Slashdot Mirror

Someone else posted a link to a newsletter from the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and I wanted to quote this from that link:

The following reports reveal that there are serious concerns with the computer systems used to count votes in the United States. These systems, many of which tend to be very primitive by present-day computing standards, are subject to error from software problems, hardware malfunctions, and user miscalculation or misunderstanding. There is also an alarming potential for electronic fraud in modern, computerized elections, with corresponding difficulties in detecting criminal activity or intent.
- CPSR, fall 1988

There's some interesting reading there. Now, obviously the "Votescam" guys are, uh, a little out there... but still:

Why shouldn't we be able to see the source code for voting computers?

We should be able to independently audit every last bit of the election process. Everything. That's just fundamental. I'd always assumed that there's some really strict oversight of this stuff, but... I guess not? Weird, and a little creepy...

That's a great idea. Try to read the "Votescam" site and you'll be disappointed at its tone and the scale of their claims. But hop on over to the well-respected CPSR.org (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility), and you'll find lots of interesting stuff on computerized vote tallying over the last decade, including this tidbit:

"Elections computer programs are not subject to design or source code
inspections by independent auditors outside the vendor, as banking software
is. Some programs still in use consist of unstructured COBOL, patched over
the years. In some cases, special purpose code is written for a specific
election, then discarded. There are no requirements that the programs be
written in a high level language, so assembly language is frequently used.
These features make it difficult to determine if the program is designed
correctly."
* CPSR Newsletter, Fall 1988

I'm sure they have more recent stuff than this newsletter, but I just grabbed something quickly.

(Note that the CPSR reports essentially say the vote tallying needs more openness. They do _not_ say, as votescam does, that there's a giant conspiracy that has been choosing the winners.)

The Uniform Commisioner's page on UCITA is not as informative. The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility have a page which has not been updated for some time.

CPSR sponsors The Social Security Number FAQ, which should answer all of your questions. Of course, don't expect to like any of the answers...

Actually VA isn't the only state to pass the UCITA:

OK HI IA IL -- Have Introduced bills

MD VA -- Have Passed UCITA

WA -- The Wall Street Journal reported on 10/11/99 that Microsoft was lobbying the Washington legislature heavily to introduce and pass that state's UCITA legislation.

This info blantently "fair use'd" from:

UCITA Facts
-

Some apparently would have us believe that the Internet's creation was completed prior to 1980. Silly stuff. As Vint Cerf said in '93 (http://cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/vinton-cerf -testimony): "In 1982, there were about 100 computers on the ARPANET and a few score others were part of the NSF-sponsored CSNET which also used the Telenet public data network. In 1993 there are over 1.5 million of them."

So what happened between '82 and '93? Well a whole bunch of people took the initiative in a great many spheres... and in Congress no one more so than Big Al. Among his various initiatives, apparently, was a 1986 legislative effort calling for interconnection of the 5 super-computing Centers, with fiber optic technology, including the one in Illinois where Andreesen et al later developed Mosaic.

Gore's sufficiently cognizant of the Internet's history to know that no one person or group of people "invented" it. And it wasn't created at any particular time; it was the creation of many people over many years. And in Congress, the main chap was Al G., right? Or who am I forgetting?

- Steve R.

First, it looks like you are supposed to join the General Assembly of the DNSO. You do that by signing up for any of their mailing lists. An easy, low volume one is their announcement list: majordomo@dnso.org with the words subscribe announce in the body of your message.

You then go to list of nominees to review the nominees.

You can also read a statement from James Love, since he looks like a good candidate. His page was linked to from the Civil Society Internet Forum, which seems to have lots of good information about stuff having to do with internet governance... so you might want to check them out as well.

It then looks like the only real "vote" you have is to endorse a candidate and then the Names Council makes the final decision. See the instructions for endorsing a candidate to endorse the candidate of your choice.

Somehow, that wasn't as easy as I would have hoped. At least it didn't take a month of waiting in the mail for a PIN number to arrive. Have fun :)

One recent project that many people might be aware of is the Civil Society Democracy Project, which publishes the Cyber-Federalist newsletter, among other things.

One recent project that many people might be aware of is the Civil Society Democracy Project, which publishes the Cyber-Federalist newsletter, among other things.

One recent project that many people might be aware of is the Civil Society Democracy Project, which publishes the Cyber-Federalist newsletter, among other things.

Guido van Rossum writes: At the same time, Stallman doesn't want to allow any choice of law clauses, because one could stipulate the law of "Unfreedonia" which might reverse the meaning of the GPL. Even though the state of Virginia does no such thing!

Sorry, Guido, Virginia is Unfreedonia. It is the only state that passed UCITA without modification (Maryland passed a highly modified version that struck out some of the more obnoxious provisions). UCITA contains many horrors for free software developers and software users alike. Stallman pointed out many of these problems in this article. Virginia is the worst possible state in the US to specify as the jurisdiction where disputes over licensing will be settled.

I don't know if RMS's warning about UCITA potentially subjecting free software authors to liability (while exempting those who use shrink-wrap licenses) is correct or not, but it is a worry.

If Python is incompatible with the GPL, what it means is that people won't be able to link together Python code and GPLed code. This will be a major pain in the butt, so I hope that it can be fixed.

I don't know why everyone is giving RMS so much crap when it is CNRI that is making a change to a more restrictive license than it used in the past. CNRI created the problem, not RMS; as Guido said The new license was imposed by CNRI on Python 1.6 (the last release done from CNRI's code base).

The best solution will be to find some language that satisfies CNRI's concerns without causing these problems.

Answered my own question :) Civil Society Statement at the CPSR website

Answered my own question :) Civil Society Statement at the CPSR website

Apple was sued some time ago for dropping software support for the Lisa. As I understand it, the case was settled out of court. Whether the settlement included consequential damages, I don't know. The settlement wasn't exactly top news.

Which points up a critical fact: there have been, to the best of my recollection and the limits of my research capabilities, no viable software vendor hauled before a judge because of non-support because no company is stupid enough to let the situation get to that stage. Software vendors knows that it's far cheaper to pay money on technicians, developers, gurus, and consultants to fix the problem than it is to pay lawyers even more money to dismiss the complaint. The fix-the-problem route usually results in a satisfied customer, while the fix-the-law results in a pissed-off customer.

Besides, it's rather easy to see who has the $100,000 required to press such a suit, and sidetrack the legal action. Joe Six-Pack won't have that kind of money, and District Attornies have a high enough case load without taking on "petty problems."

The real problem is not with lawsuits, but the underlying statutes that regulate commercial transactions. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) doesn't work well with software and data collections. So there is a push to create a UCC-like statute in the 50 states that does for software and data what the UCC does for tangible products. Unfortunately, the proposed model statute (liked only by the SIIA, formally the Software Publishers Associaton, and hated by a long list of others) is flawed; see CPSR's fact page for more details. From the horse's mouth, the summary by the Uniform Acts Commissioners, as well as a Q&A page on the NCCUSL site.

A good analysis of the group of candidates as a whole is in the latest Cyber-Federalist Newsletter (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and Internet Democracy Project):
http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/cyber-fed/Nu mber_4.html

If you would like a detailed analysis of the nominees, I strongly suggest you read this link. It is on Dave Farber's site, and the link is to an email Dave received from Hans Klein of CPSR, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.

To quote the introduction of the message:

"The ICANN Nominating Committee recently announced its nominees for the At Large elections. Here I offer some analysis of the nominees' backgrounds and assess their qualifications to represent Internet users.

"In what follows I consider the following issues:

I. Nominees' Technical Expertise

II. Nominees' Qualifications to Represent Users

III. Regional Breakdown and Gaps in the Set of Nominees

"Let me first offer the conclusions: based on the limited information available to date, it seems that most of ICANN's proposed candidates reinforce the perspectives already present on the Board. Most come from the Internet supply industry, the intellectual property community, and the R&D community. Individuals from these groups possess impressive qualifications -- but not to represent Internet users. Only seven of ICANN's nominees seem appropriate to represent users, i.e. they offer perspectives that complement today's Supporting Organization directors. Some regions, most notably Europe, have *no* nominees with a clear user perspective. "

As for the soldier, well he really is just a link in the chain, since that's the way the military works. He just follows orders, he doesn't need to worry about them. He can't decide which are the "real" orders and to which ones he should say "That's immoral/unethical, I'm not going to do that".

No. That is exactly the attitude which makes crimes against humanity possible: "I was just following orders". It doesn't stand up. Each individual is responsible for his or her own actions. You know, this has been the main point of every trail on war-crimes since WWII, and indeed, you bet top nazis where convicted, while they were "just following orders". Why is this wrong? Because if you are willing to follow a lunatic on top, then you are contributing, because if you hadn't followed orders, it had never gone that far. You are all individuals! (No, don't give me that "I'm not!" :-) ).

As for the nuclear bomb, it was the scientists who should have stopped it, because only they could possibly be able to see the consequences of what they were up. Policymakers does not have the proper education to understand that, only the scientists.

As for technology in general, yes we do have a responsibility. As above, you can't just say you are a part of the chain, you will have to take responsibility for what you do. BTW, see Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.

If designers of Napster designed it with the purpose of taking away somebody's rights, then, they must take responsibility for it. Ulrich felt that his right to decide how his music was to be distributed, and he has a point there. If Napster creators can convince people that there are more important concerns, then they must do it. It is still their responsibility, they can't run away from it.

In the case of DeCSS, I think the creators are assuming the responsibility for what they have done, and it is no small responsibility, it could prompt massive social change, and it is my firm belief, that it is social change for something good. It is not the DeCSS that should be illegal, but CSS. CSS was designed with the intention of taking away fundamental rights, notably the right for fair use. The creators are hiding behind copyright laws, not assuming the responsibility for something so bad they should have said "no, this stuff is not good, I won't make it". The same goes for a lot of things /. flame about, like spyware.

