Computer underground Digest    Sun Apr 11 1993   Volume 5 : Issue 26
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Copp Editor: Etaoin Shrdlu, Senior

CONTENTS, #5.26 (Apr 11 1993)
File 1--Re: Debating the Virus contest - clarification
File 2--"The Logic of the Virtual Commons" (Research Report)
File 3--CUN News: Online Defamation Alleged / Pentagon Piracy

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The
editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at:  Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115.

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 DL0 and DL12 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 the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210;
and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG WHQ) 203-832-8441 NUP:Conspiracy
in Europe from the ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352) 466893;

ANONYMOUS FTP SITES:
  UNITED STATES:  ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud
                  uglymouse.css.itd.umich.edu (141.211.182.53) in /pub/CuD/cud
                  halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud
  AUSTRALIA:      ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.
  EUROPE:         nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland)
                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom)

Back issues also may be obtained through mailservers at:
mailserv@batpad.lgb.ca.us   or  server@blackwlf.mese.com

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.  Some authors do copyright their material, 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.

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

Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1993 16:35:11 -0500
From: Charlie.Mingo@P4218.F70.N109.Z1.FIDONET.ORG(Charlie Mingo)
Subject: File 1--Re: Debating the Virus contest - clarification

>> Surely, Mr. Ludwig would not hold me responsible for the destruction
>> of his home caused by someone who decided to implement the plans I
>> presented purely for "scientific research purposes".

> To date, no case has been carried against a publisher for
> this kind of material. {Soldier of Fortune} magazine was struck
> in a case for libel regarding publishing an ad for Murder for
> Hire services. I am not sure of the status of the case.

It wasn't libel (after all, no one was defamed), but negligence.  The
plaintiff argued that the magazine had a duty not to carry
solicitations for criminal acts.  The jury agreed, and found SoF
liable for a verdict of several million dollars.  The award was upheld
on appeal to the US Court of Appeals.  The case was ultimately settled
for undisclosed terms.

SoF's defense was that it couldn't be expected to screen every ad to
detect an illegal purpose behind them.  However, this particular
classified ad was so blatant, that it was obvious that a gun was being
offered for hire.

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

Date: 09 Apr 93 19:33:41 PST
From: smithm@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu
Subject: File 2--"The Logic of the Virtual Commons" (Research Report)

((MODERATORS' COMMENT: Marc Smith, a sociology graduate student at
UCLA, recently completed his M.A. thesis, which examined The Well as
an example of a "virtual community." In our view, he nicely pulled
together data and theory to argue that electronic communities, like
their more corporeal counterparts, are formed from a complex process
of social interaction that gives character, shape, and structure to a
given cyber-community. We have extracted a few of the core ideas
below. The entire thesis is about 155 K and is available on the CuD
ftp sites.

Marc also has established a news group for the discussion of of
"virtual community," and he can be contacted for more information at:
smithm@NICCO.SSCNET.UCLA.EDU))

+++++++

                           Voices from the WELL:
                     The Logic of the Virtual Commons

                            Marc A. Smith
                       Department of Sociology
                               U.C.L.A.

                        **********************

           Introduction: Social Dilemmas in Virtual Spaces

A virtual community is a set of on-going many-sided interactions that
occur predominantly in and through computers linked via
telecommunications networks.  They are a fairly recent phenomena and
one that is rapidly developing as more people come to have access to
computers and data networks.  The virtual spaces constructed by these
technologies are not only new, they have some fundamental differences
from more familiar terrain of interaction.  Virtual spaces change the
kinds of communication that can be exchanged between individuals and
alter the economies of communication and organization.  As a result
many familiar and common social process must be adapted to the virtual
environment and some do not transfer well at all.  One aspect of
interaction remains constant however; virtual communities, like all
groups to some extent, must face the social dilemma that individually
rational behavior can often lead to collectively irrational outcomes.
The purpose of this paper is to begin to examine how community and
cooperation emerges and is maintained in groups that interact
predominantly within virtual spaces.

