Computer underground Digest Wed Dec 3, 1997 Volume 9 : Issue 89
ISSN 1004-042X
Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #9.89 (Wed, Dec 3, 1997)
File 1--Censorware Summit agenda (December 1-3)
File 2--"Halting the Hacker" by Pipkin
File 3--No Blocking in Canadian Libraries (fwd)
File 4--NETFUTURE--something new (Net & Education)
File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 22:42:19 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: File 1--Censorware Summit agenda (December 1-3)
Source - fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu, cypherpunks@toad.com
[Note civil liberties and journalism groups are absent from the list of
organizations represented. --Declan]
===========
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:
Wednesday, November 19, 1997 Sydney Rubin, 301/654-5991
Malena Hougen,
202/828-9730
INTERNET/ONLINE SUMMIT: FOCUS ON CHILDREN RELEASES AGENDA FOR MEETING,
DECEMBER 1-3
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Organizers of the Internet/Online Summit: Focus on Children
today released an agenda for the historic three-day meeting of public
interest and family advocates, educators, industry leaders and law
enforcement officials joining forces to find ways to enhance the safety
and education of children in cyberspace.
The meeting is the first time so many diverse organizations have come
together to address safety and content issues related to children and the
new mass medium. The Summit is the first in a series of discussions on
issues affecting children in cyberspace, including advertising, access,
privacy, and marketing and content. The first meeting will focus on
content and safety.
The December 1-3 Summit will include speakers, panels, announcements of
initiatives taken by the Summit and its participants, and a small
exhibition of technological tools and educational resources available to
help parents manage children's time on-line. Panelists will be announced
prior to the Summit.
The Summit Agenda, which is subject to change, follows:
MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 5 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
Registration and Opening Reception adjacent to technological tools kiosks
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 7:30 a.m. - 6 p.m.
Breakfast
Call to Order
Speaker (Vice President Al Gore invited to speak)
Presentation on Good Content with the Public Broadcasting System and others
Framing the Issues: speaker Lois Jean White, President of the National PTA
Panel in Framing the Issues
Panel in "Safety"
Luncheon Speakers: Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Secretary of
Commerce
William M. Daley
Presentation on Law Enforcement On-Line: Attorney General Janet Reno and
panelists
Presentation on Public Education: Secretary Richard W. Riley and panelists
Presentation on the Technology Tool Kit
Panel on Filtering and Ratings
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 8:30 a.m. - noon
Breakfast
Review of Previous Day: Christine Varney, Chairperson of the Summit
Congressional Roundtable with Summit Participants
Kids Panel Moderated by Linda Ellerbee
Conclusion
All activities will take place at the Renaissance Washington, D.C. Hotel at
999 Ninth Street, N.W.
Registration to attend the Summit must be done through the Summit's Web
site: www.kidsonline.org. Separate registration forms are available at the
site for journalists and the public, as well as other information as it
become available.
A partial list of the organizations sponsoring the Summit includes:
AT&T America Online
American Library Association Center for
Democracy and Technology
Center for Media Education Children Now
The Children's Partnership CompuServe
The Direct Marketing Association Disney Online
Digital Equipment/Alta Vista Enough is Enough
Family Education Company IBM
Interactive Services Association The
Learning Company/Cyber Patrol
Microsoft Corporation MCI Communication
Corporation
NETCOM Net Nanny
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children National Consumers
League
National Education Association National Law Center
Surfwatch Time Warner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:21:37 EST
From: "Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan & Trevor"
Subject: File 2--"Halting the Hacker" by Pipkin
BKHLTHCK.RVW 970706
"Halting the Hacker", Donald L. Pipkin, 1997, 0-13-243718-X, U$44.95/C$62.95
%A Donald L. Pipkin
%C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
%D 1997
%G 0-13-243718-X
%I Prentice Hall
%O U$44.95/C$62.95 201-236-7139 fax: 201-236-7131 betsy_carey@prenhall.com
%P 193
%T "Halting the Hacker: A Practical Guide to Computer Security"
This book is a compilation of observations on computer security, particularly
on network connected computers, and particularly in regard to outside
intruders. What specific system information is included relates to UNIX.