In conclusion, you must assume responsibility for what you do. Now, it is not ethically minded hackers that I'm most concerned about, it's all the coders who will do anything if you pay them big bucks.

For you lefties:IGC - a great place to find yourself a few causes.

For everyone, I think... Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility

Also check out Plugged In for a look at a 'drop in center' for inner city youth in East Palo Alto. I'd really like to start something like this up in my own town. Just need more time/money/cajones.

-hc-

Okay. I know you will very well call me a stick in the mud for this one, but I must be a bit more pessimistic than the article or the general air for the IBM 405GP is.

I've followed the development of the for a while now, even having a few email conversations with Jonathon Thompson, Quong Ho Thoc, and Hagr Itstein (three lead developers). I told them about a few of my concerns but it looks like marketing prevailed :(

While yes, I am a fan of Linux and OSS (hell, I've used been running Slackware since version 2 and my firewalls run OpenBSD), I don't see Linux being the right tool for this. I don't want to see this product fail since I know IBM is a good company. By all means everything else they made was a success, but the IBM 405GP looks like it will be a flop.

Why?

(1) Security - This is a big concern for me. Imagine some evil hacker getting control of this baby...now imagine if this was used in your bank or a military instituion. See the problem? While I commend the design of Open Souce, perhaps allowing the innerworkings of this to be accessable by a hacker is not good, even more so when it's an embedded system.

Check out these sites, they explain why the needs for your desktop's security (which Linux can provide) are on the other end of the spectrum for bank/B2B/military security (which Linux cannot provide):
The CIA's spin
Military disablement
cpsr.org

(2) Expansion architecture - Check the specs on this thing. While a PCI slot is normally a good thing, wouldn't MCA or a propietary bus be better suited for this? Linux runs on the MCA fine, and I think it's low overhead and fault-tolerant properties are better than a run of the mill PCI slot for this. Or a new bus design could be implemented. IBM benefits with better performance, we as a comunity benefit from more GPL code being released. Sound good?

(3) Operating system - [flamesuit] I like Linux, but I don't think Linux is the best tool for this. IBM has made the decision to go with Linux, so I'll respect that. But I must say that WindowsCE or QNX would be better. We know who WindowsCE is backed by, but I must admit Mico$oft'$ embedded OS department knows thier stuff. Look at the recent Sharp handhelds - fine work and I think the same design could be applied to the IBM 405GP. If you don't want to recognize MS products though, I can understand. QNX would be just as valid (and in some ways such as power usage and latency) even better than WindowsCE and Linux. Scalibility and performance are key here, and QNX can deliver better than Linux. [/flamesuit]

Again, I don't like being negative but I don't think the IBM 405GP will do that well. I want to be proved wrong though, I want to see Linux progress and gain market share, and I want to see IBM be profitable....but Linux just ain't gonna cut it for this one my friends. Please tell me I'm wrong.

I really doubt that the UCITA law would be able to disallow anyone from printing/posting a bad review of a game out there. Posters in this group seem to forget that this would also affect some very big print/tv news services with enough deep pockets to go to bat for free speech.

CP

They won.

That was until the IRS brought it to the Supreme Court where they declared such information as exempt of the FOIA

Here's another example of the FOIA being denied. It has to do with a request of "all documentation and research materials used or developed by NIST during its selection of a proposed digital signature standard" being denied.

Unless someone offers a critic of existing organizations, with changes to be made - I'd argue we may have to many organizations and creating another would continue to fragment what influence there is to be had.

Or in other words, what "we" don't need is to defuse our resources by building up a new organization, but use those resources to strengthen or affect change within existing organizations.

There are a lot out there. I started with three:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility

The Center for Democracy and Technology

From there I was able to also dig up links to:

The Internet Education Foundation

The Media Access Project (non-profit telecomm lawyers, interesting..)

The Global Internet Liberty Campaign

Digital Future Coalition

Let alone those that aren't "purely" technical - such as the ACLU or People for the American Way, that touch on things like 1st Amendment (yep, American biased I am) rights. I could keep going and going, but if I didn't bore you ten lines ago, you would be now.

The likelihood of having THE "geek organization" are slim. Finding issues we can individually devote our resources to and building coalitions where interests overlap is a more realistic goal.

However, politically... those of us who actually work in the industry rather than own it (realizing that some folks do both), have very little influence. Politically, we are all over the map with a general spirit of libertarian ethics with a distrust of the megacorporation ingrained into our psyche by personal expierence and cyberpunk literature we have been gobbling for the last two decades.

And, if we formed our own party in the single member-district system of the U.S (sorry, I know the rest of the world is more democratic with parlimentary systems) such would be a third party which would never gain any influence outside of local elections in California and the Pacific North West. We also, as workers, don't have the money to buy...er...lobby politicans. Easy example... if you and AOL/Time-Warner lobby congress about MP3s, who do you think is going to win?

No, fellow workers... we get paid so much because we have power. Power, untapped and unrealized. Middle-management was gutted through downsizing and our network connections have given rise to more "just-in-time" capitalism. Our skills , if you believe the Software Labor Shortage Myth are in such short supply that we can not train and import workers fast enough. Imagine if we can collectively come to agreements in which we decide what things we will work for and will not. Not only can we have influence over technology, but a host of other things that need geeks to be accomplished.

Our power is in action, not the ballot box. We can vote with our feet. We can strike (here is the source. We can slack and slow down. We can sick-in. We can boycott. We can Direct Action. We can be as Electornically Civilly Disobedient, and we can be... it works like we did with Low Power FM through an organized political campaign of radio piracy, we were able to sieze part of the spectrum from corporate monoplization for community interests. We can break mass media blackouts of information, by making our own media, like we did in Seattle, and like we'll do again in DC.

Are you tired of 60-hour work weeks? Of corporations making deals with politicans to undermine over-time pay and encourage permatemping? We don't have to be slaves.

Are you tired of technology developing that penalizes both the worker and the consumer, to the benfit of a handful of the rich and power... anybody remember the Java Class War? Where was our class in that? Complaining about how the standards needed to be independent of propietary control, and largely doing nothing about it! We need to take control of training and make it clear that it is those of us work in the industry that can figure out who knows what, rather than some profiteering third party or a way for leading software companies to gouge folks for certification!

We need non-profit employment services (or hiring halls) so we can dump our contracting companies (ie. pimps, job sharks, etc... ) once and for all.

We need to organize, and organize in a way that maintains our autonomy and democratic values. We don't need any union bosses, telling us what we can and can't do... but we do need to be in solidarity with our fellow workers so we can support each other in struggle. Who among you wouldn't strike to help the workers in hardware manufacture to get a better shake? Some more pay, a safer environment, etc... Who among you wouldn't refuse to work, if you knew by refusing for a short time you could bring in ecological sound practices. We can bring on the Viridian revolution, but innovation won't be enough... we have to force the issue and force companies to clean up their mess.

We have to become responsible, or we have noone to blame for how bad work is but ourselves.

Solid,

Flint

Baltimore IWW Telecommunications and Computer Workers IU560

(San Francisco, Toronto)

Also check out: Syndicat de l'Industrie Informatique, Washington Technical Workers Alliance, FACE Intel, Alliance@IBM, BITE Division of NWU (Business - Instructional - Techincal - Electronic).

We Can Win! No Nerds, No Birds!

However, politically... those of us who actually work in the industry rather than own it (realizing that some folks do both), have very little influence. Politically, we are all over the map with a general spirit of libertarian ethics with a distrust of the megacorporation ingrained into our psyche by personal expierence and cyberpunk literature we have been gobbling for the last two decades.

And, if we formed our own party in the single member-district system of the U.S (sorry, I know the rest of the world is more democratic with parlimentary systems) such would be a third party which would never gain any influence outside of local elections in California and the Pacific North West. We also, as workers, don't have the money to buy...er...lobby politicans. Easy example... if you and AOL/Time-Warner lobby congress about MP3s, who do you think is going to win?

No, fellow workers... we get paid so much because we have power. Power, untapped and unrealized. Middle-management was gutted through downsizing and our network connections have given rise to more "just-in-time" capitalism. Our skills , if you believe the Software Labor Shortage Myth are in such short supply that we can not train and import workers fast enough. Imagine if we can collectively come to agreements in which we decide what things we will work for and will not. Not only can we have influence over technology, but a host of other things that need geeks to be accomplished.

Our power is in action, not the ballot box. We can vote with our feet. We can strike (here is the source. We can slack and slow down. We can sick-in. We can boycott. We can Direct Action. We can be as Electornically Civilly Disobedient, and we can be... it works like we did with Low Power FM through an organized political campaign of radio piracy, we were able to sieze part of the spectrum from corporate monoplization for community interests. We can break mass media blackouts of information, by making our own media, like we did in Seattle, and like we'll do again in DC.

Are you tired of 60-hour work weeks? Of corporations making deals with politicans to undermine over-time pay and encourage permatemping? We don't have to be slaves.

Are you tired of technology developing that penalizes both the worker and the consumer, to the benfit of a handful of the rich and power... anybody remember the Java Class War? Where was our class in that? Complaining about how the standards needed to be independent of propietary control, and largely doing nothing about it! We need to take control of training and make it clear that it is those of us work in the industry that can figure out who knows what, rather than some profiteering third party or a way for leading software companies to gouge folks for certification!

We need non-profit employment services (or hiring halls) so we can dump our contracting companies (ie. pimps, job sharks, etc... ) once and for all.