As yet, virtual communities are somewhat esoteric and have attracted
only limited attention from the social science community.  Many
questions about virtual communities remain unanswered, and many more
unasked.  No detailed work has yet addressed the questions, for
example, of how virtual communities form and mature, how relations
within these communities differ from relations in "real-space", or how
the dynamics of group organization and operation in virtual
communities differs from and is similar to communities based upon
physical copresence.  But like their real-space counterparts, virtual
communities face the challenge of maintaining their member's
commitment, monitoring and sanctioning their behavior, ensuring the
continued production of essential resources and organizing their
distribution.  The dynamic and evolving character of these groups
provides a unique opportunity to study the emergence of endogenous
order in a group.  Simultaneously, the novel aspects of interaction in
virtual spaces offers an illuminating contrast to interactions that
occur through other media, including face-to-face interaction.

Many communities have the potential to organize their members so as to
produce a collective good, something that no individual member of the
community could provide for themselves if they had acted alone.  Some
goods are tangible, like common pastures or irrigation systems, others
are intangible goods like goodwill, trust, and identity.  However,
this potential is not always realized.  As Mancur Olson noted, "if the
members of some group have a common interest or objective, and if they
would all be better off if that objective were achieved, it [does not
necessarily follow] that the individuals in that group ... act to
achieve that objective." (p. 1, 1965)  There are many obstacles that
stand in the way of the production of collective goods and even
success can be fragile, especially when it is possible to draw from a
good without contributing to its production.  Nonetheless, despite
arguments to the contrary (Hardin, 1968), many groups do succeed in
producing goods in common.  And, as Elinor Ostrom's work illustrates,
some communities have succeeded in doing so for centuries (1991).  The
question this raises is: what contributes to the successful provision
of collective goods?  How is cooperation achieved and maintained in
the face of a temptation to defect?

Virtual communities produce a variety of collective goods.  They allow
people of like interests to come together with little cost, help them
exchange ideas and coordinate their activities, and provide the kind
of identification and feeling of membership found in face-to-face
interaction.  In the process they face familiar problems of defection,
free-riding and other forms of disruptive behavior although in new and
sometimes very unexpected ways.  The novelty of the medium means that
the rules and practices that lead to a successful virtual community
are not yet well known or set fast in a codified formal system.

Cyberspace and Virtual Worlds
Virtual interaction is often said to occur in a unique kind of space,
a cyberspace, constructed in and through computers and networks.  This
term was coined by William Gibson in his visionary novel Neuromancer.
Gibson described a new technologically constructed social space in
which much of the commerce, communication and interaction among human
beings and their constructed agents would take place.  In the novel
Gibson gives his own description of cyberspace,

"Cyberspace.  A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions
of legitimate operators, in every nation... a graphic representation
of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human
system.  Unthinkable complexity.  Lines of light ranged in the
nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data.  Like city
lights, receding" Gibson's cyberspace remains in part in the realm of
science fiction.  But much of what he described has already taken on
very real form.  The global interconnection of computers via phone and
data networks has created the foundation for a seamless system of
communication between machines designed specifically for the storage
and manipulation of signs.  Cyberspace, then, can be understood as a
vast territory , a space of representations.  While human beings have
inhabited representational spaces for a very long time, we have never
been able to create representations with the ease and flexibility
possible in cyberspace.  This is important because with each new
development in the technologies of representation, from the printing
press to satellite communication, there has been a reworking of the
kinds of representations and social relationships that are possible to
maintain.

Gibson envisioned cyberspace as two related technologies, the first
provided the individual connecting to cyberspace with a complete
sensorium, enclosing the user in a totally computer generated reality.
Connected directly to a computer, wires connected directly to the
nervous system, an artificial set of sense data would be constructed
and delivered to a credulous mind.  The fact that no such technology
yet exists does not invalidate Gibson's vision, mistaking far less
sophisticated representations for reality is already common and does
not require such complex technology.  Nonetheless, research and
development of this kind of technology is advancing rapidly,
compelling visual cyberspaces (often termed "photo realistic") are
available now and will become widespread after the further refinement
and decline in the cost of processing power.  Direct contact between a
machine and a human mind may be a bit further off, but is a subject of
research that has promising and disturbing implications.  In contrast,
the second element of Gibson's cyberspace is very much a reality.
This is the matrix, the densely intertwined networks of networks,
lines of communication linking millions of computers around the world.
 While sensual cyberspaces may have profound effects on our perception
and understanding of reality, even when limited to the comparatively
pedestrian medium of text, the matrix is already having visible
effects.

Computer networking was pioneered by the United State's Defense
Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) which funded the
development of the first wide area network (WAN), the ARPANET, in
1969.  The ARPANET has since grown exponentially and inspired many
additional networks.  It has since been integrated into the INTERNET
(1983), a globe spanning "network of networks" supporting over fifteen
million users.  The ArpaNet/INTERNET was joined by the USENET (1979),
the BITNET (1981) and the FIDONET (1983).  These large scale networks
are supplemented by the proliferation of independent Bulletin Board
Systems  (BBSs) run from individual microcomputers and medium to
large-scale information services like Compuserve, GEnie, and the WELL.
 While not all of these networks are unified or managed by a single
regulating body, many are interconnected: users on one network can
often utilize many of the resources available on the others through
gateways.  This list does not exhaust the number of networks in
existence, John Quarterman's 1990 book on the subject, The Matrix,
lists over 900 networks.  That number may already be surpassed.
Within these vast networks interconnections of another kind have
formed: social networks of people who have come together virtually,
that is via computers and networks, to interact with others for a
myriad number of purposes.  A number of methods exist to facilitate
communication between individuals and groups via these networks.  The
simplest is electronic mail (email).  Email allows for one-to-one or
one-to-many communication between any individuals who have a valid
email address on the same network or on a network that can be
gatewayed to.  Effectively, this means that some 15 million people are
accessible to one another instantaneously and without regard for
distance.  Using tools to enhance email, some groups have created
"lists" than ease the process of collecting email addresses.
 Some lists provide a single address for mail that is to be forwarded
to every member of the list.  The largest of these lists have as many
as 15,000 subscribers located all around the planet.  At last check,
there were more than 2,400 lists carried on the INTERNET alone on
subjects ranging from dentistry to religion to quantum physics.  New
lists are created on a daily basis while some old lists fall inactive.
Conferencing systems, information services and BBSs fill out the range
of virtual communications.  These systems share a great deal in
common, differing mostly in terms of size, commercial status, and
focus.  These systems tend to be centralized, that is supported by
computers at a single location although accessed by computers all over
the world.  Conferencing systems focus on providing the tools for the
facilitation of discussions.  BBSs and information services do this as
well, but additional emphasis may be placed on services like software
libraries, weather and stock reports, and airline reservations.  Often
information services are operated on a for-profit basis.

Whichever system people use, they frequently develop relations with
other users that have some stability and longevity.  This should not
be surprising considering the ease with which network systems allow
individuals to find others with like interests.  Networks are in many
ways dynamic electronic "Schelling" points (Schelling, 1960).  In The
Strategy of Conflict, Schelling developed the idea of natural and
constructed points that focus interactions, places that facilitate
connections with people interested in a participating in a common line
of action.  The clock at Grand Central Station is an example, as are
singles bars and market places.  Each is a space designated as a point
of congregation for people of like interests.  Networks enhance the
flexibility of Schelling points by radically altering the economies of
their production and use.  Members of these virtual social networks
frequently identify their groups (and groups of groups) as "virtual
communities".  The use of the term "virtual" may be confusing for
those who do not know its use within the computer literate community
where "virtual" is used to mean "in effect", a surrogate.  For
example, virtual memory is not memory in the conventional sense, it is
not composed of memory chips, but is instead the use of a hard drive
to simulate chip-based memory.  In the context of community, then, the
term is used to emphasize not the ersatz nature of the community but
rather that a seemingly non-existent medium is used to facilitate and
maintain one.  Virtual communities are communities "in effect".  The
use of the term "community" to describe these social formations may be
contested, but it is the argument of this paper that virtual
communities are indeed communities.

