“Wow,” said Auberson.

Handley shrugged again. “National security,” as if that were enough explanation. “The problem is that it’s very hard to maintain any kind of security system when anyone with a console and a telephone can tap into your banks. A lot of smaller companies with their own computers can’t afford the same kind of really sophisticated protection. A skillfully written information-tapping VIRUS program would be very hard to distinguish from an ordinary request for information — especially if both were coming in over the phone.”

“Couldn’t you classify certain information as not to be released over the phone?”

“Not if you want it retrievable. Aubie, anything you can program a computer to do, someone else can program it not to do. Or vice versa.”

“Oh,” said Auberson.

“Anyway, for the most part, most companies have protected themselves with analysis programs which hopefully weed out all unauthorized programs.”

“You say ‘hopefully’…?”

“Well, most of them are based on a user giving the correct code signal when he punches in to certain classified programs — a different recognition signal for each authorized user. If he doesn’t give the right one, the receiving computer disconnects. Most of the code signals are simple patterns of digit combinations. If somebody were really patient, he could keep dialing and re-dialing, each time trying a different signal. Sooner or later, he’s bound to hit someone’s recognition code.”

“That sounds awfully tiring.”

“It would be — but you wouldn’t have to do it yourself. Once you knew what you wanted to do, you could write a VIRUS program to do it for you.”

“So we’re back where we started—”

“Look, Aubie, the code-signal function is usually enough to dissuade the casual electronic voyeur — the person who gains access to a console and thinks it’s the magic key. But it’s like I was saying before — there is no system so perfect that there is not somewhere some programmer trying to figure out a way to trip it up. A truly determined programmer will get in anywhere.”

“So there are no safeguards?”

“No, Aubie — there are safeguards. The thing is, how much are you willing to pay for them? At what point does the cost of protecting the computer outweigh the efficiency gained by its use? In other words, the value of a piece of information is determined by two factors. How much are you willing to spend to protect it — and how much is someone else willing to spend to get ahold of it? You’re betting that you’re willing to spend more than he is. A determined programmer might be able to break the National Data Codes, but that would mean he’d have to spend at least as many man-hours and probably as much money breaking them as did the Federal Government setting them up.”

“Why not just tap into a computer that already knows the codes or has the signals?”

“See?” said Handley. “You’re starting to think like a programmer. Now you see why they had such a devil of a time figuring out how to protect themselves.”

Auberson conceded the point “Then that isn’t a loophole, is it?”

“Uh uh. Apparently, if’s not the computer that hooks into the Data Banks, but the user. You can call in from any machine with an auto-dial if you have your card and code-key — but the machine you’re using doesn’t have to have any special programs at all. Probably, the banks temporarily reprogram any computer that taps in to perform the coding and recognition functions itself. You could monitor it if you wanted, but because the codes and coding programs are constantly changing, you wouldn’t gain anything. The Rocky Mountain Center controls them all. If you personally are cleared, you can ask the Data Banks anything you want — that is, anything you’re cleared to know. If you’re not cleared, then no matter what computer or console you’re tapping in from, you’re going to be ignored — or arrested.” He added, “And that’s where HARLIE comes in.”

“Huh?”

“Look,” said Handley. “If HARLIE got into the Bank of America’s computer, he must have broken their recognition code or tapped into the interbranch line. I didn’t worry about this happening before because I figured the various codes in effect would be a deterrent to him. Apparently they weren’t. Not only that, I’d thought you couldn’t program a bank computer by telephone; there were supposed to be safeguards — hell, it was supposed to be impossible. But HARLIE did it; this postcard is proof.” He glared at it — its existence was an unpleasant anomaly. “It might have taken a human being a few hundred years to figure out how to do this. I’ll bet HARLIE did it in less than a week.”

“I’ll ask him.”

“No, I’ll ask him — I want to know how he did it. If he can do that to the Bank of America, think what he could do to IBM. If he can reprogram and monitor other computers from a distance, he can put them all to work on one central problem — like for instance, breaking the codes of the National Data Banks.”

“You think HARLIE would try?”

Handley pressed his fingertips thoughtfully together and flexed them slowly. “Remember when we were building him — how we kept calling him a self-programming, problem-solving device? Well, that’s what he is. He’s a programmer, Aubie, and he’s got the same congenital disease every programmer has — the urge to throw the monkey wrench, if for no other reason than to see sparks. The National Data Banks are a challenge to him. To all programmers — but he’s the one with the capability of doing something.”

“You don’t really think he—”

“No, I don’t think that he’ll get through. I don’t think he’s smart enough to outwit the unlimited brains and money of the government — but unless we warn him off, we’re likely to get a call from the F.B.I. someday soon. They can trace him back, you know — the banks not only list all calls accepted and the nature of the information exchanged, they also list all calls rejected and the reasons why.” Handley reached for his water glass, discovered it was empty, reached for Auberson’s instead.

“That’s been used—”

“I don’t mind.”

“I had a spot on my shirt, remember?”

Handley lowered the glass from his lips. “No wonder it tastes like a paper napkin.” He drank again, thirstily, and replaced the glass on the table. “On the other hand, let’s assume that he can tap into the banks. Immediately he has the power to throw this country into an uproar. All he has to do is threaten to erase them unless his demands are granted.”

“So we turn him off—”

“Uh uh. Then for sure he’d erase the banks. He could set a deadman’s program to do it the minute he stopped existing. I’ve written self-destruct programs myself — only the continued monitoring of it with a do-not-implement-yet signal protects them. We wouldn’t dare turn him off — we couldn’t even try. That’s if he gets in. But it’s not just the National Data Banks, Aubie — it’s every computer. HARLIE can reprogram them as easily as though they were part of himself. That’s dangerous power to have.”

“Wait a minute, Don. You said ‘unless we meet his demands.’ What kinds of demands do you think HARLIE would make?”

“I don’t know,” Handley said. “You’re his mentor.”

“That’s just it — I know him. I know how he works. He doesn’t make demands, he makes requests — and if they’re not granted, then he works around them. He works to accomplish his goals through the path of least resistance. Even if he could take over the Data Banks, he wouldn’t use that power dictatorially — his reason for doing so would be to gain knowledge, not power. He’s a problem-solving device — his basic motivation is the seeking and correlating of knowledge, not the use of it. He only gets testy when we try to withhold information from him. At all other times he cooperates because he knows he’s at our mercy — completely so. You know as well as I, Don, that if HARLIE turned out to be a malignant cancer, we’d turn him off in a minute — even if we did have to lose the Data Banks in the process. We could always recreate them later because the hardware would still be there. He’s got our memos in his files, Don — or in the Master Beast. He knows about all our discussions about the possibility of the JudgNaut getting out of control, and he knows about our contingency plans. The mere knowledge of what we could do if we had to is one of our best controls on him.”