We need to organize, and organize in a way that maintains our autonomy and democratic values. We don't need any union bosses, telling us what we can and can't do... but we do need to be in solidarity with our fellow workers so we can support each other in struggle. Who among you wouldn't strike to help the workers in hardware manufacture to get a better shake? Some more pay, a safer environment, etc... Who among you wouldn't refuse to work, if you knew by refusing for a short time you could bring in ecological sound practices. We can bring on the Viridian revolution, but innovation won't be enough... we have to force the issue and force companies to clean up their mess.

We have to become responsible, or we have noone to blame for how bad work is but ourselves.

Solid,

Flint

Baltimore IWW Telecommunications and Computer Workers IU560

(San Francisco, Toronto)

Also check out: Syndicat de l'Industrie Informatique, Washington Technical Workers Alliance, FACE Intel, Alliance@IBM, BITE Division of NWU (Business - Instructional - Techincal - Electronic).

We Can Win! No Nerds, No Birds!

I've gotten into a few arguments and usually opted for alternate forms of ID (equally as dangerous, but still).

The fact of the matter is, gov't agencies, if they ask for your SSN, have to give you a Privacy Act Disclosure Notice. Private companies can ask for it. You can refuse but, as you found out, possibly at the cost of not receiving the service you were requesting.

Great links are:
http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/ssn/SSN-Private .html#private
and
http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/ssn/ssn.faq.htm l#IsItIllegalToAsk

as well as http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10002.html

Additionally, the anarchists among us are often keen to abolish copyright and patents, while progressives in particular usually want to reform them to "restore a balance".

Progressives and libertarians are also strongly divided over Internet taxation, as well as taxes used to fund or subsidize Internet access.

Some geeks (seemingly independent of other issues?) have strong disagreements about private-sector censorship and invasion of privacy -- especially when practiced by parents rather than corporations. :-)

There are also some socially conservative geeks out there somewhere, including a few on slashdot. Professional corporate IT is very conservative, but contains a much smaller percentage of computer enthusiasts and computer hobbyists.

Think of the difference between groups like CIEC, VTW, Peacefire, CPSR, EFF, the LP, and then Nader's CPT. All of these organizations "oppose censorship" in some form; do they meaningfully agree on any fundamentals of political philosophy? CIEC included conservative Republicans; the LP's got anarchocapitalists; VTW was chock-full of progressive Democrats; CPSR and the CPT speak for social democrats and even a couple of revolutionary Communists...

It's not just Tipper.
Remember the "Clipper Chip" and the CDA? Both were supported (if not proposed) by the Clinton Administration.
I don't understand how these people are considered liberal...

More information...
Clipper Chip information
CDA

jonathan@apathetic.net
(I will never be able to make a decent looking post.)

• 'Victim,' which I see as most common... the fair maiden who needs to be rescued from the evil (fill-in-the-blank).
• 'Vixen,' which I see as runner up to Victim... the woman is present as a sex object, and usually in no other capacity. Methinks the much-discussed Lara Croft (wish I had an Onion link...) falls into this category... though she kicks a fair amount of ass, too... a rare, rare occurrence. A better example of this is StarCraft. My biggest quarrel with this otherwise-excellent game is that every female character hits on you. I find this kind of offensive, personally.
• 'Invisible.' I have problems with this one. Ms. Buchanan cites NHL/NFL games as prime examples of sans female games... but last I checked, neither organization had any female players, owners, managers, coaches, etc. If I am wrong, please correct me. I have problems with the term, too... this is not invisible, but absent. I think invisibility is something that Ms. Buchanan would agree with... if it meant that women were present just as people, and presented in a manner similar to the males (though perhaps with more polygons...).

• Sports games that feature all or nearly-all males do so because males play these games even more disproportionally than the others. And they could make sports games with women... I just don't forsee WNBA Jam coming out within my natural lifespan.
• For that matter... we (males) disproportionally play video games in general... leaving aside the cause for a moment, let us examine the effect... game makers, wanting to capture the largest audience and make the most money, write games oriented towards males. This generally makes the area a bit less inviting to females, and the cycle repeats. Yay free market, right?
• I know some female computer geeks. They fall into two categories: The ones pushed there by affirmative-action type programs, who are there because everyone told them they could, who are there, really because someone wanted nice(r) demographics. Then, there are the good ones. The ones that can take Linus Torvalds and Rich Stallman and code circles around them. These are the only ones to hang on, because, sadly, the industry involves a lot of hazing, a lot of aggresive behavior (to which the socially acceptable response is the instinctive male one), and yes, sometimes a "what-does-a-woman-know-about-computers" attitude. I agree with other statements I've seen here on Slashdot that no one, regardless of what they've got in their underpants, should be in the computer industry if it's not because they really belong here.
• "The Internet is unfriendly to women," because of people hitting on you and stalking you or not listening to you or somehow discriminating because you're female. Welcome to the Western world. As I think you've noticed, this hemisphere is dominated by old rich white guys... why (and I ask this honestly) did you think it would be otherwise in cyberspace?

