The CPSR Newsletter
COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Summer 1988

Volume 6, No. 3
Designing
with the User
Book Review
Lucy Suchman-CPSR/Palo Alto

G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn, and M. Kyng, eds., Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian
Challenge, Gower (Brookfield, Vermont). $49.95 (text)

Anyone who has taken on the task of questioning critically prevailing
assumptions about some aspect of the social world knows how much easier it is to
mount the critique than to formulate an alternative. The domain of computers in
the workplace is no exception to this rule. Many of us have felt deeply
dissatisfied with the assumptions that underlie standard representations of
human work practices in relation to technology; for example, that such practices
are organized normatively by the functional requirements of a given task, or are
usefully modelled as disembodied data continued on page 2

Living with
the Control Key
Book Review
G. Pascal Zachary

Shoshana Zuboff, In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power,
Basic Books, 468 pages. $19.95

Barbara Garson, The Electronic Sweatshop. How Computers are Transforming the
Office of the Future into the Factory of the Past, Simon and Schuster, 288
pages. $17.95.

Computers are like two-way mirrors: While you are reading the screen and
clicking the keyboard, your computer is watching you. If programmed to do so,
your computer can produce a chilling array of details about seemingly endless
private actions. With ease, your supervisors can learn how

continued on page 7

Designing with the User continued from page l

flow. Critical analysts of new technology have pointed to the abuse of
computerization by employers who believe that company profitability can be
increased by decreasing employee autonomy. Expressing our dissatisfaction and
articulating such dangers is prerequisite to developing alternative theories and
agendas for the design of information technology. But, while necessary, such
critiques are not sufficient. We need to develop as well a vision of how things
could be different-of how, given the necessary time, resources, participants and
perspectives, we might begin to shape a new approach to the design of workplace
technology .

In Computers and Democracy A Scandinavian Challenge, we begin to see the
outlines of what an alternative, genuinely human-centered approach to the design
of new technology could be. Notwithstanding the tremendous complexities involved
in such an undertaking, this book is very exciting. It is the product of a
conference held in 1986 at the Computer Science Department of Aarhus University
in Denmark on "computers and the democratization of work." The papers comprise a
festschrift, or collection in celebration of, Kristen Nygaard, professor of
computer science at the Institute of Informatics in Oslo, Norway, and the moving
force behind the Scandinavian perspective that this book represents. The 22
papers collected here report work carried out over the past ten years by
researchers in Europe, the United States and Scandinavia. They include
programmatic and empirical discussions of system design; institutional and
professional politics; expertise, skill and automation; computerization and
traditional women's employment; and the potential benefits of new technology for
particular communities (e g., the retired, the disabled).

Collective Resources

For readers raised on the peculiarly American brand of computer science and
system design that prevails in the United States, the international perspectives
provided here open a new horizon of practical experience and theoretical
possibility. The title of this book presents what to U.S. researchers is an odd
juxtaposition, "computers" and "democracy" in our view being only incidentally
related through computerized voting machines, or future fantasies of brave new
worlds where computers oppress us or informations sets us free. By and large, we
are taught to view the political and the technological as separate spheres, the
former having to do with values, ideology, power and the like, the latter having
to do with physical artifacts exempt from such vagaries of social life. But
social theo

2

rists like Jordan, Latour, and Winner define the politics of technology quite
differently; not as a specialized arena in which two basically unrelated
concerns come together, but as the social relations directly inscribed in and
mediated by technical artifacts. Recognizing the social world in the
constitution of technology leads to a view of democracy in the sense invoked
here; namely, as participation in decision regarding the design and use of
technology that directly affects one's working life.

In their paper, "The Collective Resource Approach to Systems Design," Pelle Ehn
and Morten Kyng quote a visitor to Scandinavia who remarks that, in the U.S.,
'democracy stops at the office door and the factory gate." Our national
preoccupation with democracy notwithstanding, at work we take it for granted
that others-those who pay us-have the right to make decisions that affect our
lives. In Western Europe in general and in Scandinavia in particular, the
employeremployee relationship is viewed as more in conflict, but also as more
symmetrical, than it is in the U.S. Employees have rights to representation in a
much wider arena of decisions regarding those aspects of the operation that
directly affect their lives and work, including the introduction of new
technologies.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect for readers in the U.S. of the view of
technology design presented in this book is the emphasis on trade unions as
central participants in the research and development process. Over the last 15
years in Scandinavia a small network of computer scientists and system designers
have developed a strong, if complex and sometimes problematical, relationship to
national trade unions. Beginning with the Norwegian Iron and Metal Workers
project in 1970, a collaboration between the union and Kristen Nygaard and his
colleagues at the Norwegian Computing Center, designers have worked with unions
to develop skill-enhancing, democratizing applications for computers in a range
of professions. The goal has been participation by workers in decisions
regarding the design and implementation of new technology. That goal in turn has
led to an emphasis on union-sponsored educational programs to provide workers
with the understanding they need to make those decisions wisely.

While the presence of powerful unions is treated as a given by Scandinavian
researchers, that presence raises the question of how we in the U.S. should
understand the relation between unionization and the perspectives on systems
design that the book represents. Ehn and Kyng sketch the lines of comparison and
difference between Scandinavia and the U.S. in this regard. As members of
advanced economies extensively involved in the interna

continued on page 3

Designing with the User continued from page 3

contrasts "quality" in the product perspective, defined by looking from the
program to the user (to assess the former's inherent level of "user
friendliness") with "quality" in the process perspective, defined by looking
from the userto the program (to assess the program's "relevance" or "adequacy"
with respect to a particular form of work). The product perspective defines
people's competence in relation to their use of a given technology rather than,
as they themselves do, in relation to their own professional practice. Users are
categorized, from the point of view of the designer, by their competence at
operating the system. In contrast, Floyd advocates that we take competence to be
professional practice, and practitioners' competence as users of technology to
be continually changing, each occasion of use being part of a learning process.
Errors, viewed as "one of a class of quite different human situations ranging
from simple mistakes to mismatches between user expectation and program
functions," are a precondition for learning .

In the product perspective. the interaction between the program and its
environment is considered to be prescribed by the program's design. The
"referent system," or "the part of the real world which we take into account
when developing programs," is pre-selected for aspects relevant to the software.
while the software development process itself is outside the bounds of this
analysis. In the process perspective, in contrast, the referent system is
composed of 'human work, learning and communication." which are assumed to be
subject to continuous development in relation to the software system and vice
versa. The interaction between program and environment on this view must
continuously change as designers and user change their relation to the
technology and as the software is modified to meet new situations and charigirl9
work pros eases. In place of liner ' phases' of system development. the work of
defining objectives, establishing requirements. specifying functionality.
designing. implementing and evalu ating comprises different "universes of
discourse" that meet through the collaborative interaction of participants in a
complex set of activities "interwoven in tirne."

An essential Ingredient for a process-oriented perspective exists in this
country already In the form of what is corn money called srapid prototypinq Yet
precisely because that method enjoys Increasingly widespread acceptance it runs
the ask of undermining attempts to introduce real change into the system
developmerit process. The re sponse Oh but we already do that," or "Of course
everyone knows that." mistakes perspective for technique and creates blindness
to the radically different process In which, for Scandinavian designers, the
method of prototyping is embedded. In their contribution to this volume, Kristen
Nygaard and Pal Sorgaard point out that:

A method seldom contains explicit statements about its perspective. The
perspective is instead embedded implicitly in its guidelines, techniques and
tools. For this reason a major objective in any education in system develop ment
should be to teach the students to analyze every method they are exposed to with
the purpose of identifying its embedded perspective.