Most of the advice is generic. The information is "practical" in that it
relates to common, rather than theoretical, attacks. However, the text does
not provide practical answers: the defenses are left as an exercise to the
reader.
There is nothing really wrong with the information provided in the book. (I
wasn't too thrilled with the section on viruses, but we'll let that go.) It
has all, though, been said before, notably by works such as Spafford and
Garfinkel's "Practical UNIX and Internet Security" (cf. BKPRUISC.RVW). In
fact, there were passages that I'm quite sure I could have traced as to origin
and author.
Normally, I don't comment on CD-ROMs unless something unique is available. As
with most such disks, this one provides information that is available
elsewhere, mostly from COAST. Overall, though, in this case I think the CD-ROM
does add some value, holding information such as the "Rainbow series" of
security standards, and a list of machine address codes for Internet addressing
as assigned to vendors.
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1997 BKHLTHCK.RVW 970706
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:26:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Kinchlea <security@KINCH.ARK.COM>
Subject: File 3--No Blocking in Canadian Libraries (fwd)
I got this response after sending the note on Libraries (not) using
blocking software to a friend at the London (Ontario Canada) Public
Library. Thought perhaps CuD readers would be interested in their
response. The author asked to remain anonymous, just for privacy's sake.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Hi, Dave -
Thanks for the article. We have had a really interesting kind of
situation happening here at LPL for a while. London supports the notion
of freedom of information in all its forms so none of our public internet
machines are governed by any kind of blocking software. We have recently
entered into a partnership with Bell Canada and have 3 of their Community
Express kiosks in our libraries--these do use Cyberpatrol. The internet
machines are all out in plain view in high-traffic zones. Until the Bell
machines were installed, we had not had one complaint from a patron or
staff member about offensive material displayed on the terminals. As soon
as the Bell machine was up all the kids hotfoot it in here to see if they
could beat the system. We had all kinds of naked women parading around
the lobby.
So, theory's great. Practical's better. Don't issue the challenge and no
one's going to care!...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 18:59:31 EST
From: Steve Talbott <stevet@ora.com>
Subject: File 4--NETFUTURE--something new (Net & Education)
((MODERATORS' NOTE: We won't be doing a special issue on
Education until early February, so we'll print the entirety
of Steve Talbott's recent NETFUTURE, which addresses
Net teaching. There seems to be a small, but growing group of
CuD readers who find the teaching stuff useful, so we'll try to
run material periodically, but keep it confined to special issues)).
+++++++
I seem to have settled into an every-other-week schedule with the
NETFUTURE newsletter. With today's posting I begin the occasional
circulation of items separate from the newsletter. (I'll welcome your
pointers to material that might be of interest to the readership.) These
additional postings will normally occur during "off" weeks, and the
frequency of all postings from NETFUTURE should still never be greater
than one per week. It may be considerably less.
This first posting is an edited compilation of material drawn mostly from
NETFUTURE and dealing with technology and education. The idea was to pull
together some responses to the most common arguments for wiring primary
and secondary classrooms. I wanted to do it in aphoristic form, and in a
single document that readers could give to their local teachers and school
board members, or share with other mailing lists. (The current document
has already found some good use in this regard.)
I may well update these notes regularly, responding to new issues as they
are raised, so please let me hear any critisms you have.
November 12, 1997 1997.1
##########################################################################
# This article has been forwarded as a service of NETFUTURE. You may #
# freely redistribute it, along with this message, for noncommercial #
# purposes. For information about NETFUTURE and how to subscribe, visit #
# the web page: http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/ #
##########################################################################
WIRED CLASSROOMS: WHAT YOU'RE NOT HEARING
Stephen L. Talbott
A Little History
----------------
Back in the late Seventies and early Eighties, computer-aided instruction
(CAI) was going to revolutionize education. Then CAI lost its glitter and
computer literacy was the rage -- students would learn to program in
BASIC, and then become engineers and scientists. Today, you don't hear
much about programming in BASIC (or any other language). Now we're
convinced we have to let our kids mine the informational riches of the Net
if they're not to fall hopelessly behind.
