Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!msuinfo!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: SYSBXR@SUVM.ACS.SYR.EDU (Bridget Rutty) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Re: virus analogy Message-ID: <0001.9008241902.AA22297@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 23 Aug 90 21:02:38 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 23 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu > I can think of at least one precedent from the medical profession >- - the Saulk (sp?) vaccine (the primary polio vaccine in the US). This >vaccine is a live, contagious, virus. Any Physician who administers it >is releasing a virus into the population. This is considered an >advantage. ... This is NOT a precedent, or even a good analogy. Physicians do not administer any medication, vaccine or otherwise, without understanding the risks and benefits. Patients do not get vaccines without consenting. Granted, some patients may not understand all the risks of a vaccine but that probably is because they do not ask. > The computer analog of such a transmissible live attenuated virus >would be a version of a highly destructive virus from which the >destructive code has been removed. The vaccine would spread to exactly >the population susceptible to the original virus, because it would >spread by the same mechanism and would be stopped by the same >protective software. It would then compete with the virulent virus by >means of of its shared self recognition site. In the situation described, there is no informed consent and to my mind such a program is no different than the virus with which it competes.