One implication of Floyd's analysis is a radical change in the way that we view
the knowledge and skills that go into system design; namely, that we view those
of the prospective users of the technology as central, and that we incorporate
into the design process as sophisticated an understanding of the social world as
of the technology involved. Such a change could be achieved by having social
theory and methods a serious rather than extra-curricular part of the discipline
of software engineering or, more realistically perhaps, through collaborations
between social scientists and designers. The interactions of designers with
social scientists and of both with users must then be a process of mutual
education, taken seriously be all sides. and respecting the special. chosen
skills and craft of the various participants while providing each with some
insight into the work of the others.

The words reoriented" and "perspective" are chosen by

continued on page 5

The CPSR Newsletter is published quarterly by.

Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility P.O. Box 717
Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 322-3778

The purpose ot the Newsletter as to keep members intormed of thought and
activity In CPSR. We welcome comments on the content and tormat of
ourpublicahon. Most especially, we welcome contributions from our rnembers.
Deadline tor subimssion to the next issue is September30, 1988.

Tl71s Newsletter was produced on an Apple Macintost7 Plus Usir79 the desktop
publishing program Pagemaker-, donated to CPSR by the Aldus Corporation. It was
typeset from d Pagemaker file on a Linotronic 100.

Volume 6, No. 3 The CPSR Newsletter Summer 1988

Designing with the User continued from page 4

Floyd to convey the sense not of an opposition or mutually exclusive
disjunction, but of prioritization:

[I]n this paper I have contrasted two perspec fives and not two communities of
people hold ing these perspectives. We all argue and act from both of these
perspectives. The criticism Implied in my argumentation refers to the fact that
ex Isting methods and scientif IC approaches in software engineering embody the
product oriented view almost exclusively. Working to wards overcoming this is
both highly impera tive, considering the role of information tech nology in the
living human world, and also inspiring since it will provide the opportunity for
deep insights into the nature of cognitive pros esses. for richer relations with
the people we meet in our work, and thus for personal development and growth
while doing high quality work in technology

Floyd calls for a re-prioritization, a kind of affirmative action for the
process perspective and its associated concerns. The process perspective focuses
designers attention on the particular settings, activities. interactions between
people, and relations between people and machines that Floyd calls "the living
human world " More importar1tly, it directs our attention to the problem of
developing a system atic, nonreductionist, experentially based way of designing
technology to fit the world.

The Tool Perspective

In her paper Floyd argues that the product perspective is accompanied by an
attitude on the part of designers that leads us "to act as if we were solving
well-defined problems, rather than taking part and being instrumental in
processes of change." The alternative to that attitude is summed up by Ehn and
Kyng in the slogan, "Design should be done with users, neither for nor by them."
Elitism and specialization in the U.S. technological professions, however, has
produced (and maintains) a mystique of authoritative knowledge accessible only
to technologists. Nygaard and Sor gaard identify the power of the systems
analyst as a source of the disenfranchisement of other professionals:

The systems analyst exercises perspective power and establishes a perspective
monopoly by insisting upon, and achieving, the exclusive use (in the development
process) of facts, experiences, concepts, techniques, and tools that are
meaningful within the framework of a system perspective.

Workers in industries where computerization is in progress consequently restrict
their involvement to the defense of familiar territory such as wages and job
security, while technologists point to the technological ignorance of workers as
grounds for their exclusion from any serious role in the development process. At
the end of the process, technologists point to workers' resistance to new
technology as evidence for their innate conservatism, while remaining blind to
the exclusion that creates that resistance.

An alternative to this vicious cycles is provided by the UTOPIA project,
described by Bodker, Ehn, Kammersgaard, Kyng and Sundblad, as "a Scandinavian
research project on trade unionbased development of, and training in, computer
technology and work organization." The project, sponsored by the Swedish Center
for Working Life and the Nordic Graphic Workers' Union, took place from 1981 to
1984. Directed at page make-up and image-processing in the newspaper industry,
the goal of the UTOPIA project was to move beyond a defensive stance and concern
with reducing negative effects of computerization in the workplace, to a
positive experiment in using the introduction of new technology to improve the
efficacy of both tools and work organization. The requirements for the system
were ambitious, including: (1) to capture the best of the previous technologies
used in graphics work: (2) to overcome some of the limits of the previous
technologies; (3) to preserve and build upon existing skills. and (4) to
restructure the borderlands," or relations between professionals in ways that
served product quality and work efficiency while respecting the professional
identity of the various trade involved. Ultimatelyforthe UTOPIAprojectitwasthis
negotiation of "demarcation disputes" at the borders between, for example,
journalists and graphic workers, that proved the most difficult design
requirement to meet.

The "tool perspective" views prospective users of new technology as experts
skilled in the use of an existing technology. A major goal in system design is
to enhance skills by providing a new tool that is more powerful but also
maintains the qualities on which the professional practice is based In the case
of UTOPIA the computer represents a third *igeneration" of graphics
technologies, the first being based in wood and metal, the second in paper. The
UTOPIA analysis associates the first generation of tools with precision and
stability, the second with flexibility but an accompanying loss of precision.
The goal for the project was to recapture the precision and stability of the
first generation while extending the power of the second. That required,
however, finding ways around the limitations of the computer (e.g., poor
resolution) while exploiting its

continued on page 6

Volume 6. No. 3 The CPSR Newsletter Summer 1988

Designing with the User continued from page 5

strengths. The former were addressed through a series of "lenses" providing
multiple and alternative views of a page from overall layout to the actual text
of a particular piece.

The UTOPIA project and it successors rely heavily upon "use models" or mock-ups
that simulate as flexibly and inexpensively as possible system functionality and
user interface design. The basis for the mock-up is not a model of "the user"
but of the activity. Rather than a static model that prescribes the task, the
use of the mock-up provides a context for collaboration or "mutual learning"
between domain and computer professionals:

The tool perspective is deeply influenced by the way the design of tools has
taken place within the traditional crams The idea is that a new tool is
developed as an extension of the accumulated knowledge of tools and materials
within the domain. As a consequence of this, design must be carried out by
common efforts of skilled, experienced users and computer professionals. Users
possess the tacit skills necessary as [a] basis for analysis and design, but to
develop their technical imagination they have to gain insight into technical
possibilities as well.

Local Practice and
System Evolution

In their report on a pilot project in Norway on system design for municipal
planning departments, Thom Chr. Pape and Kari Thoreson take on an interesting
problem: "How to design a system which, a) gives opportunities for local
variations and freedom of action; b) is a tool for information handling in
complex information environments; and, c) economizes with the development
resources." Their project raises the issue of "tailorability," or common
substrates that support local, ongoing redesign. Both logic and experience
indicate that there will inevitably be a gap between designers' projections of
usage scenarios and the situations in which technology is actually used. Through
better understanding of a technology's prospective settings, that gap can be
lessened. However, the gap is always only finally closed on occasions of actual
use as people appropriate a technology to their particular circumstances. Pape
and Thoreson point out that "data systems which intend to formalize and
standardize work unnecessarily may be looked upon as another way of 'working to
a rule,' a well-known tactic for ineffective work." They adopt instead a view of
office work as case-based and necessarily responsive to unforeseeable
contingencies.

