Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!payne!deane From: deane@payne.ifa.hawaii.edu (Rebel Without A Clue) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: A modest proposal... Message-ID: <10353@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> Date: 20 Nov 90 22:36:02 GMT References: <10490@ur-cc.UUCP> <1990Nov19.033747.29163@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <27013.27483646@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1990Nov20.171542.8779@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Sender: news@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu Organization: Institute For Astronomy, Hawaii Lines: 76 In article <1990Nov20.171542.8779@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> wln@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (William L Nussbaum) writes: >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 ............... >> >>Problems? The ethical one of course. That is, "No program or code shall >>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 I find your language to be patronizing, and your point not as obvious as it appears you see it. I see nothing wrong in a self-terminating bounty-hunter program which is designed and constructed to deal with troublemakers like viruses. I do believe that it should be written such that it seeks out only known, specific viruses: Once you start setting criteria for "what *looks* like a virus" then you open yourself to great risk of accidents or malicious redirection. Your other points: -- the self-termination gives control over the chronologic veracity of this code. As far as spreading, the darn thing's *supposed* to spread out; wherever viruses go, it should be able to go -- no one ever has control over code, written word or thought, once they're submitted to the public. Don't blame this idea for not doing the impossible. -- This variable should significantly reduce the problems made by the other variables. You can't solve all problems by stepping backwards in complexity -- Repairing a virus is a stupid idea. "Think about what you're saying...." -- Look at mutation rates of current viruses, and I bet you'll find they are comparable with disk-copy mutations, i.e. extremely rare. I think your attempt to shrug off the idea is hasty and ill-thought out. THIS IS NOT A FLAME for those who are succeptible to reading tones of voice into keystrokes. All I am saying is that William has been quick to throw out an idea that I believe deserves honest discussion. I am NOT NECESSARILY advocating the creation of such a beast. Think before you post. Jim -- James "Rebel Without A Clue" Deane Institute for Astronomy deane@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu 2680 Woodlawn Dr "My God, it's full of *s!" Honolulu, HI 96822 Grad Student/Astronomer/Diver/Mac Technician