation, sci.aeronautics, and 
rec.travel.air, depending on your news spool.  Copies may also be obtained
from me, directly, at rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu.

Robert Dorsett, Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd

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

End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 13.67
************************