• 'Victim,' which I see as most common... the fair maiden who needs to be rescued from the evil (fill-in-the-blank).
• 'Vixen,' which I see as runner up to Victim... the woman is present as a sex object, and usually in no other capacity. Methinks the much-discussed Lara Croft (wish I had an Onion link...) falls into this category... though she kicks a fair amount of ass, too... a rare, rare occurrence. A better example of this is StarCraft. My biggest quarrel with this otherwise-excellent game is that every female character hits on you. I find this kind of offensive, personally.
• 'Invisible.' I have problems with this one. Ms. Buchanan cites NHL/NFL games as prime examples of sans female games... but last I checked, neither organization had any female players, owners, managers, coaches, etc. If I am wrong, please correct me. I have problems with the term, too... this is not invisible, but absent. I think invisibility is something that Ms. Buchanan would agree with... if it meant that women were present just as people, and presented in a manner similar to the males (though perhaps with more polygons...).

• Sports games that feature all or nearly-all males do so because males play these games even more disproportionally than the others. And they could make sports games with women... I just don't forsee WNBA Jam coming out within my natural lifespan.
• For that matter... we (males) disproportionally play video games in general... leaving aside the cause for a moment, let us examine the effect... game makers, wanting to capture the largest audience and make the most money, write games oriented towards males. This generally makes the area a bit less inviting to females, and the cycle repeats. Yay free market, right?
• I know some female computer geeks. They fall into two categories: The ones pushed there by affirmative-action type programs, who are there because everyone told them they could, who are there, really because someone wanted nice(r) demographics. Then, there are the good ones. The ones that can take Linus Torvalds and Rich Stallman and code circles around them. These are the only ones to hang on, because, sadly, the industry involves a lot of hazing, a lot of aggresive behavior (to which the socially acceptable response is the instinctive male one), and yes, sometimes a "what-does-a-woman-know-about-computers" attitude. I agree with other statements I've seen here on Slashdot that no one, regardless of what they've got in their underpants, should be in the computer industry if it's not because they really belong here.
• "The Internet is unfriendly to women," because of people hitting on you and stalking you or not listening to you or somehow discriminating because you're female. Welcome to the Western world. As I think you've noticed, this hemisphere is dominated by old rich white guys... why (and I ask this honestly) did you think it would be otherwise in cyberspace?

What does hold up is personalities. Particularly how men and woman collaberate. Men tend to be more confrontational. They are more likely to say "that's the stupidest fucking idea I've ever heard" and respond aggresivly when told such a comment. Women build concensus, are more often self critical and don't respond well to agressive criticism.

On e of the articles from that issue of the CPSR newsletter mentions something along those lines:

In asynchronous CMC such as takes place in discussion lists and newsgroups on the Internet and Usenet, males are more likely to post longer messages, begin and close discussions in mixed-sex groups, assert opinions strongly as "facts", use crude language (including insults and profanity), and in general, manifest an adversarial orientation towards their interlocutors (Herring 1992, 1993, 1996b, forthcoming; Kramarae & Taylor 1992; Savicki et al. 1996; Sutton 1994). In contrast, females tend to post relatively short messages, and are more likely to qualify and justify their assertions, apologize, express support of others, and in general, manifest an "aligned" orientation towards their interlocutors (Hall 1996; Herring 1993, 1996b; Savicki et al. 1996). Males sometimes adopt an adversarial style even in cooperative exchanges, and females often appear to be aligned even when they disagree with one another, suggesting that gender socialization carried over from face-to-face interaction is at the root of these behaviors, rather than inherent character traits based on biological sex. Moreover, there is evidence that the minority gender in an online community tends to modify its communicative behavior in the direction of the majority gender: women tend to be more aggressive in male-dominated groups than among other women, and men tend to be less aggressive in female-dominated groups than in groups controlled by men (Baym 1996; Herring 1996b), an observation which suggests that the more numerous a gender group is online, the greater the influence it will have on shared discursive norms.

(I'm not entirely sure why males adopting an adversarial style in cooperative exchanges, and females adopting an "aligned" style even when disagreeing, suggests that these differences stem from socialization rather than biology - I'm not saying they do stem from biology; heck, they may not even stem from one single cause....)

I'm curious whether, as this might suggest, getting more women to contribute to computer-mediated communication forums would dampen the bad aspects of the stereotypical male style, e.g. cause fewer opinions to be asserted strongly as "facts" (and, in my aggressive confrontational male style, I'd suggest that, if that happened, it might considerably raise the quality-to-crap ratio of, say, USENET or Slashdot...).

Frankly, the idea of "gender issues" gives me hives. Clearly, in an ideal world career opportunities would be available strictly based on ability and performance. Relative to a community, we might speak in terms of esteem and contribution rather than opportunity and ability. That we do not live in an ideal world, and that "gender" as such plays a role in these things is self-evident - and unfortunate. But it is easy to over-analyze this fact to the point of absurdity, and to overstate the problem to the point of untruthfulness. I think that is what has been done in this issue of the CPSR newsletter.