Rob Kling, in "Computerization As An Ongoing Social and Political Process,"
suggests that our experience of and familiarity with architectural and urban
design can be a resource for the problem of "how to design pro-social artifacts
in pluralistic settings." Viewing computerization in the large, as complex
packages of equipment, skills, procedures and resources as well as software, he
argues that:

A [computer-based package] is best called a "tool" for some group when they can
shape it to serve their interests and discard it easily when it is ineffective
or too costly. In contrast, an "institution" refers to some social arrangement
which persists, even when it is not working well for some of its
participants.... [Computerbased packages] can be tools for groups that have
power over their shape and use, and appear as institutions for those who are
limited in their abilities to negotiate the conditions of their use.

Conclusion

For the researchers whose work is reported in Computers and Democracy, the
design of office information systems seems neither an academic exercise nor a
feat of technological prowess carried out for the benefit of professional
colleagues. Information systems from this perspective are the latest in a long
line of human technologies that organize and give character to the everyday
settings in which many of us spend the majority of our working hours throughout
most of our working lives. Our use of technology is, in large measure, the stuff
of which our working lives is made: a resource with which we organize our
relations to other people and through which we experience ourselves as powerful,
competent, productive human beings. The question is how, and by whom, should new
technology be shaped. The answer, according to this book, is by those who will
use it. As researchers and designers our job is to uncover, with them, the
horizon of technological opportunities. L 1

Thanks to Randy Trigg for helpful comments.

Dr. Lucy Suchman is co-director of the Palo Alto chapter of CPSR, and Western
Regional Representative on the CPSR BoardofDirectors. She has been on the
CPSRBoardsince the organization was founded. She is currently a researcher at
Xerox PARC. This article was adapted from a longer version of this book review,
which will appear in a special issue of Transactions on Office Information
Systems, edited by Terry Winograd.

Living with Control Key continuedfrom page 1

many keystrokes you've typed in an hour or whether you typed code that caused a
boiler to explode rather than shut down. Your bosses can even read the
electronic messages you've sent to co-workers.

But what's most worrisome is that computers give management an unrivaled tool to
measure a worker's performance: to determine how quickly they should complete a
given task. Factory workers, even before the widespread use of computers on the
shop floor, had to face this unblinking standard in the form of a mechanical
assembly line. Now computers are transforming a wide variety of service jobs,
creating an information factory as corporations seek to hold down labor costs
through vast increases in worker productivity.

As a result of computerization, service workers, the fastest growing segment of
the U.S. labor force, are "on the edge of historical transformation of immense
proportions," as sweeping a change as the Industrial Revolution, asserts
Shoshana Zuboff in her thoughtful new book, In The Age of Smart Machine. Since
the 1 970s, many writers have used this idea either to criticize computer
automation as a meanspirited tool used to oppress workers or to hail it as
ushering in utopia for the working stiff.

In producing her probing study of computer automation. Zuboff, an associate
professor at Harvard Business School, has carved out a middle path. Along the
way, she discovers-from ten years of research at eight large workplaces- that
computers enable workers to upset traditional power relations even as managers
seek to use computerization to reinforce their domination.

Zuboff's fresh approach results in a book of enormous scope; she draws on vivid
case studies as well as far-flung historical and theoretical sources to produce
a stunning portrait of the inner lives of 'post-industrial" workers.

"History reveals the power of certain technological innovations to transform the
mental life of an era," writes Zuboff. And in searching for this mental life,
Zuboff finds that today's laborer often feels that computers cut him off from
familiar physical cues. "Now, once you hit the ENTER button, there is no way to
check it, no way to stop it," explains one benefits analyst in an insurance
firm. "It's gone, and that's scary."

The transition from "action-centered work" to what Zuboff calls "intellective"
work-where workers spend most of their time interpreting computer data-is
painful. Not only

is old knowledge largely useless, but the worker's baroque protections against
management intrusion have lost their force. That leaves workers open to new
forms of scrutiny while they battle the insecurity of relearning the tasks
critical to the job.

Zubotf has few illusions about how much humanity a worker can retain in the face
of the computerization of work. Dismayed by frequent failure to anticipate the
psychological crisis brought on by automation, she predicts that computers on
the job may bring society "closer to fulfilling Hannah Arendt's dreadful
forecast" of a future in which workers function only as deadly, sterile
automatons.

While an impressive examination of a much-neglected area. In the Age of the
Smart Machine fails to question the underlying motivations of corporate
America's love affair with computers. Zuboff who assists big businesses in
coping with the impact of computerization on their workers, never asks whether
computerization is the only way for corporations to keep pace with competitors;
nor does she wonder whether a technology with such powerful democratizing
potential is incompatible with modern-day capitalism.

Instead, Zuboff's aim is to give management a practical set of concepts to ease
the trauma of computer automation. Armed with these ideas, she thinks corporate
America can humanize the use of computers by changing power relations on the
job. The system has no choice but to change, she asserts; in the automated
workplace of the future a new

continued onpage 8

Living with Control Key continuedfrom page 7

division of labor and learning will evolve. Quality, rather than quantity, will
be the new measure of worker performance, and managers and workers alike will
participate in training activities now usually reserved for the former.
"Learning is the new form of labor," Zuboff concludes.

The notion is seductive, and it reflects a growing confidence that young
corporations such as Apple Computer, Nordstrom and Federal Express are winning
in the information age because they have encouraged their workers to question
topdown directives and craft their own solutions. Nordstrom, for instance,
states its employee policy in a single sentence: "Use your best judgment at all
times."

Yet the Nordstroms of the world remain the exception. Most companies distrust
their workers, and in computers they have found a powerful ally to act on their
fears. Not suprisingly, many workers view computers as management's latest
weapon to dictate, monitor, and ultimately wring out all the humanity from their
jobs. The confusion and desperation of these workers is admirably captured in
The Electronic Sweatshop, Barbara Garson's stark, sensitive report on how the
proliferation of computers in the workplace threatens "to turn the rest of us
into $3 an hour clerks."

Author of the controversial play MacBird! and All The Livelong Day. a book on
how factory workers cope with automation, Garson deftly captures the inner life
of professional and service workers forced to surrender much of their
flexibility to computers, which increasingly set the standards for job
performance. And unlike Zuboff, whose wooden prose and overblown abstractions
are a menace to the reader, Garson tells a wonderful story. Stitching together
dozens of profiles of social workers, stock brokers, secretaries, bank loan
officers and military officers, her crackling account is a reminder that books
about technology can pulsate with the lives of memorable people.

In one haunting story, a former commander of an aircraft carrier tells Garson
that he frequently lied to his computer. Once he failed to enter into his
computer data on an accidental U.S. bombing of China during the Vietnam war. "If
I told the computer we bombed a target in China it would automatically generate.
. . a flash report of major significance," he said. "Then the bells would ring
and the lights would flash and the system would go bananas. It was my human
judgment not to put this piece of information into the computer. " Luckily for
the commander, his Chi nese counterparts also decided to ignore the incident.

