Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!wln
From: wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (William L Nussbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: A modest proposal...
Message-ID: <1990Nov20.171542.8779@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 90 17:15:42 GMT
References: <10490@ur-cc.UUCP> <1990Nov19.033747.29163@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <27013.27483646@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Sender: news@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Daily News)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 66

In article <27013.27483646@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> mlab2@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Here's a dilemna...
>
>Consider an anti-virus virus.  The Mac community has a number of excellent
>virus detection and repair programs available commercially and in the public
>domain. Unfortunately, there are far too many people who are naive with regard
>to viruses and/or do not practice safe computing. A virus whose sole intention
>was to propagate and eradicate the more virile strains affecting the Mac
>community might seem an effective solution.
>
...
>
>The point of view I speak from.  I work at an under-funded computer lab on a
>university campus. The MDEF and nVIR viruses have been particularly rampant of
>late. The typical user has no concept of the computer virus and come merely to
>type up their term papers.  Unfortunately, they are probably the primary
>carriers (unwittingly) of the viruses.  We don't have money for hard drives on
>all our Macs, so virus-protecting INIT's and other system 'baggage' have to be
>kept to a minumum.  I can see no end to the proliferation of viruses.
>
>A "travelling" virus eradicator occurred to me (as it has probably occurred to
>others).  It would not require the user to "manually" check their disks.  It
>would check to see that no more than one copy of itself resides on a disk.  It
>would have an expiration date (read off the Mac clock - say, 1992) at which
>time it would erase itself.  It would be small (say, less than 10K if
>possible).  It would not attatch itself to applications or files (perhaps it
>would simply make itself invisible - a lame camouflage, but sufficient
>considering the users it is targeted to serve).
>
>Problems?  The ethical one of course.  That is, "No program or code shall copy
>itself from one medium to another without the consent, knowledge, and approval
>of the user."  The only other problem I foresee is one of poor programing -
>incompatibility with existing systems, software, or machines - and
>incompatibility with future versions of systems, software and machines.  A
>final thought - the possibility that someone with less benevolant intent would
>modify it to destructive ends.


...why are you minimizing the ethical considerations?  To affect someone or
his or her work by deceit (or by force), REGARDLESS of the intent, is a
violation of that person.

   I'm frightened about the fact that you could continue to pose the question,
and that you seemed to take the idea somewhat seriously.  Once you disregard
the morality of your actions (on a rational individualism, not on an arbitrary
religious morality), what standard do you have against which to judge your
actions?  The benefit to others?  Have you discussed this personally with the
several million people who would be susceptible to such a virus?  Leave the
individual decisions to the individual.  If your lab needs protection, either
make the equipment capable of handling it, or forgo the automatic protection,
and prepare another procedure for dealing with the viruses you already have.

Other problems?

- You have no control over the extent of this virus.
- You have no control over future modification of this virus.
- You introduce another variable into problems people may have.
- You cannot repair viruses with it.
- Given that it's copying itself over and over, there are a number of
   opportunities for corruption.

Think about what you're saying...


| William Lee Nussbaum, Jr.
| wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu