Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!cadre!pitt!cisunx!jasst3
From: jasst3@cisunx.UUCP (Jeffrey A. Sullivan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: RE: Liability of [benign] virus creators et al.
Message-ID: <7919@cisunx.UUCP>
Date: 21 Mar 88 20:57:30 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Sys
Lines: 36
Keywords: virus, liability, etc

Some people have been ranting and raving about all of the retribution that they
desire to be taken against the MacMag folks.  They state that since some people
have had damage to their machines, despite the claim that it was benign, that
the MacMag people are liable or criminal or should be castrated, etc.  I
want to distance myself from these rather nasty sentiments from the start.  I
think that use of such terms and implied lawless behavior such as (I believe)
someone who said they should be "kicked in the teeth" are totally out of line
and should have no place on this net, or in any civilised discussion.  This
is the kind of vigilante mentality that really Goetz my goat. ;-)

Anyway, the claim is that since someone had damage from the virus (I suppose 
this is provable?  How do they _know_ the virus caused it?), that MacMag is
liable allows the following logical extension.  If anyone has damage to their
software/hardware configuration due to a malfunctioning software, that
software manufacturer is liable for the cost of repair and time of downness.
This is obviously ridiculous.  The MacMag people did not distribute an
intentionally damaging item, and any damage occurring must be the result of
unforeseen interactions.  How, then, can they be held liable if you can not do
the same ofr other software distributors?  If ted jones, author of the new
freeware utility, Splatz, discovers that his util caused Joe Schmoe to crash
his HD with valuable and irreplaceable data on it, is he liable?  Of course
not.

I do not condone the distribution of virii, and I _do_ think that it was an
ill-advised prank, but it was obviously not "evil" as many have put it, nor
can they be held liable (in my humble non-legal opinion) for any damages
resulting from its use.  I understnad that there are other extenuating
conditions (most importantly, that the people dealing with the virus did
not consent, knowingly or tacitly, to its use) but I still think the basic
point of this post is vlid.


-- 
..........................................................................
Jeffrey Sullivan			  | University of Pittsburgh
jas@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu		  | Intelligent Systems Studies Program
jasper@PittVMS.BITNET, jasst3@cisunx.UUCP | Graduate Student