Do we have a much clearer idea about why the Net is so essential to the
child's education than we once did about why computer literacy or CAI was
the critical thing? And are we so knowledgeable about this that we can
confidently say, with full understanding of the trade-offs, "It's
obviously better to invest billions of dollars in wiring our schools than
to use these billions to improve teacher salaries, lower the
teacher/student ratio, or add more highly trained staff"?
Computers are not the first technology to promise an educational
revolution. Here's what the New York *Times* wrote in 1923 about radio:
The Hertzian waves will carry education as they do music to the
backwoods, isolated farms and into the mountains of Tennessee, Kentucky
and West Virginia. The limitations of "the little red schoolhouse"
will pass away; the country schoolteacher will be reinforced by college
professors and other specialists. Radio will be an institution of
learning as well as a medium for entertainment and communication.
Of course, when that promise soured, there was no need to be pessimistic;
attention was already focused on the next, glittering opportunity --
television:
While children may be bored and restless when merely listening to a
speaker [on radio] without seeing him, living talent or motion pictures
broadcast at a certain time to all schools in a given area will capture
and hold their interest. The fascination of television for children
has already been demonstrated in the homes of those now possessing
television receivers in the New York area. (Sarnoff, 1941)
Today, we've all heard the new mantra countless times:
You can't expect a passive medium like television to contribute much to
the education of viewers. But with the advent of interactive computer
networks, education will be revolutionized. The child's imagination
will finally be set free to roam the world, guided by his own
interests.
And we already hear rumors of the next round:
Why should students be interested in flat-screen interaction with a
two-dimensional world? But with full-immersion virtual reality we can
present the child with infinitely rich learning environments. He lives
in the world he is learning about, and even helps to create it.
The problem in all of this is not hard to grasp. The proponents of these
new technologies have taken their eyes off the educational ball. They
have not first identified an *educational* problem and then gone out and
determined that, yes, computers do indeed look like the best of all
possible solutions to this problem. Instead, bedazzled by the technology,
they simply assume its necessity and try to figure out how it should be
used. Absolutely convinced that they have an *answer*, they set about
looking for the *question* -- upon which they are convinced their
children's future must hang. Unfortunately, they never seem quite able to
locate the question, which is forever shifting.
Every proposal to bring computers into the classroom ought to be preceded
by a clear statement of the educational problem to which the computers are
expected to be the solution, along with an explanation of the solution.
This is not too much to ask of an institution devoted to the cultivation
of human *understanding*.
Non-problems
------------
There are good reasons for having computers in (some) classrooms, and
there are lousy ones. It just so happens that the reasons driving the
current frenzy to wire our schools are almost uniformly lousy ones. They
include the following:
*** "We Need Computers Because They Give Students Access to So Much
Information."
But the availability of information is not the educational bottleneck. It
has not been for several decades, if it ever was. Our challenge, given
the infinitesimal fraction of available information we can actually use in
the classroom, is how make it the occasion for a profound learning
experience.
As Neil Postman has remarked, "If a nuclear holocaust should occur some
place in the world, it will not happen because of insufficient
information; if children are starving in Somalia, it's not because of
insufficient information; if crime terrorizes our cities, marriages are
breaking up, mental disorders are increasing, and children are being
abused, none of this happens because of a lack of information."
In fact, Postman tells us, information is more like garbage than anything
else. It assaults us from all sides, and needs to be cleared out if we're
to blaze a path that the child can follow.
When we think about the teachers who most decisively influenced us, what
we remember above all is the teachers themselves, not some striking piece
of information they conveyed. We saw in them what it meant to be a human
being facing certain aspects of the world. *That* is a path a child can
follow.
The informational content of our learning is almost never as important as
the intensity and qualitative vividness with which we work over this
content as we bring it to life within us, or as the degree to which we
exercise and extend our capacities in doing so. How do we gain this
intensity and vividness? Most of all with the aid of a teacher or mentor
who brings those qualities to our shared experiences.