Many workers are fighting far more mundane battles. Garson writes with great
sensitivity about airline reservations agents, who have suffered at the hands of
computers as efficiencyminded bosses have chopped up the typical customer call
into neat, measurable bits. This has turned the agents into human calculators,
neurotically micromanaging their telephone conversations.

The plight of reservation agents outrages Garson, who is unmoved by utopian
visions of a workplace where computers free people from drudgery. Darkly, she
seems the opposite taking place. "The automation of conversation is just an
extension of factory or fast-food automation." Garson writes. In her unsettling
view, computers are robbing workers of the chance to use their judgment and
chaining them to a smart machine that requires the worker's fingers and little
else. Ignoring the legitimate pressures that force companies to automate, she
sees the spread of computers on the job as part of a conspiracy by management,
whose main goal is "to dictate exactly how a worker does his job and to make him
accountable for every minute of the working day."

Worse, Garson discerns ominous trends in computer technology which threaten to
reduce even well-trained professionals-doctors, lawyers, financial planners, and
psychologists, to name a few-into data entry operators. Here she wildly
overstates the potential of so-called "expert systems," which mimic the
decisionmaking of a human expert. These systems are years away from widespread
use and may never fulfill their sponsors' hopes. But Garson is right to link the
destinies of lower-paid clerks and service workers with those of highly skilled,
self-managed professionals. In an era where society is often blinded by the
promise of technology, herpointbears remembering: people are more important than
machines

G. Pascal Zachary writes about the computer business for the San Jose Mercury
News. This book reviewis reprinted, with permission, from that newspaper.

For more information on books concerning computers in the workplace, see the
"capsule reviews" prepared by members of the CPSR/Palo Alto Computers in the
Workplace Project, beginning on page 14 of this Newsletter. You can also order
the selected, annotated bibliography on computers in the workplace, or get on
the mailing list for the bulletin Working Notes, by writing the CPSR Computers
in the Workplace Project, P.0. Box 390871, Mountain View, CA 94039. The
electronic mail address is workplace@src.dec.com.

Volume 6, No. 3 The CPSR Newsletter Summer 1988

The Technological
Arms Race
Book Review Jennifer Lee

Matthew Evangelista, Innovation and the Arms Race: How the United States and the
Soviet Union Develop New Military Technologies, Cornell University Press, 300
pages. $32.95.

Matthew Evangelista. an assistant professor of political science at the
University of Michigan, attempts to describe and explain the causes and
mechanisms of the "technological arms race" in his recent book, Innovation and
the Arms Race: How the United States and the Soviet Union Develop New Military
Technologies. Basing his work on declassified American sources and previously
unexploited Soviet primary sources, Evangelista sets out a highly persuasive
theory of the process of technological innovation which leads to weapons
deployments in both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. He develops on top of this
foundation the first detailed case study of U .S. and Soviet development of
tactical nuclear weapons. For his impressive research and his highly readable
prose, Evangelista should be congratulated.

However, there are two problems with the book First, some of Evangelista's
premises are debatable Evangel ista does not sufficiently support his thesis
that. of the two superpowers. the Soviet Union has the most significant record
in supporting arms control. He clearly believes that the arms race is the fault
of the United States. Evangelista's general perspective on the arms race is
captured in his quotation from Dr. Suess' parody of the arms race, The Butter
Battle Book, which goes:

All we need is some newfangled kind of gun. My boys in the Back Room ha ve
already begun to think up a wallowing shizz-zinger one! My Bright Boys are
thinking They re on the right track They'll think up one quick and we if send
you right back!

The second problem with the book is that if Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev
is successful in his current attempt to implement an international system of
collective security, Evangelista's book may serve only as a guide to the past,
albeit an excellent one.

Evangelista begins by reviewing the basic, traditional theories about the arms
race, which claim that decisions to

9

develop weapons are made primarily in response to external threat or as the
result of internal bureaucratic forces. These theories, argues Evangelista,
explain inertia and stagnation more than they do change and innovation. He is
also critical of the tendency of traditional theory to project a mirror-image of
two adversaries, one that assumes that the dynamics and mechanisms found in U.S.
society are applicable to the Soviet Union.

Five Stages of Technological Innovation

In contrast to the traditional theories that are described in some detail in the
first two chapters, Evangelista lays out his own framework of five points
intended to describe weapons innovation in the two superpowers.

In the U.S. there is a "strong society and weak state," according to
Evangelista, and consequently the impetus for innovation in the U.S. is from the
"bottom up." Domestic, internal forces typically prompt weapons innovation,
while external forces spur weapons development.

The five stages Evangelista identifies in the U.S. begin with the "technocratic
initiative," in which scientists at private institutions, who have access to an
abundance of resources and are under little external control, develop innovative
ideas. In the second stage, termed "consensus building," scientists military
officials and interested colleagues build support for an idea by speaking and
writing about it. Evangelista says that in this stage, the scientists typically
have an inability "to limit [the weapon's] options, and [they] attribute to it
all the desired features" likely to generate interest among those whom they
court for support.

In the third stage, called "promotion," the system's organized supporters bring
their case to the military services, the Congress and the Executive branch,
invoking the specter of an outside threat if there is bureaucratic resistance to
their goals. In the fourth, "open window," phase, an outside threat-even a
different one from the previous stage-is presented as a rationale forweapons
development. Threats, however, says Evangelista, are not causes of innovation in
weapons development, but only catalysts toward production. Finally, during the
fifth stage of "high level endorsement," the weapon system's supporters seek
public and congressional support for full funding of large scale production .

Evangelista contends that the Soviet innovation process is the reverse of its
U.S. counterpart. Because the Soviets have "a weak society and a strong state,"
according to the

continuedonpage 10

Volume 6, No. 3 The CPSR Newsletter Summer 1988

The Technological
Arms Race
Book Review Jennifer Lee

Matthew Evangelista, Innovation and the Arms Race: How the United States and the
Soviet Union Develop New Military Technologies, Cornell University Press, 300
pages. $32.95.

Matthew Evangelists an assistant professor of political science at the
University of Michigan, attempts to describe and explain the causes and
mechanisms of the "technological arms race" in his recent book, Innovation and
the Arms Race. How the United States and the Soviet Union Develop New Military
Technologies. Basing his work on declassified American sources and previously
unexploited Soviet primary sources, Evangelista sets out a highly persuasive
theory of the process of technological innovation which leads to weapons
deployments in both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. He develops on top of this
foundation the first detailed case study of U .S . and Soviet development of
tactical nuclear weapons. For his impressive research and his highly readable
prose, Evangelista should be con gratulated.

However, there are two problems with the book First. some of Evangelista's
premises are debatable Evangel ista does not sufficiently support his thesis
that, of the two superpowers. the Soviet Union has the most significant record
in supporting arms control. He clearly believes that the arms race is the fault
of the United States. Evangelista's general perspective on the arms race is
captured in his quotation from Dr. Suess' parody of the arms race, The Butter
Battle Book, which goes

All we need is some newfangled kind of gun. My boys in the Back FRoom ha ve
already begun to think up a wallowing shizz-zinger one! My Bright Boys are
thinking They're on the right track TheyW think up one quick and we W send you
right back!

