Xref: utzoo comp.misc:7982 alt.hackers:43 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!snorkelwacker!apple!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mstar!mstar.morningstar.com!bob From: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Newsgroups: comp.misc,alt.hackers Subject: Re: Why "worm" instead of "germ" Message-ID: Date: 19 Jan 90 00:16:18 GMT References: <1476@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> <76929@looking.on.ca> <77443@looking.on.ca> <3985@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> Sender: news@MorningStar.COM (USENET Administrator) Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) Organization: Morning Star Technologies Lines: 19 Approved: RTM :-) In-reply-to: doug@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU's message of 18 Jan 90 15:15:53 GMT In article <3985@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> doug@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Douglas W O'neal) writes: In article bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: In article <77443@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a "virus"... Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium."... Careful - it's still only *allegedly* Morris' program. Nothing has been proven in court... Quoted from the Baltimore Sun (1/18/90) (without permission): During the five days of testimony in the case, neither the prosecution nor the defense has disputed that Mr. Morris loosed a computer worm. I think that if Morris' lawyer accepts that it was Morris' program, then it is probably safe for us to do so to. Fair enough. I hadn't heard that Morris' association with the worm was undisputed. I'll take off my Civil Libertarian hat now :-)