Louise Chawla at Kentucky State University has reviewed the published
research about the influences that make people choose careers as
environmentalists, naturalists, ecologists, and the like -- careers
suggesting a concern for the natural world. Not surprisingly, two of the
influences consistently showing up at the top of the list are (1) wild
places directly experienced (usually at a young age); and (2) adult
mentors (Chawla, forthcoming).
*** "We Have To Prepare Our Kids for the Jobs of the Future."
This argument is fatally off-target. The software that kids use today
will not be the software they use five, ten, or fifteen years from now on
the job. The World Wide Web, for which huge numbers of people are
programming and creating content today, did not even exist four years ago.
And, by all accounts, the pace of technical change is increasing rather
than slowing down.
The critical thing is to prepare centered, reflective, deeply grounded
students who will, as adults, prove able to cope with the change.
Students who have not come to know themselves and their own powers of
understanding before they are exposed to the dizzying, adult world of
technology and commerce will be the ones least likely to adapt in the end.
Messrs. Clinton and Gore -- supported by high-tech corporations and far
too many educators -- drill into us that we must train children to carry
out twenty-first-century jobs. But that does not nearly raise the mark
high enough. Our real task is to raise mature individuals who will be
able to decide what sorts of jobs are worth creating and having in the
twenty-first century. Adapting kids to existing technology is not the
first priority; the first priority is to enable them to stand above all
technology, as its masters rather than its tools.
Ironically, the kids today are typically far ahead of their teachers in
their adaptation. As many teachers today cast around frantically to
figure out what they're supposed to do with the high-tech toys being
pushed at them, the kids are often the ones who end up showing them how to
use the stuff.
A single semester's course for eighth graders could easily teach basic
typing, word-processing, spreadsheet, and web-search skills, preparatory
for any high-school requirements in this regard.
*** "We Have To Help Our Kids Become Global Citizens."
If you want to find out whether a child will become a good world citizen,
don't look at a file of her email correspondence. Just observe her
behavior on the playground for a few minutes -- assuming she spends her
class breaks on the playground, and not at her terminal playing video
games.
Contrary to the prevailing, romantic picture, the Net invites yet further
de-emphasis of the single, most important learning community (consisting
of people who are fully present) in favor of a continuing retreat into
communal abstractions -- in particular, retreat into a community of others
whose odor, unpleasant habits, physical and spiritual needs, and even
challenging ideas, a student doesn't have to reckon with in quite the same
way her neighbor demands.
A technology educator once remarked to me that he's seen students who
spend time corresponding with pen pals in Kuala Lumpur never bothering to
say a word to the Asian students who locker right next to them.
As to the multicultural benefits of online exposure, certain basic truths
have yet to make their appearance in the public discussion. Lowell Monke
taught for several years at a private, international school in Quito,
Ecuador -- a school that now has Internet access. These kids, he points
out, "raised in a society influenced by cable TV and vacations in Miami,"
are hardly in a position to educate American children about a native
culture that predates the Incas. Go twenty miles outside the city,
however, and you will find that those who live in the thatched-roof huts
don't even have power outlets, let alone Internet access.
The global network of techno-haves reinforces the participants'
impression that they live in a homogeneous thought-world, leading 'Net
gurus to extol the virtue of the 'Net as a means for discovering
commonalities among "all" people of the world. The irony is, of course,
that the similarities being discovered are those that high technology
itself has spread. (Monke, 1997)
Perhaps the most convincing reason for use of the Net has to do with
learning a foreign language. But even here it's useful to see how
distorted the rhetoric about computers has become. It is, of course,
perfectly reasonable for the more advanced language student to look for
opportunities to correspond with language natives. Setting aside the
likelihood that there are native speakers in the local community, this
opportunity has long been available -- and occasionally taken advantage of
-- courtesy of the postal system. And without massive capital outlay.
Students who send and receive one email message per day can just as easily
send and receive one letter per day.
The fact that email has suddenly given new life to the penpal idea is
certainly owing to the computer's (temporary) glamor. Is glamor the
substance of the new educational paradigm?
*** "CD-ROMs Bring the World to the Student's Desktop."
It is true that CD-ROMs, like television nature programs, carry images and
sounds that would otherwise remain unavailable to students. But to leave
the matter there is, again, to ignore what is essential to *education*.