I put "gender" in quotes because I'm a bit of a language purist. I believe that current trends in the development of English tend to make it a clumsier and less expressive form of communication. I therefore strongly dislike the use of "gender" to mean "sex." Not so long ago, "gender" was a strictly grammatical term, and "sex" was used to denote both the act of copulation and la difference. Somehow, in the process of the societal changes that made copulation so free and easy (in theory anyway), "sex" lost it's second meaning. I'm sure that a contributing factor is that there is no gender in English, and where it does occur it tends to be in loan words or neologisms from Latin. An irritant, nevertheless.

I only had time to read the introduction and selected articles, but if the sort of research exemplified by this article is any sample, the data presented is virtually worthless. The information presented about "Women's Language" vs. "Men's Lanugage" in online interactions, for example, is nonsensical. It is:

• Dated - the data are from 1994. This is an eternity online. Does the author really imagine that nothing has changed since then?
• Subjective - An example is "Explicit justifications" under Women's Language vs. "Presuppositions" under Men's. Well, maybe the author thought so. But anyone who routinely interacts with MOTOS, and is paying attention, knows that each sex possesses its own set of presuppositions which are often so ingrained as to be invisible to the individual. Besides, justifications can only go so far. Behind every justification is a set of presuppositions. Formally, these are called "axioms".
• Inaccurate - According to this table, women do not engage in humor or sarcasm online. Apparently these people have never met my wife, or the women with whom she interacts online - or, for that matter the women with whom I interact online. I could say the same about some the other characterizations.

One irritating assumption is that it is necessarily a Bad Thing that women are underrepresented in the technical occupations. Why should that be perceived as a problem? Is there a great deal of concern over the preponderance of women in the teaching profession? Or nursing? As small-business owners? As recipients of college degrees? As moralistic nationally syndicated talk show hosts?

I don't know why the fact, evident from centuries of experiences of both sexes, that men and women do not think the same way, have different priorities in life, and find different things to be interesting, should be so disturbing. Women as a group are simply not interested in things geekly. I received my bachelor's degree in 1985 from a small engineering college on the East Coast. Formerly a men-only institution, they had been co-ed for at least 10 years by the time I matriculated. The male-to-female ratio was 7:1, and from what I hear this hasn't changed. Similar trends obtain nationwide. There is no bar, either legally or socially, against women attending these institutions. They don't want to.

(As it happens, my own social circle in college was split between the sexes roughly 50-50 as is my group here at work, so I obviously know a large number of women who are interested. I speak in the general case.)

I can only conclude that the author of this particular article, and the others in this issue of the CPSR newsletter, feel they have some vested interest in generating a sense of sex-based exclusion in online interactions that does not in fact exist. I decline to speculate on what that might be. I do think that as a result their views are not worthy of serious consideration - and certainly not of affecting public policy - unless they can assemble a more compelling set of data.

Very few of the comments have been about the articles in the news letter. Here are some pointers to the articles that I think would be of most interest to slashdotters. (Disclosure: I was a co-editor of the newsletter.)

• Ge nder Differences in CMC: Findings and Implications, by linguist Susan Herring gives the results of empirical studies of gender and CMC.
• Where Have Women Gone and Will They Be Returning provides the latest statistics on women and computing.
• Forb idden Technology is a fun piece on "the technology of the female orgasm".

Very few of the comments have been about the articles in the news letter. Here are some pointers to the articles that I think would be of most interest to slashdotters. (Disclosure: I was a co-editor of the newsletter.)

• Ge nder Differences in CMC: Findings and Implications, by linguist Susan Herring gives the results of empirical studies of gender and CMC.
• Where Have Women Gone and Will They Be Returning provides the latest statistics on women and computing.
• Forb idden Technology is a fun piece on "the technology of the female orgasm".

Very few of the comments have been about the articles in the news letter. Here are some pointers to the articles that I think would be of most interest to slashdotters. (Disclosure: I was a co-editor of the newsletter.)

• Ge nder Differences in CMC: Findings and Implications, by linguist Susan Herring gives the results of empirical studies of gender and CMC.
• Where Have Women Gone and Will They Be Returning provides the latest statistics on women and computing.
• Forb idden Technology is a fun piece on "the technology of the female orgasm".

Very few of the comments have been about the articles in the news letter. Here are some pointers to the articles that I think would be of most interest to slashdotters. (Disclosure: I was a co-editor of the newsletter.)

• Ge nder Differences in CMC: Findings and Implications, by linguist Susan Herring gives the results of empirical studies of gender and CMC.
• Where Have Women Gone and Will They Be Returning provides the latest statistics on women and computing.
• Forb idden Technology is a fun piece on "the technology of the female orgasm".