Virtual communities developed soon after the first computer networks
were created in the late 1960s.  But it was not until the wide
proliferation of microcomputers in the late 1970s that there were
enough computer owners to create collective organizations outside of
the defense and military establishment.  Often fairly small, many
groups used Bulletin Board Systems run as non-profit collective goods
to facilitate their interactions and exchanges.  In addition to local
non commercial or semi-commercial BBSs, large systems, used by tens of
thousands of individuals, most notably Compuserve, GEnie, Prodigy,
America On-line, and the WELL have been created and run for profit.
Despite the fact that both kinds of systems provide mostly the
exchange of unadorned text, users of these systems have come to feel
that they participate in a community that fulfills many of the roles
more commonly found in traditional face-to-face communities.
Interaction in virtual spaces share many of the characteristics of
"real" interaction, people discuss, argue, fight, reconcile, amuse,
and offend just as much and perhaps more in a virtual community.  But
virtual communities are also starkly different.  In a virtual
interaction nothing but words are normally exchanged.  Interaction
involves the creation of personality, nuance, identity and "self" with
only the tools of texts .  But the differences may not be as sharp as
they first seem, as Erving Goffman showed, real life too is an act of
authorship, of constant image management and careful presentation.
Face-to-face interaction is a rich canvass with which to paint, but it
is one loaded with the indelible "stigma" of social identities.  In a
virtual world participants are washed clean of the stigmata of their
real "selves" and are free to invent new ones to their tastes.  Escape
is not total, however, participants are revealed in virtual
communities, they "give off" as well as give signals as happens in
face-to-face interaction, but with a far more reliable mask.  This is
just one way in which virtual interaction and virtual communities
differ from "real" ones.

These differences do not necessarily exclude virtual communities from
the category of legitimate communities.  While interaction with a
virtual community is peculiar in many ways, this does not mean that
very familiar kinds of social interaction do not take place within
them.  Rather, it is the ways that common and familiar forms of
interaction are transplanted into and transformed by virtual spaces
that is of particular interest.

                        **********************

                    The Character of Virtual Space

A virtual space has some generic qualities that distinguish it from
the space of face-to-face interactions.  In many ways virtual
communities are modern incarnations of the committees of
correspondence of the eighteenth and nineteenth century.  Like those
groups formed around the political and scientific interests of the
day, virtual communities are composed of groups brought together by a
common interest and separated by potentially great distance.  However,
unlike the committees, virtual communities are not limited by the
speed of man on horseback or even the steam engine, but are granted
near instantaneous communication by the speed of computers and data
networks.  The increased speed and the unique qualities and powers of
computer network based communication makes the dynamics of virtual
communities distinct from committees of correspondence.  The
differences in the medium of communication have effects on the kinds
of interactions that can take place and how the interactions that do
occur can progress and unfold.  For example, slow media that introduce
long delays into turn-taking reduces the interactively of an social
exchange and can lead to more cautious (and thus, perhaps, more
detailed and exact) messages.  Media can vary in terms of the
ambiguity they introduce to the messages passed through them.  Some
media provide a certain audience, that is the target of a message can
be selected without fear of additional surveillance.  If you do not
know who might be in the room it makes sense to watch what you say.
Further, some media prevent the identity of message creators to be
known with certainty if at all.  With so much variation in different
kinds of media it is not hard to imagine that their character alters
the kinds of messages that are sent through it, and, by extension, the
kinds of social action and interaction that will develop around it.
This is not technological determinism, but rather a solid materialism:
technologies change the fabric of the material world which in turn
changes the social world.  The terrain of interaction in virtual
communities is different in some powerful and subtle ways, some forms
of interaction translate well into a virtual space, others do not.  In
all cases, people are actively drawing upon their understanding of
interaction and improvising in the gaps, some of which are cavernous.

There are six aspects of virtual interaction that have a significant
impact on the kinds of interaction that can take place within them.
First, virtual interaction is aspatial, increasing distance does not
effect the kind of interactions possible.  As a result the economies
of copresence are superseded and assembly becomes possible for groups
spread widely across the planet.  This may have profound implications
on the organization of space; just as the telegraph enabled the
construction of the modern multi-national corporation by solving the
problem of control from a distance, virtual spaces may undermine the
economies that lead to the development of cities.  Indeed, there is a
growing movement for the relocation of many business activities to
rural areas.  This is made possible by the ease and economy of
electronic communication that makes any space as good as any other.
As a result criteria other than proximity can determine the selection
of sites for various activities.  Second, virtual interaction via
systems like the WELL is asynchronous.  While not all virtual
interaction is this way (notable exceptions include the IRC system and
the growing proliferation of MUDs ), conferencing systems and email do
allow interaction partners to participate in a staggered fashion.  One
person leaves a message and at some other time another reads and
responds to it.  This has a major impact on the coordination necessary
for the assembly of a group.  Face-to-face interaction requires a high
level of coordination since all participants must be copresent in both
time and space.  Conferencing systems, by contrast, allow people
separated by time zones, work schedules, and other activities to
interact with minimal coordination.  Despite the lack of immediate
interaction, the interactions created in many conferencing systems do
exhibit a high level of responsiveness and dynamism usually associated
with real-time interaction.

The current text-only nature of most virtual interaction leads to
another unique aspect: without copresence, participants are acorporal
to one another.  This may have profound implications since many of the
process of group formation and control involve either the application
or potential for application of force to the body.  In a virtual
space, there are no bodies.  As noted before, while the communications
"bandwidth"  of most communities is quite rich and capable of nuance
and fine texture through the use of communications devices like voice,
gesture, posture, dress, and a host of other symbol equipment, most
virtual communities allow their participants to signal each other only
through the use of text.

The absence of the body in virtual interactions might lead some to
dismiss the possibility of virtual community.  Indeed, interaction in
a virtual space has been described as "having your everything
amputated"   Rather than preclude the formation of community, however,
the effective absence of the body in virtual interaction
simultaneously highlights the role of the body in real-space while
liberating the individual from many of the restrictions inherent in
bodies.  And while telephone conversations are also acorporal, virtual
communities also have the capacity to facilitate the interaction of
large groups of people, far beyond telephone conferencing could
reasonably support.  Further, as noted above, because participants are
not limited to real-time interaction, the task of coordinating
interaction participants is greatly eased.  In addition, the qualities
of being aspatial and potentially asynchronous expands the pool of
potential participants of virtual communities beyond that of most
space-bound ones.  It is not uncommon to settle into a long and
satisfying discussion with someone who lives on a different continent
while in a virtual community.    But without the power of presence to
enforce sanctions and evoke communion, written and virtual communities
face unique challenges, a point I will take up again in this paper.

Closely related to the acorporeality of virtual interaction is its
limited "bandwidth" .  Most users of the WELL and other virtual
communities use computers equipped with telephone-line interfaces
(modems) that allow for the exchange of information at speeds of 2400
baud (bits-per-second) to 14,400 baud.  These speeds effectively limit
the quantity of data that can effectively be transmitted.  As a result
interaction in virtual communities remains firmly entrenched in a
text-only environment.  This has some interesting effects.  The first
is that virtual interaction is relatively astigmatic.  As Goffman used
the term, stigma are markings or behaviors that locate an individual
in a particular social status.  While many stigma can have negative
connotations, stigma also mark positively valued social status.
Without the ability to present ones self to others in virtual
interaction, many of the stigma associated with people are filtered
out.  Race, gender, age, body shape, and appearance, the most common
information we "give-off" to others in interaction, are absent in a
virtual space.  The result can be both positive and negative: the
information we give-off helps to coordinate social interaction,
identifies likely interaction partners, and may serve to minimize
conflict by identifying likely antagonisms.  Without such signals
additional work must be done to enable interaction and to signal
status and location to other potential interactants.  At the same
time, this limitation makes discrimination more difficult.  The result
may be that participants judge each other more on the "content of
their character" than any other status marking.

Finally, the preceding five characteristics combine to make virtual
interaction fairly anonymous.  This leads directly to issues of
identity in a virtual space.  In many virtual spaces anonymity is
complete.  Participants may change their names at will and no record
is kept connecting names with real-world identities.  Such anonymity
has been sought out by some participants in virtual interactions
because of its potential to liberate one from existing or enforced
identities.  However, many systems, including the WELL, have found
that complete anonymity leads to a lack of accountability.  As a
result, while all members of the WELL may alter a pseudonym that
accompanies each contribution the make, their userid  remains constant
and a unambiguous link to their identity.  However, even this fairly
rigorous identification system has limitations.  There is no guarantee
that a person acting under a particular userid is in fact that person
or is the kind of person they present themselves as.  The ambiguity of
identity has led some people to gender-switching, or to giving vent to
aspects of their personality they would otherwise keep under wraps.
Virtual sociopathy seems to strike a small but stable percentage of
participants in virtual interaction.  Nonetheless, identity does
remain in a virtual space.  Since the userid remains a constant in all
interactions, people often come to invest certain expectations and
evaluations in the user of that id.  It is possible to develop status
in a virtual community that works to prevent the participant from
acting in disruptive ways lest their status be revoked.

                        **********************

                  Towards a definition of community

Cooperation, communication, duration, stability, interconnectivity,
structure, boundaries, intersubjectivity, and generalized accounting
systems, however inexact, are all certainly characteristics of
community and at worst are useful guides to their identification and
evaluation.  Nonetheless, even the unanimous presence of each of these
characteristics does not ensure the success of a community.  I noted
earlier that a community could be considered a failure when it is
incapable of fostering any level of cooperation among its members.
Such a community is perhaps one in name only.  A successful community,
by contrast, is capable of directing individual action towards the
construction and maintenance of goods that could not be created by
individuals acting in isolation.  There are many familiar collective
goods; common pastures, air and watersheds, and fishing groups are
common examples.  But, despite the existence of many notable
exceptions, collective goods are difficult to maintain and are often
short lived.  The continued production and availability of any
collective good depends upon the existence of a sufficient  level of
commitment of the community's members and the application of
appropriate systems of monitoring and sanctioning.  But every
collective good is plagued by some form of a collective action
dilemma, a situation in which actions that are rational for individual
members of the collective are irrational, that is either less
beneficial or even tragic, when repeated across a collectivity.  At
each moment of their participation in the production of a collective
good individuals face the, sometimes latent, choice to commit to some
aspect of collective action or to defect from participating.  This
choice is framed by the fact that the reward for defection is often
greater than that for cooperation.  The result is a pervasive
temptation to escape the demands of collectives while remaining within
them in order to reap their rewards.  As a result, communities can be
fragile things.  Collectives must exercise two forms of power to
maintain their common goods, first, they must restrain and punish
individual actions that exploit or undermine collective goods through
monitoring and sanctioning, and second, maintain the commitment of
members to continued participation and contribution through rituals
and other practices that increase the individual's identification with
the group and acceptance of its demands.  Since neither form of power
is easily achieved or maintained a number of theories have developed
to identify and explain the reasons some communities are successful
and others fail.

The Elements of Successful Community
While there is fairly wide-spread agreement that these two forms of
power are the definitive elements of successful communities, there is
far less agreement as to how to create and most effectively wield
these forms of power.  Mancur Olson, for example, stresses the
importance of group size on its likelihood of success.  He argues that
size is inversely related to success, as a group grows the costs of
communication and coordination rise threatening the existence of the
collective.  This is an idea that has attracted a great deal of
criticism.  Michael Taylor (1987) argues that "Olson's first claim in
support of the "size" effect... is not necessarily true.  It holds
only where costs unavoidably increases with size or where there is
imperfect jointness or rivalness or both.  Most goods, however,
exhibit some divisibility, and most public goods interactions exhibit
some rivalness." (p. 11)  As a result, Taylor believes that "The size
effect that I think should be taken most seriously is the increased
difficulty of conditional cooperation in larger groups." (p.13)  Small
groups do possess a special quality that enables them to maintain
themselves with greater ease than larger groups.  In particular, small
groups are usually able to provide high levels of communication
between each member of the group while maintaining high levels of
surveillance of each members activities, especially his or her
contributions and withdrawals to and from the group's resources.  This
"small group effect"  is a powerful one, but it does not exclude or
even explain the possibility of successful large groups.  One
significant aspect of virtual communication may be the way in which it
alters the economies of communication and coordination, thus making it
possible for larger groups to "succeed" with less effort and
difficulty.

                      *************************

The Character of Collective Goods
Michael Taylor's work (1987) expands on Hechter's system by describing
the kinds of collective organizations that are possible and their
relations to the goods they seek to control.  He examines the type of
goods groups can produce, categorizing them on the basis of the type
of boundaries that can be placed around them and the manner in which
they are produced and consumed.  For example goods can be excludable
or not.  An excludable good offers the collective the power of denying
access to anyone who does not contribute to its production.  Goods can
be rival or not:  some goods are diminished by their consumption: two
people can not eat the same bite of food.  Further, some forms of
consumption reduce the value of the remaining resource (for example
adding pollution to a stream.) But not all goods are rival and some
are even strongly anti-rival: information can in some cases be like
this.  [Ex: the more widely accurate knowledge of AIDS is distributed
the more developed the common good.  Further, a newspaper, once read,
is not necessarily diminished in value.]  Similarly, some goods are
divisible: it is possible to quantize the good, electrical power is an
example, while others are not, public safety while expressible in
terms of a crime rate is not easily decomposed into units of safety.
Some goods are exhaustible and others renewable.  Fossil fuels are a
primary example of the former.  But many goods have rates of
sustainable use, fisheries, pasture land, and pools of credit can
regenerate themselves.  Nonetheless, even a renewable resource can be
exhausted by overuse.  Some goods require active production while
others require regulated access.  Resources are not only collectively
drawn from but also collectively contributed to.  A common pool
resource  can be more than physical resources like fish or
pasture-land.  CPRs can also be social organizations themselves.
Markets, judicial systems, and communities are all common resources.
These kinds of resources have the added element that they must be
actively reconstructed, where fish will remain in the sea whether they
are fished or not, a judicial system will not persist without the
continued contribution of all of its participants.  Further,
institutions are just one form of a social common pool resources.  The
far less formal settings that enable particular kinds of interaction
are also common goods.

                      *************************

Obstacles to the provision of collective goods
For all the positive goods virtual communities like the WELL are able
to produce there are equally challenging obstacles to their continued
production.  The obstacles to the continued existence and development
of the WELL involve maintaining membership, expanding that membership,
socializing new members, maintaining the infrastructure of the
community (the computer's hardware and communications systems), and
dealing with the potentially disruptive actions of its members.  If
members find the cost of participation, for whatever reason, is too
great, and subsequently withdraw, the community and the goods it
produces will collapse.  Alternatively, if members find that they are
able to enjoy the benefits of the collective good without contributing
to its production, then, too, the community may collapse for want of
active participants.

Virtual communities are no exception to this dilemma.  The continued
existence of the web of social networks, upon which the other
collective goods are built, depends upon a number of factors.  First,
members must come to the WELL.  The WELL is a quintessential
intentional community.  Unlike communities that form as an accident of
place or circumstance, individuals must take a series of complex and
very intentional steps to go to the WELL.  It is unlikely that anyone
would arrive there even accidentally.  Therefore, individuals must
find something of value in the WELL.  Given the wide availability of
other virtual communities, this challenge is even greater: no borders
constrain nor does any personal influence or sanction compel
individuals to participate in the WELL.  Indeed, at $2/hour, a fairly
effective fence blocks casual access.  And while technical advantages
may draw some users to some systems, for example America On-line, a
competing information system, offers an elegant, appealing and
intuitive graphical interface to its community and its information
services, the WELL, by comparison, offers no windows, mouse support,
icons, or graphics, only pure ASCII .  The continued success of the
WELL can be explained only by the one thing that it has exclusively:
its members.  Individuals may not come to the WELL because of the
people who are already there (although personal referral is a common
route for newusers and the reputation of the WELL is widely known in
the on-line community) but they often stay (and leave) because of
them.  Many of the subjects discussed on the WELL (although not all)
can be found elsewhere, but the discussions often merely act as a
structure around which lasting relationships are built.