Listen to this true story:
Yesterday my eleven-year old son and I were hiking in a remote wood.
He was leading. He spotted [a] four-foot rattlesnake in the trail
about six feet in front of us. We watched it for quite some time
before going around it. When we were on the way home, he commented
that this was the best day of his life. He was justifiably proud of
the fact that he had been paying attention and had thus averted an
accident, and that he had been able to observe this powerful,
beautiful, and sinister snake.
Barry Angell, the father, then asked exactly the right question: "I
wonder how many armchair nature-watchers have seen these dangerous snakes
on the tube and said `this is the best day of my life.'" And he
concluded: "Better one rattlesnake in the trail than a whole menagerie of
gorillas, lions, and elephants on the screen" (Talbott, 1995: 160).
The point is not that children have to encounter rattlesnakes or other
exotic and dangerous animals. The essential question, rather, has to do
with how children forge an inner connection to *whatever* experience of
the world they are having. The dramatic footage on the screen distances
the child from the subject matter, which is why this footage is not often
the cause of memorable days. And to the extent the child *is* affected by
it -- most likely to happen in the case of jolting special effects -- the
result is more like something that is *done* to the child than something
he gains from his own capacity to connect to the world.
Imagine that the boy's father had begun tormenting the snake, and that
together they had thrown rocks at it, finally leaving it killed or
injured. We can be quite sure that the boy would not have celebrated the
best day of his life. In fact, assuming that all natural feeling had not
yet been deadened within him, we can guess that he would have felt
distinctly out of sorts by the end of the day.
But that, of course, is not what happened. The father clearly felt wonder
at the snake's presence, admiration for its beauty, grace, and power, and
a receptive curiosity about its nature. Without this context, the boy's
experience could not have been what it was. What counted was not only
that he met a snake on the trail, but that he found something
the deficit by subjecting them to more distant, more mediated experiences,
however exotic. The quest for powerful sensations can only have the
opposite effect, blinding children to the "routine" wonders of their own
experience:
As an environmental educator leading field walks for many years, I
found I often had to wrestle with the fact that kids (and adults) who
had been raised on lots of [nature] programming expected the same sort
of visual extravaganza to unfold before their eyes; they expected a
host of colorful species to appear and "perform" for them. (Kevin
Dann, quoted in Talbott, 1995, p. 161)
Why the Computer Belongs in Education -- and When
-------------------------------------------------
As a society we suffer, paradoxically, not only from a certain giddiness
and euphoria about the dramatic changes brought by technology, but also
from a kind of technophobia. For all the eagerness to bring the computer
into our classrooms, we seem unwilling to have our students *confront* the
computer.
Encouraging students simply to consume the offerings of the computer and
the Net (and of corporate sponsors) is the truly timid approach -- rather
like uncritically turning the classroom over to television. The computer,
after all, is not a *less* tendentious form of technology than television;
by its very nature as a logic machine, it is capable of embodying more
tendencies, biases, assumptions, cultural imperatives, and hidden agendas
than any other technology ever developed.
When children are asked to employ complex technologies as "black boxes,"
they almost certainly defer to those technologies in inappropriate ways.
They fail to understand their experiences, and abdicate their own
responsibilities.
The need, then, is to demystify the computer for children, enabling them
to understand the nature and limitations of this remarkable machine. How
did it arise historically? Who were the inventors, and what was driving
them? What sorts of problems are suitable for the computer's algorithmic,
or recipe-like, functioning? What problems do not lend themselves to this
functioning? How does the computer's intelligence differ from human
intelligence?
John Morris, a computer engineer and educator, has put together an
instructional block for eighth or ninth graders in which just such inquiry
is undertaken. In addition, students resort to the laboratory, where they
undertake work giving them a basic understanding of the technologies
supporting the modern computer -- magnetics for memory and disk drives,
primitive relay-based calculators, and so on. Then they visit Boston's
Computer Museum, where they can see some of the machines they've been
learning about. They also see how computers assist us in various jobs --
weather prediction, air traffic control, automated directory assistance,
reading for the blind. Finally, back at school, the students pull apart a
personal computer -- dismantling its disk drive as well -- to see how the
machine is constructed.