It is quite interesting to see how so far there has been very little evidence that anyone has even started to read the articles before posting a 'response.'

Anyway, does anybody remember the early history of computers, and the dearth of female computer programmers and users? Quite interestingly, women were there from the beginning, it was just that the men writing the histories made the decision to only focus on the men and their machines... Even though the first programmer was female, and the people responsible for making ENIAC (or was it UNIVAC?) work were almost all women.

Gender bias is real, and a serious problem. Take a look at the article on on line communication, and the different problems that are found in this supposedly 'equal' communications medium.

A person will remain biased whether they are communicating via a centuries old medium or a supposedly blank tabula rasa.

Slashdot is a pretty clear case in point, and fits very well within the descriptions of the masculine culture that dominates the internet today, according to that article.

Yahoo does not need your SSN to pay bills for you ...

You don't put an SSN on a check to a credit-card company because the bank has your SSN and so does the credit-card company. The exchange is between two corporations both of which already know your SSN. In this case, Yahoo is being asked to act as an financial intermediary, and almost any such organization will want your SSN.

Which is not to say they won't use it for lots of other stuff, but there's MUCH more going on than advertising.

Reference:

Many banks send the names, addresses, and SSNs of people whose accounts have been closed for cause to a company called ChexSystem. ChexSystem keeps a database of people whose accounts have been terminated for fraud or chronic insufficient funds in the past 5 years.

- The Boston Lunatic

...why don't you read the CSPR Social Security Number FAQ? Also, check out the longer Privacy Rights SSN FAQ, which has a section entitled "How can a school use my Social Security number?" In fact, what the hell, I'm going to include it here:

How can a school use my Social Security number?

Schools that receive federal funding must comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act in order to retain their funding (FERPA, also known as the "Buckley Amendment," enacted in 1974, 20 USC 1232g). One of FERPA's provisions requires written consent for the release of educational records or personally identifiable information, with some exceptions. The courts have stated that Social Security numbers fall within this provision.

FERPA applies to state colleges, universities and technical schools that receive federal funding. An argument can be made that if such a school displays students' SSNs on identification cards or distributes class rosters or grades listings containing SSNs, it would be a release of personally identifiable information, violating FERPA. However, many schools and universities have not interpreted the law this way and continue to use SSNs as a student identifier. To succeed in obtaining an alternate number to the SSN, you will probably need to be persistent and cite the law. Social Security numbers may be obtained by colleges and universities for students who have university jobs and/or receive federal financial aid. (The FERPA text can be found at the web, www.cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/ssn/ferpa.buckley.html .)

Public schools, colleges and universities that ask for your SSN fall within the provisions of another federal law, the Privacy Act of 1974. This act requires such schools to provide a disclosure statement telling students how the Social Security number is used. If you are required to provide your SSN, be sure to look for the school's disclosure statement. If one is not offered, you may want to file a complaint with the school, citing the Privacy Act.

When the school is a private institution, your only recourse is to work with the administration to change the policy or at least to let you use an alternate identification number as your student ID.

P.S. Since I'm clinging to my privacy rights and posting as an AC, I'd appreciate it if a kindly moderator would bump the rating on this up to at least "1" so that most folks see it. Thanks!

Almost anyone can require your SSN. Your employer, is an obvious example of someone other than the IRS who can do so. See What to do when they ask for your Social Security Number for a wealth of info.

I think you need to distinguish between governmental agencies and private businesses.

According to Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility

There are many restrictions on government agencies asking for your number, but few on individuals or companies. When someone from a government agency asks for your number, they are required to provide a Privacy Act Disclosure Notice, which is required to tell you what law allows them to ask, whether you have to provide your number, and what will happen if you don't provide the number.

Private companies aren't required to follow this law, and in general your recourse is to find another company to do business with if you don't like their policies.

This is interesting since a school district is very much like a government agency, isn't it?

True, the specific name of the person was changed, but, amusing as this is, it's still inappropriate. The job of a support staff member is to help users, not judge them.

See SAGE and Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and the ACM for more on this subject.

This notice must state the authority that gives them the to ask, and whether or not it is voluntary.

If they want to grant new agencies the authority to ask, they are still free to do so. They do NOT need to amend the Privacy Act, they simply have to tell you what law is violating your privacy.

See http://www.cpsr.or g/cpsr/privacy/ssn/SSN-History.html#PrivacyAct

...can be found at http://cpsr.org/cpsr/privacy/ssn/ssn. faq.html

The document includes this text:

Banks

Banks and various others are required by the IRS to report the SSNs of account holders to whom they pay interest. If you don't tell them your number you will probably either be refused an account or be charged a penalty such as withholding of taxes on your interest. Most banks will refuse to open safe deposit boxes without a SSN, though there is no direct governmental requirement that they collect it. One correspondent reported that he was able to open a non-interest bearing account at a US bank by presenting a passport and international driver's license. (This correspondent implied that it was a US passport. You can get an international driver's license at AAA.)