                        **********************

The most interesting questions about virtual spaces are not directly
related to technology.  Despite the intimate relationship between the
tools and the actions built from or with those tools, it is the social
understanding of a tool that determines its use.  The distinction
between tools and their use is sometimes not apparent, when tools
become complex, and their name shifts to technology, the role of
social interaction is often overlooked.  The result is technological
determinism, an unwarranted focus on the tool in place of its user.
Therefore, it is important to locate a discussion and study of the
ways in which new tools create new terrain for social interaction in
the realm of social knowledge and interaction.  Despite the unique
qualities of the social spaces to be found in virtual worlds, people
do not enter new terrains empty-handed.  We carry with us the
sum-total of our experience and expectations generated in more
familiar social spaces.  No matter how revolutionary the technology,
our use of virtual spaces is evolutionary.  The point of greatest
interest, then, is that at which an old expectation collides with a
new material force and new social structures are born through
improvisation and negotiation.  The medium is not the message, but it
does shape and channel the kinds of messages it carries.
 But when a medium is very flexible and capable of some complexity,
the ways in which a medium effects its contents can become less fixed.
New technologies are sites of rapid creation, the event horizon of the
social.  Furthermore, the act of creation is rarely an individual one,
without a collective effort the task of creation is often an
overwhelming task.

((The full text can be obtained from the CuD ftp sites or from
Marc Smith at:  smithm@nicco.sscnet.ucla.edu))

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

Date: 09 Apr 93 23:20:38 EDT
From: Gordon Meyer <72307.1502@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: File 3--CUN News: Online Defamation Alleged / Pentagon Piracy

Medphone, a health technology firm, has filed a lawsuit for defamation
against an investor for allegedly making false statements about the
company on Prodigy.  Medphone says the comments, made in the "Money
Talk" area of the online service, caused its stock price to fall.
Prodigy is not named as a defendant, but reportedly fears that it might
be if this action sparks similar suits in the future.
(Information Week.  March 29, 1993  pg 10)

Piracy at the Pentagon
======================
Information Week cites a story in Government Computer News (3/15/93 p1)
reporting the results of a Department of Defense software audit.  The
DoD found that over half of the approximately 1000 computers audited
were using an average of over two pirated software packages.
(Information Week. March 29, 1993. pg. 56)

Idle Minds
==========
International computer crime units are trying to nab hackers in the
former Soviet bloc who are menacing computer systems worldwide. Some
of the more insidious viruses are reportedly now coming from Russia.
One of the newest is called LoveChild - a wicked virus designed to
wipe out all memory when an infected computer is booted for the
5,000th time. Explained one weary constable from Scotland Yard: "You've
got a lot of frustrated programmers in the East who have turned their
attention to creating viruses."
(Reprinted with permission from Communications of the ACM. 4/93 pg 14)

Virus Survey Results
====================
In October, 1992 PC Sources magazine conducted an online/mail/fax poll
of readers and their experiences with computer viruses.  Some of the
notable results were...
       "How often do you check your computer for viruses?"
           55% - Every day
           22% - Once a week
            3% - Never
       "Has your computer ever been hit by a virus?"
           62% - No (all respondents. Answer varied depending on the
                     the response method chosen by the respondent.)
        Of the 20% of the users that don't, or won't, use virus
       protection software, PC Sources found that their reasons fell
       into four broad categories: xenophobia, penny-wise/pound-foolish,
       underinformed, and trusting.
See the February 1993 issue (pg 329) for more information.

Email As Evidence
=================
Siemens AG will be using email messages in its $50 million dollar
suit against Arco.  Siemens says the messages, which are between
Arco employees, show that Arco knew their solar energy division
wasn't commercially viable.  Siemens claims they were defrauded when
they purchased the division from Arco.
(Information Week. April 5, 1993. pg 8)

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

End of Computer Underground Digest #5.26
************************************