The second problem with the book is that if Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev
is successful in his current attempt to implement an international system of
collective security. Evangelista's book may serve only as a guide to the past,
albeit an excellent one.

Evangelista begins by reviewing the basic, traditional theories about the arms
race, which claim that decisions to

9

develop weapons are made primarily in response to external threat or as the
result of internal bureaucratic forces. These theories, argues Evangelista,
explain inertia and stagnation more than they do change and innovation. He is
also critical of the tendency of traditional theory to project a mirror-image of
two adversaries, one that assumes that the dynamics and mechanisms found in U.S.
society are applicable to the Soviet Union.

Five Stages of Technological Innovation

In contrast to the traditional theories that are described in some detail in the
first two chapters, Evangelista lays out his own framework of five points
intended to describe weapons innovation in the two superpowers.

In the U.S. there is a "strong society and weak state," according to
Evangelista, and consequently the impetus for innovation in the U.S. is from the
"bottom up." Domestic, internal forces typically prompt weapons innovation,
while external forces spur weapons development.

The five stages Evangelista identifies in the U.S. begin with the "technocratic
initiative," in which scientists at private institutions, who have access to an
abundance of resources and are under little external control, develop innovative
ideas. In the second stage, termed "consensus building." scientists, military
officials and interested colleagues build support for an idea by speaking and
writing about it. Evangelista says that in this stage, the scientists typically
have an inability "to limit [the weapon's] options, and [they] attribute to it
all the desired features" likely to generate interest among those whom they
court for support.

In the third stage, called "promotion," the system's organized supporters bring
their case to the military services, the Congress and the Executive branch,
invoking the specter of an outside threat if there is bureaucratic resistance to
their goals. In the fourth, "open window," phase, an outside threat-even a
different one from the previous stage-is presented as a rationale for weapons
development. Threats, however, says Evangelista, are not causes of innovation in
weapons development, but only catalysts toward production. Finally, during the
fifth stage of "high level endorsement," the weapon system's supporters seek
public and congressional support for full funding of large scale production .

Evangelista contends that the Soviet innovation process is the reverse of its
U.S. counterpart. Because the Soviets have "a weak society and a strong state,"
according to the

continuedonpage 10

Volume 6. No. 3 The CPSR Newsletter Summer 1988

Technological Arms Race continued from page 9

author, the source of change is from "the top down," and external factors
influence the process early on.

Evangelista's knowledge of Russian contributes significantly to the value of his
study and supports his contention that the Soviet system operates according to a
different dynamic than that of the United States. His arguments are supported by
other prominent scholars of the Soviet arms industry .

According to Evangelista, in the Soviet Union there is little pressure for
innovation during a weapon's initial development, a term the author calls
"stifled initiative." Evangelista considers it surprising that the Soviet
system-which devotes more resources to military research and development than
any other country in the world-is totally devoid of low-level innovation. Only
when there is intervention from top political or military leaders do Soviet
military research and development institutions move to develop new technology.

In the second stage in the Soviet Union, called "preparatory measures," the
Soviets prepare a broad technical basis for specific weapons development. This
preparation, says Evangelista, "is almost invariably made in response to an
identifiable foreign development or threat," such as evidence of a new weapons
program in the U.S.

During the third stage of "high level response," the Soviet leadership
reassesses and restates its military priorities with respect to the newly
identified threat. In the fourth phase, "mobilization," the Soviet leadership
"endorses an all out effort" to counter the weapons development abroad. The
political leadership will intervene in the ongoing work of the Soviet military
researchers. Finally, during the "mass production" stage, there is public
evidence of a change in Soviet military policy and the subject weapon undergoes
mass production.

Evangelista concludes that the Soviet system of weapons development is mainly
"reactive." Before the Soviets answer a U.S. weapon with a long-term program of
their own, they employ short-term countermeasures and often, as with the
Strategic Defense Initiative, attempt to counter the system through the arms
control process. Evangelista believes that because of the "reactive" nature of
the Soviet system. "arms control is possible."

Evangelista then goes on to put some historical flesh on his theoretical
skeleton by providing a detailed case study of both superpowers' decisions to
develop and deploy tactical

10

nuclear weapons. This is the first detailed study of this subject, and
Evangelista displays an exemplary use of Soviet sources of information to reveal
many heretofore unknown details about Soviet decisionmaking.

Anomalous Cases

However, Evangelista does have to admit that there are several significant cases
of weapons development in both countries which do not fit his theoretical
framework, particularly the Soviet development of the hydrogen bomb, and their
deployment of an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system. Further, he concedes that
even U.S. and Soviet production of intercontinental ballistic missiles "poses
some problems" for his theory. In the case of the Soviet thermonuclear weapon,
the Soviets did not simply react to the U.S. program but apparently gave
development of the bomb a high priority right from the start, even claiming that
their scientists invented it first. Similarly, the Soviets deployed an ABM
system prior to the U.S's own deployment, and the Soviets launched an ICBM
sixteen months before the U.S. did.

Evangelista does cite several programs other than tactical nuclear weapons which
do tend to conform to his model, such as the "neutron" bomb, deep strike
weapons, and the SDI, or "Star Wars."

Arms Control Is Possible

The principal recommendation of this book is that the United States can enhance
its own security by trading its capacity for seemingly endless weapons
innovation for the Soviet capability to produce weapons in large numbers once a
technology has found its way into Soviet arsenals. For example, argues
Evangelista, the United States should trade its lead in SDI technologies for
substantial Soviet cuts in multiple-warhead ICBMs, something the Soviets seem
willing to do. Evangelista believes that trading "technological constraint for
Soviet quantitative advantages" can apply to all weapons systems, and he
optimistically concludes that significant arms control treaties which restrain
technological innovation "could create a climate for more broadreaching measures
of disarmament, with considerable scope for unilateral initiatives as well."

An even more optimistic hope might be that in the near future Evangelista's book
will only describe patterns of the past. General Secretary Gorbachev opened an
internal debate over defense policy and international security when, at the 27th
Party Congress in 1986, he proposed the concept of "reasonable sufficiency" for
Soviet and American forces. "Reasonable sufficiency" means that both superpowers
should have enough forces to defend their countries, but not enough forces to
attack.

if Gorbachev can draw the West into his vision of collective security and
radical disarmament, then the dynamics of the arms race could change from one of
+U.S. action. Soviet reaction," to a system based on firms control, disarrila
ment, and political measures designed to refocus super power competition from
the military sphere to econornic. political. and cultural areas. Gorbachev s
proposed secu rity system would codify measures of restraint "from the top" to
short circuit superpower weapons technology inno vation. no matter what the
source. | 5,

Jennifer Lee is a research analyst with Global Outlook, a Palo Alto-based
research institute specializing in U.S. Soviet relations and international
security.

A National Computer
Bulletin Board

Ateam of people at the University of Wisconsin at Madison is developing a
nation-wide, public access bulletin board system. The National Bulletin Board
(NBB) will enable people to present their ideas, questions, comments. etc., in a
large public forum.

The NBB will consist of a central computer, which will be used to store and
exchange information, and microcomputers in participating public and university
libraries. The microcomputers in libraries will contain a hierarchical index,
article summaries (e.g., the first twenty lines of each article), and the most
recent comments on each article. People can use the microcomputers in libraries
to browse through article summaries, request complete articles from the central
computer, enter their own articles, and corn ment on other's contributions.