Understanding the technology and simply using it are two different things.
One can play video games for years while having almost no understanding of
the underlying technology. During the high-school years students should
begin to gain an *understanding*. Use -- and, far more important,
*appropriate* use -- will naturally follow from the understanding.
How much of the pressure from parents and teachers to "bring the schools
up to date with computers" is the result of their own insecurities,
projections, and hopes in the presence of a technology that has never been
demystified for them?
Morris reports this classroom incident:
While I was teaching this year, the famous chess tournament between
Kasparov and Big Blue was held. I brought to the classroom a magazine
that offered the banner, "The Brain's Last Stand: Kasparov versus Big
Blue." "That's silly," said one student. "It's not a man versus a
machine; it's a man versus the people who programmed the machine!"
One could not ask for a greater insight into this media- and industry-
hyped event. The students will understand that the theory behind the
machine and its construction, though challenging, is knowable. They
will look upon computers differently. Yes, the computer will still be
seductive and alluring. Computer games appeal to their innocence and
curiosity. But the machines will look a bit more like a tool and an
invention, whose sole purpose is controlled by the user, not the other
way around. (Talbott, 1997)
It is worth adding that much of this desirable, high-school education
about computers can take place without there being any computers in the
classroom. For example, the algorithmic nature of the computer's
functioning can be taught using such things as kitchen recipes. And the
students caildren to the "routine" wonders of their own
experience:
As an environmental educator leading field walks for many years, I
found I often had to wrestle with the fact that kids (and adults) who
had been raised on lots of [nature] programming expected the same sort
of visual extravaganza to unfold before their eyes; they expected a
host of colorful species to appear and "perform" for them. (Kevin
Dann, quoted in Talbott, 1995, p. 161)
Why the Computer Belongs in Education -- and When
-------------------------------------------------
As a society we suffer, paradoxically, not only from a certain giddiness
and euphoria about the dramatic changes brought by technology, but also
from a kind of technophobia. For all the eagerness to bring the computer
into our classrooms, we seem unwilling to have our students *confront* the
computer.
Encouraging students simply to consume the offerings of the computer and
the Net (and of corporate sponsors) is the truly timid approach -- rather
like uncritically turning the classroom over to television. The computer,
after all, is not a *less* tendentious form of technology than television;
by its very nature as a logic machine, it is capable of embodying more
tendencies, biases, assumptions, cultural imperatives, and hidden agendas
than any other technology ever developed.
When children are asked to employ complex technologies as "black boxes,"
they almost certainly defer to those technologies in inappropriate ways.
They fail to understand their experiences, and abdicate their own
responsibilities.
The need, then, is to demystify the computer for children, enabling them
to understand the nature and limitations of this remarkable machine. How
did it arise historically? Who were the inventors, and what was driving
them? What sorts of problems are suitable for the computer's algorithmic,
or recipe-like, functioning? What problems do not lend themselves to this
functioning? How does the computer's intelligence differ from human
intelligence?
John Morris, a computer engineer and educator, has put together an
instructional block for eighth or ninth graders in which just such inquiry
is undertaken. In addition, students resort to the laboratory, where they
undertake work giving them a basic understanding of the technologies
supporting the modern computer -- magnetics for memory and disk drives,
primitive relay-based calculators, and so on. Then they visit Boston's
Computer Museum, where they can see some of the machines they've been
learning about. They also see how computers assist us in various jobs --
weather prediction, air traffic control, automated directory assistance,
reading for the blind. Finally, back at school, the students pull apart a
personal computer -- dismantling its disk drive as well -- to see how the
machine is constructed.
Understanding the technology and simply using it are two different things.
One can play video games for years while having almost no understanding of
the underlying technology. During the high-school years students should
begin to gain an *understanding*. Use -- and, far more important,
*appropriate* use -- will naturally follow from the understanding.
