Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!inria!imag!mururoa!carnot!macrakis From: macrakis@osf.fr (Stavros Macrakis) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Missing mission Message-ID: Date: 3 Sep 90 10:26:03 GMT References: <11446@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Sender: news@imag.fr Organization: OSF Research Institute--Grenoble Lines: 62 In-reply-to: libove@libove.det.dec.com's message of 29 Aug 90 13:51:30 GMT In article libove@libove.det.dec.com (Jay Libove) writes: In article <11446@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes: ... I've heard some "crackers" claim it is their "right" to break into any machine they can and read the data. I've also heard someone suggest that writing computer viruses may be a protected form of free speech. I'm appalled by both attitudes, and I suspect that most people who depend on their computers would be similarly alarmed by such statements. Most people want reasonable guarantees of freedom, but they don't want anarchy. I have the right to bear arms, but not to use them wherever and whenever I wish. I have freedom of worship, but I don't have the freedom to sacrifice you to my dieties. Defining and protecting our freedoms is perhaps less than half the necessary task. I think that we have to be very cautious in one place here: in fact, Gene provided the analogy that I will use to make my case... You do indeed have the right to bear arms, as does a cracker have the right to author code that could, improperly applied, be dangerous/viral/etc; you do not have the right to use your weapons indiscriminately, neither does the cracker have the right to unleash his/her creation(s) indiscriminately. But neither does he have the right to stop you from bearing arms, nor do you (or I) have the right to stop him from creating viruses &etc. Not that I'm advocating that everyone create their electronic stockpile of viral warfare, but it should be legal to have them. Unlike real stockpiles of nerve gas &etc a simple accident can't set off an electronic viral infection - that has to be done deliberately by someone. [ There are very definite ways of disputing this, but I think that a little responsibility would prevent all of them. ] ... I believe in individual responsibility. This does not exclude the legitimacy of the state's restricting the possession (as well as the use) of dangerous things, and in particular things whose only use is criminal. It is thus illegal to possess machine guns. It is illegal to possess heroin. It is illegal to possess lock-picking equipment. It is illegal to possess forged money and presses for forging money. It is probably illegal to possess blueprints of Stealth bombers. (Most of these have exceptions involving licenses etc.) The `hazard' argument is actually a good one too. It is indeed illegal to possess nerve gas or explosives.... And it is not true that an electronic viral infection cannot be set off unintentionally. I believe that most researchers who have played with viruses have discovered that what started as an experiment ended as a bad infection. And Morris's worm was apparently mis-tuned.... ((Discussion of right-to-bear-arms self-censored to avoid flames.)) Obviously, in all of these cases of illegality, there has to be some reason for the state to investigate -- there aren't weekly inspections of people's cellars to see if they're building bombs. However, if there is a pattern of abuse by some person and investigation shows that there is some vicious virus sitting on his computer along with an illegitimate collection of passwords from net hosts, that's dangerous! -s