People who own a computer and a modem will be able to use them to access to the
NBB computer at their local library. People who don't own this equipment can use
the NBB microcomputer at the library. The NBB will be paid for by the people who
use it. For more information, contact the Project Director, John Jordan, 5043
Marathon Drive, Madison, Wl 53705. The telephone number is (608)2339535.LH

Members Offer
Opinions on CPSR

The CPSR national leadership and staff are very interested in the opinions of
members about the organization. Last year the national office sent out a card
for members to return with comments about CPSR. In addition, the membership
renewal form has always had a space on it for rnernbers to voice their concerns
or their praise. The comtnents below are excerpted from various correspondence
sent to the national office of CP5'R by members. The opinions expressed here are
the ones that seemed most provocative and,or representative. Fortunately, the
most common opinion received in the National Oftice is that the organization is
doing a greatiob but we have notbothered to reproduce those comments here.

CPSR seems to be in a mostly reactive mode-spotting threats to life or liberty
posed by computers.... This is valuable, but social responsibility includes
identifying positive social pathways for technology use and development. I would
like to see more of that.

I would like to see more succinct identification of CPSR Issues, rnerits, and
pros and cons, alternative strategies for dealing with them, a better sense of
priorities and some open channels for polling the membership to determine the
most urgent issues to address. At the moment I feel "hostage" to some distant
committee's decisions regarding CPSR orientation....

I do not agree with what I perceive to be the CPSR view on SDI. This is a
complex issue, requiring much more space for analysis, but simply lobbying
against it is counterproductive to world peace, in my view.... The question of
privacy in the face of increased computer databases is a critical issue which is
rightly one that CPSR should consider top priority....

* * *

I am personally not (yet) opposed to SDI. Don't alienate me by having your
newsletter authors assume that I am. I don't mind reading "opposed" points of
view, but "pro" views would also be welcome. Membership in CPSR does not mean
that I want to restrict government and military computer defense, but that I
want responsible applications built for my tax dollar. . .

My attraction to CPSR is based primarily on the strong stands taken against
expanded SDI research, and in the area of monitoring the computer systems used
in the nuclear defense area. As the organization takes on additional issues, I
hope the initial energy regarding SDI and computing for nuclear defense is not
diminished.

* * *

My main concern is with the economic, social, and cultural effects of computers,
while it seems to me that CPSR concentrates exclusively on military problems.

* * *

I approve of the work we have done so far, particularly in our handling of SDI
and computer privacy. I would also like to see us take active positions on on
technology transfer to countries with gross human rights violations-Chile, South
Africa, etc. We should also be trying to reach out and establish better
relations with our colleagues in non-aligned and Eastern bloc countries, similar
to Physicians for Social Responsibility....

I have one point I'd like to make. . .that we try to use as much inclusive
language as we can. This is not just a "man's" profession, and this is not just
a "man's" world. In our writing, let's be sensitive to the women professionals
and to women all over the world.

* * *

I would like to see more involvement in Third World issues. For example, this
summer I went to Nicaragua and found that the computer science department of the
UNAN had four PC clones for 200 students. The psychology department at the UCA
asked me to work on getting them one computer-they have none.... I realize this
is politically touchy, but I wonder if there isn't something we can do to aid
technology transfer to the Third World.

* * *

Seventy-five per cent of your program should focus on the imminent possibility
of a computer malfunction-mechanical or human-triggering nuclear destruction.
Twenty-five per cent should be on computer privacy.

* * *

How about some ethical issues related to computer use in organizations-
businesses, government, etc. People-related issues, displacement, changing
roles, etc. Create a balance with current efforts on warfare, SDI, etc.

Please don't spend my money on these fancy cards and extra mailings! In general,
please be more frugal. Concen

trate efforts on educating legislators and activists about technology. Show them
what is and is not possible. Stimulate debate-include arguments on both
sides.... Keep a pluralistic stand-don't take sides on political issues. We may
disagree what our social responsibility is. but we can discuss and publicize the
issues.

What CPSR has been doing-and is trying to do-is more significant than
particulars of the agenda.... Because computers are so widely used, and so often
misapplied, CPSR could find justification to jump into the fray on any number of
issues. The crucial ones continue to be misrepresentation of information
technology and applications that erode our constitutional liberties....

I am concerned with the large number of non-members. Not really because I think
we need an infinite number of members, but because I wonder why people would not
join . I think it goes beyond laziness to something of an image problem. Many of
my friends know nothing of CPSR or believe it to be a radical organization. I
wonder if a membership campaign might help something specifically addressed to
gaining wider recognition in our own community.

For all its growth, CPSR is still a very small organization. Don't get spread
too thin; it's better to err on the side of covering too few issues than to
cover too many issues superficially.

I would prefer CPSR to concentrate more on issues that are clearly ethical in
nature (and there are plenty) and less on partisan political issues, like the
SDI, which is being judged prematurely by its detractors.

* * *

The emergence of your (our) organization is the most encouraging development in
the computer field in many years.

* * *

Major issue: pace of life! Can I afford to get up and leave my post for some
leisure activity, when I could easily lose my shirt in a short time due to the
pace of events I need to track? Will computers tame the information explosion or
further fuel it out of control?

I would like to suggest contacting Soviet counterparts and to try initiating and
maintaining a dialogue.


Computers in the Workplace
Capsule Reviews

In addition to the books reviewed on page 1 of this CPSR Newsletter, there are
several other important sources of information about computers in the workplace.
Three of these are reviewed briefly below.

* * *

Office of Technology Assessment, The Electronic Supervisor: New Technology, New
Tensions. September 1987.

In an increasing number of work environments, computers are being used to
monitor the activities of employees, giving rise to the concept that Time
magazine has called "the boss that never blinks." This recent report from the
Office of Technology Assessment (established by Congress in 1972 to serve as its
analytical arm on issues of technological policy) provides excellent background
on the types of computer monitoring in use today and on the problems that such
monitoring can cause.

While the report notes that "there are no reliable figures on how extensively
employers are applying computer-based software to monitor individual employee
performance," the OTA estimates that computers are used to track the activities
of about six million workers and that this number is certain to grow.

The report identifies several areas of concern arising from computer monitoring.
In particular, the report finds treason to believe that electronically
monitoring the quantity or speed of work contributes to stress and stress-
related illness," but it also addresses such issues as privacy, fairness, and
the quality of work life. The full report also contains considerable background
information on the history of workplace monitoring in general and draws on a
variety of sources representing all points along the political spectrum .

The report has been criticized for failing to insist on strong Federal action.
In fact, the report outlines several possible directions to take, leaving any
final legislative decisions up to Congress. It is unclear how much influence
this report will have on Congress, but it does provide some much needed
information on an important topic where reliable data appear to be in short
supply.

-Eric Roberts

Bob DeMatteo, Terminal Shock. The Health Hazards of Video Display Terminals.
Toronto: NC Press Limited, 1 985.

Bob DeMatteo is Coordinator of Occupational Health and Safety for the Ontario
Public Service Employee Union. Most of his detailed, well- documented book deals
with potential hazards of cathode ray tube (CRT) radiation, although it also
covers other health problems, such as repetition strain injury and stress. The
book includes useful surveys of video display terminal (VDT)-related
legislation, lawsuits, and collective bargaining agreements in several
countries. One appendix lists fifty empirical and laboratory studies of the
effects of radiation on humans and animals, specified by frequency, intensity,
modulation, and length of exposure.

In this book, written for VDT and computer users, DeMatteo explains enough wave
theory and atomic physics to enable a non-technically trained reader to follow
discussion of equipment and health effects. CRTs are known to emit some
radiation at all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum: extremely low
frequencies (ELF, 0-1000 Hz), very low frequency (VLF), radio frequency,
microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, and soft X-rays. This may,
however, not represent any serious cause for concern. X-ray emission has
decreased substantially in recent years, and the levels of light emission in the
infraredultraviolet range is likely to be less than that produced by most office
lighting.

At the same time, there are areas about which very little is known. For example,
DeMatteo considers the problem of pulsed ELF fields emitted by the flyback
transformer (according to an IBM study, pulsed ELF fields induce electrical
currents in human tissue) and raises the issue of synergistic effects from
having all these types of radiation present together. In each case, there is
evidence that suggests that concern is appropriate, at least until more
conclusive work can be done.

Two important points emerge from this book. First, there has been no thorough
testing of radiation emitted by CRTs (only prototypes are tested). Second, the
question of what levels of radiation might be considered "safe" remains a matter
of debate. Three years after this book was published, these questions are still
open, and more research is clearly needed.

-Carolyn Curtin

Robert Howard, Brave New Workplace. New York: Elizabeth Sifton Books/Viking
Press, 1985.

Robert Howard, an editor of Technology Review, begins his book by detailing the
promise of the "brave new workplace"-a "brand-new model of corporate life
promising to reconcile equity with efficiency, meaningful work with high
technology, worker satisfaction with corporate profit, and social renewal with
economic prosperity." Having described this vision, Howard then proceeds to
demolish it.

Steve Jobs has said that Silicon Valley illustrates "the redefinition of the
corporation in America." He may believe this, but many others-certainly many
bluecollar workers-might disagree. A critique of the "promise" of high
technology gives Howard a vehicle for presenting problems with computers in the
workplace. Computer monitoring of workers and accompanying stress, the
"deskilling" of jobs (even when it's counterproductive), and the lack of
participatory design are covered, among other issues. The chapter on
occupational disease in Silicon Valley is extremely sobering, even for those who
will never hold a manufacturing job.

The details in the book are useful and concrete. Howard tells us, for example,
that cutting one second from the average directory assistance call saved the
Bell System $24 million per year, which makes one realize what stakes companies
feel they have in computer monitoring. Although the book might be more powerful
if he gave (as Barbara Garson does) more extended examples, Howard does provide
valuable data and thoughtful analysis to produce a book that is certainly worth
reading.

-Paul Czyzewski

CPSR Members
If You Move. . .

Please be sure to send us your new address, along with the old address, so we
can properly update your records. The CPSR Newsletter is mailed at a nonprofit
bulk rate, and the post office will not forward bulk mail even if you have a
forwarding order on file. If you have moved and you've stopped receiving
yournewsletter, this may be the reason.

From the Secretary's Desk
Eric Roberts-National Secretary

The CPSR National Board met here in Palo Alto at the end of June and welcomed
two new members: Susan Suchman (CPSR/New York), who was elected as the new
Regional Director for the Middle Atlantic region, and Eric Gutstein
(CPSR/Madison), who was elected as the new Director-atLarge. The Director-at-
Large position was previously held by Karen Sollins (CPSR/ Boston), who took
over Steve Berlin's position as New England Regional Director. The meeting was
both exciting and productive, and we seem to have a group of very active and
dedicated people on the Board.

There were two main highlights from the Board meeting. First, the Board passed a
resolution adopting "Computers in the Workplace" as a new focus area for CPSR.
At present, the National Office is not involved in any programs in this area,
but we believe that activity along these lines will grow in the future. All
chapters and members of CPSR are encouraged to suggest ideas for projects in
this area to the Board. Second, we approved the fiscal 1988-89 budget for CPSR
which includes expenses totalling $285,264. In order to meet this budget, we
will need to increase our income significantly, and we are in the process of
developing a major fundraising campaign.

This summer has also brought a number of changes in the office staff here in
Palo Alto with the departure of Office Manager Katy Elliot and Program Associate
Mary Karen Dahl. Both of them are moving on to new opportunities, as described
in the story on page 18. This is clearly exciting news for both, but it is
certainly a loss for the office. Katy has taken on considerable responsibilities
beyond the original limits of her job description, and Mary Karen has been
fantastically successful in developing the civil liberties project and in
raising funds to support that work. We will miss them both.

On the brighter side, there are two new staff members joining the office this
month. Lois Toback is the new office manager, and Susan Lyon will take on the
job of chapter organizer/publications specialist, combining things that Katy has
done, Mary Karen has done, and no one has done. Susan is extremely well
qualified for this position and has several exciting ideas about chapter support
and about our publications.

As this goes to press, many of us will be at DIAC-88, the

15

continuedonpage 16

Secretary's Desk

continued from page 15

CPSR research conference being held in St. Paul Minne sota, on August 21. Doug
Schuler of CPSR/Seattle has once again done an exemplary job of organizing this
well attended event. The program includes a keynote address by computer pioneer
and CPSR member Doug Engelbart. and a panel discussion on computers and ethics
featuring CPSR members John Ladd, Deborah Johnson, and others. Part of the
expenses for this year s DIAC are supported by a grant from the National Science
Foundation, CPSR s first government grant. Immediately following the DIAC
conference, CPSR/Minnesota will be hosting a reception, in conjunction with
Ablex Publishing Corporation, for DIAC attendees and special guests.

CPSR/Minnesota formed just in time to help host DIAC-88, and to organize and
staff a booth at the annual convention of theAmerican Association forArtificial
Intelligence (AAAI), which will be held in Minneapolis the week following the
CPSR conference. AAAI has donated space to CPSR every year and the CPSR booth is
one of the most popular at the convention. CPSR/Minnesota was the result of
organizing work by members in the area, and particularly David Pogoff of the
University of Minnesota. David and Roger Rydberg were interviewed about CPSR in
a feature story in the Minneapolis Star& Tribune, and the story was

The CPSR Newsletter Summer 1988

picked up by the Sunday San Francisco Examiner/Chronicle.

Another chapter that may be formed by the time you read this is in Washington
D.C. The group has elected chapter officers David Girard and Joel Wolfson, and
has already scheduled several meetings with speakers, the first on computerized
voting.

CPSR will be doing some fundraising and a membership drive soon. In October
using a grant from the Veatch Program in New York, we will be doing a direct
mail membership campaign to 75,000 computer professionals and interested
supporters. We hope to add a significant number of new members to the
organization. We have retained the services of a direct mail consultant, Broder
& Associates in New York City, to help produce a professional and effective mail
package.