How much of the pressure from parents and teachers to "bring the schools
up to date with computers" is the result of their own insecurities,
projections, and hopes in the presence of a technology that has never been
demystified for them?
Morris reports this classroom incident:
While I was teaching this year, the famous chess tournament between
Kasparov and Big Blue was held. I brought to the classroom a magazine
that offered the banner, "The Brain's Last Stand: Kasparov versus Big
Blue." "That's silly," said one student. "It's not a man versus a
machine; it's a man versus the people who programmed the machine!"
One could not ask for a greater insight into this media- and industry-
hyped event. The students will understand that the theory behind the
machine and its construction, though challenging, is knowable. They
will look upon computers differently. Yes, the computer will still be
seductive and alluring. Computer games appeal to their innocence and
curiosity. But the machines will look a bit more like a tool and an
invention, whose sole purpose is controlled by the user, not the other
way around. (Talbott, 1997)
It is worth adding that much of this desirable, high-school education
about computers can take place without there being any computers in the
classroom. For example, the algorithmic nature of the computer's
functioning can be taught using such things as kitchen recipes. And the
students can learn about the basic operations of the computer's CPU,
buses, memory, and so on, by acting them out -- one of the more effective
ways of imparting a real understanding.
Educators Must Grapple with Technology
--------------------------------------
One can easily imagine the first users of the automobile thinking, "What a
wonderful tool for strengthening our communities! It's so easy to hop in
the car and drive across town to visit with friends or people in need!"
Yes, the opportunity was there. But the nature of the car, interacting
with our own natures, had, by most accounts, a rather different overall
effect upon our communities. Urban sprawl, ghettos walled off by freeway
ramps, malls, the "escapist" mindset of car-owners, air and noise
pollution, long commutes .... The positive potentials remain even now, but
it is foolish to celebrate them without heeding the full text of the
bargain we have struck with the technology.
Or consider television. One could have said -- many did say -- that now
we would bring politics into the intimacy of every living room, and there
would be a renaissance of democracy in America. Yet the actual fact, as
most would acknowledge, has been quite different: the immediacy of the
screen somehow translates into a greater distance. The political process
becomes more remote, more artificial and scripted, less sincere. It "goes
cosmetic." The involvement of those who watch in front of the screen is
less intense, not more so.
Do we understand why it happened this way? And if we do, have we learned
how to prevent the same problems from infecting those other screens we are
now importing wholesale into our classrooms?
One thing is sure: no school that does not look into these issues with
all the wisdom it can muster, and does not become passionate about them,
can possibly resist the parental, professional, and political pressures to
wire the classroom. Only a school with a sense of mission and a
willingness to undertake a difficult conversation with its community has
any hope of steering a purposeful course through the hype, the industry
propaganda, and the public's near-religious view of technology.
The tragedy is that so many schools are rushing ahead with a fundamental
transformation of their classrooms *without* any considered sense of
mission, but only with a vague feeling of necessity or compulsion. Our
children, some years from now, will doubtless let us know the results of
our willingness to make of their lives a grand experiment -- an experiment
founded upon our own reluctance to confront technology and put it in its
rightful place.
Bibliography
------------
Chawla L. (forthcoming). "Significant Life Experiences Revisited: A
Review of Research on Sources of Environmental Sensitivity." *Journal of
Environmental Education*.
Monke, Lowell (1997). "Letter from Des Moines," in NETFUTURE,
http://www.ora.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/1997/May2297_49.html.
Sarnoff, David (1941). *Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Sciences*, January, 1941.
Talbott, Stephen L. (1995). *The Future Does Not Compute: Transcending
the Machines in Our Midst*. Sebastopol, Calif.: O'Reilly & Associates.
Talbott, Steve (1997). "Helping Students Understand Computers: John
Morris's Innovations at a Waldorf School," in NETFUTURE,
http://www.ora.com/people/staff/stevet/netfuture/1997/Jul3097_54.html.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 5--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.
CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest
Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:
SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to: cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu
DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.
The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.
To UNSUB, send a one-line message: UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on internet);
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.
In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540
UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)
The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
violate copyright protections.
------------------------------
End of Computer Underground Digest #9.89
************************************