To update another piece of CPSR-related news, the final set of oral arguments in
the lawsuit Johnson v. Weinberger were presented before the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals on Friday, May 13. CPSR member Cliff Johnson filed his original suit
in February 1984, arguing, among other points, that the U.S. policy of launch-
on-warning represents an unconstitutional abrogation of congressional authority
to

_

Books available from the CPSR National Office

The Sachertorte Algorithmw and Other Antidotes to Correputer Anxiety, by John
Shore. A delighfful, personal introduction ta computers that is aiso informative
for computer experts. The book to buy for someone who wants to know something
about computers beyond whatts available in $~~howto2' books and manuals.
Penguin, 1985~~ $ 6.95 paper.

Computers in Battle: Will They Work? David Bellin and Gary Chapman, eds. A
unique look at the increasing role of computers in the arms race, the only book
of its kind for the lay reader. Eleven essays, most by CPSR members. Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, 1987. $14.95, hardbound.


CPSR, Inc., P.O. Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Please add $3#00 for postage and handling
Caliternia residents olease add sales tax
Empty Promise: The Growing Case Against Star Wars, from the Union of Concerned
Scientists. Ten essays covering the development of the ;'Star Warsv program from
1983 to the present. Includes a chapter on the computer requirements of the SDI
by two CPSR members. Beacon Press, 1986. $7.95, paper.

Volume 6, No. 3 The CPSR Newsletter Summer 1988

Secretary s Desk continuedArom page 16

declare war and of the President's power to command and control the armed
forces.

In its decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that Cliff lacks "standing/' to sue,
for two reasons. The first is that the injury is ruled "speculative," meaning
that whatever might happen to Cliff in a nuclear war cannot be determined in
advance, and it cannot even be determined that there might be a nuclear war,
which sidesteps the issue Cliff raised about risk. Second, the plaintiff has no
standing because the injury is ruled "pervasive," and not individual, and the
Court relies on precedents that say that injury cannot be attached to a
plaintiff when the injury is shared by everyone in the Court's jurisdiction.

Cliff plans to file a new complaint that addresses these issues directly, both
by concentrating on specific military programs and procedures as opposed to the
more speculative questions of defense "policy" and by establishing several
factors (e g., living closer to military targets) that increase his individual
risk.

Everyone who can attend should make plans to come to the CPSR Annual Meeting and
Banquet on November 19 and 20 at Stanford University. The initial announcement
of the program is on page 19. The program for this year promises to be better
than ever, including a significant panel discussion on the FBl's NCIC system,
and another on Apple Computer's video, "Knowledge Navigator." This is our big
event of the year, so please try and join use

OTA Releases Report
on SDI Software

In May, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) released its
long-delayed report on the "Technology, Survivability, and Software"
requirements for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) The report was the
product of an OTA staff study led by an advisory panel of 17 scientists and
experts. Participating on the panel were CPSR members Professor David L. Parnas
and Dr. John Shore. and CPSR member Dr. Karl Dahike gave a presentation at a
workshop on SDI software in January, 1987 CPSR also cooperated with the OTA
staff by supplying copies of CPSR papers on the SDI, and copies of news
clippings. articles, and unpublished manuscripts and papers from CPSR's
extensive library of material on ballistic missile defense Other OTA panel
participants included Dr. Richard Garwin of IBM, Dr. Victor Vyssotsky of DEC,
and Professor Charles Seltz of Cal Tech, who was also a member of the Eastport
Group

The advisory panel was assembled in August, 1986. and given a year to study
material for a report scheduled to be released in August,1987. But the
Department of Defense delayed the release of the completed report nine months
because of classification problems (OTA staff and panel members were given
access to classified information) . The Pentagon claimed that there was material
in the report's section on SDI survivability that was too sensitive for public
release. In fact, one OTA staff member said that the Air Force wanted to delete
93% of the report's section on survivability. Eventually a compromise was
reached, and the report was released in May,1988, some two and a half

months after its conclusions were leaked to the Washington Post.

The conclusions of the OTA report on SDI software closely echo those reached by
CPSR three years ago. The report states, for example, "The nature of software
and experience with large, complex software systems indicate that there may
always be irresolvable questions about how
dependableBMD(ballisticmissiledefense)softwarewould be and about the confidence
the United States could place in dependability estimates.... In OTA's judgment,
there would be a significant probability (i.e., one large enough to take
seriously) that the first (and presumably only) time the BMD system were used in
a real war, it would suffer a catastrophic failure." The report also says that
"No adequate models for the development, production, test and maintenance of
software for fullscale BMD systems exist."

Reinforcing CPSR's conclusions on the SDl's National Test Bed (see the CPSR
Newsletter, Spring, 1988), the OTA report states,4iBattle simulations on a scale
needed to represent a full battle realistically have not been previously
attempted It would be crucial, but very difficult, to find a W.1y of verifying
the accuracy of such simulations. when and if they are developed."

The 71 pages the report dedicates to issues concerning BMD battle management and
software are perhaps the most complete review of the technical controversies to
date. The report can be ordered from the Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402-9325. Its reference is SDI.-
Technology. Survivability, and Software. GPO stock number 052-00301084-4. It is
$12, including domestic postage, $15 for international orders.

17
Volume 6. No. 3 The CPSR Newsletter Summer 1988

Katy Hickman Elliot

CPSR Employees Move
On To New Opportunities

Mary Karen Dahl, CPSR National Program Associate, and Katy Hickman Elliot,
National Office Manager, are both leaving CPSR in August for new opportunities
in different careers.

Dr. Mary Karen Dahl was originally hired as National Office Manager in April
1985, and she held this position until July, 1986, when she became the
organization's first National Program Associate. In this capacity she organized
and directed the CPSR Computing and Civil Liberties Project, which has become
one of the most important parts of the CPSR program. As National Program
Associate, Mary Karen built the privacy and civil liberties program from the
ground up, supervising the organization's work on the technical aspects of the
National Criminal Information Center (NCIC), government restrictions to high
technology information, freedom of scientific research, and threats to privacy
posed by advances in computer technology. Mary Karen was also very successful in
fundraising for CPSR, bringing in more than $52,000 in foundation grants in the
last year alone.

Mary Karen will now be an Assistant Professor of Drama at the University of
Wisconsin at Madison. Her book, Political Violence in Drama: Classical Models,
Contemporary Vari

Mary Karen Dahl

ants, was published by UMI Research Press and has been receiving great reviews.
It will soon be available in paperback.

Katy Hickman Elliot was hired as the CPSR National Office Manager in September,
1986. Katy has handled all the bookkeeping for the organization, as well as the
thousands of tasks required to keep the office running smoothly. In addition,
Katy organized and supervised the marketing of the CPSR slide show, Reliability
and Risk, a job that included a direct mail campaign to 5,700 peace
organizations in the United States.

In her spare time, Katy has become a well-known comedienne in the San Francisco
Bay area, performing both as a stand-up comic in San Francisco clubs and as a
member of an improv group. Local fans know her as one half of the notorious
~~iSkanky Sisters," a hilarious send-up of tacky lounge acts. Katy can also be
seen on national television in a commercial for the Larry King Show which is
being broadcast on CNN. In August, Katy will travel to Thailand to star in a
"Chinese kung-fu" movie about two American spies involved in the kidnapping of
the King of Thailand.

CPSR has been extremely fortunate to have been associated with both Mary Karen
and Katy. Their dedication and energy have been a large part of the success of
the organization. People in the National Office, the chapters, and on the CPSR
Board of Directors will miss them, but we wish them the very best of luck in
their new work.