Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!HUB.UCSB.EDU!bfox%vision
From: bfox%vision@HUB.UCSB.EDU (Brian Fox)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: legality of writing viruses
Message-ID: <8809031545.AA27830@hub.ucsb.edu>
Date: 3 Sep 88 15:42:38 GMT
References: <8809030056.aa08124@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: bfox%cornu@hub.ucsb.edu
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 109


   I would be in favor of a bill making it illegal to write (1)
   malicious software and (2) viruses, whether they intentionally cause
   damage or not.  Why?  Because (1) any virus written is almost certain
   to slip out accidentally even if it isn't distirbuted on purpose, and
   (2) any virus will, sooner or later, cause damage even if it was
   intended to be harmless.  I challenge anyone to present a scenario
   where a virus could spread with no possibility of causing damage.

It is clear from your above comments that you have a phobia about computer
software.  I have to assume that this phobia is partly due to the word used to
describe this particular computer software: "virus".  You later state:

   Where would YOU (all of you) draw the line between what should be
   legal and what should be illegal, and why?

     1.  Writing a self-propogating computer program (a "virus") which
	 is almost certain to escape and do damage to unsuspecting
	 computer users;
     2.  Breeding a biological virus known to have incredible spreading
	 power, one that is likely to escape and present a health hazard;

I believe you were saying that both of these should be made illegal, and that
they are presented in the order of least important to most important.  Well,
since we are now talking about biological entities that self-propagate, I
would like to ask you a few questions.

Would you be in favor of:

     1.  A fast-spreading biological anti-virus that was proven to destroy the
	 (AIDS, common-cold) virus, without any side effects?

     2.  Preventing people from copulating and reproducing?  Perhaps only
	 citizens in good standing (those that don't write viruses) should
	 be allowed to have babies?

Viruses do not escape, they are deliberately placed somewhere.  It is easy for
you to avoid being bit by computer viruses; only purchase (or use) programs
that you know the origin of, or, like myself, that you have the source code
to.  (Free Software Foundation plug: Note that if all software had the source
code available, we wouldn't have this problem.)

If we have to make something illegal (since we seem to think that will make a
difference), let us make the deliberate destruction of personal property
illegal (somehow, I thought that it already was), thereby making the
unannounced placement of virus code into another piece of software illegal.

I am not in favor of any legislation which prevents freedom of expression
that does not harm/prevent another persons freedom of expression.  Once we
start doing this, we have removed freedom of speech.

   [Brian, still:]
   >And besides, there is nothing wrong with "virus" code, it is the
   >heinous actions performed by a few of the (improperly named)
   >"viruses" that we despise so much.

   I think there IS something fundamentally wrong with viruses [see
   below].

I couldn't find the [below] you were talking about.  What is fundamentally
wrong with self-propagating code?

   What improperly-named viruses are you referring to?  Any
   self-propogating code is a virus, right?  CyberAIDS and Festering
   Hate are genuine viruses, and they are also malicious.

I strongly dislike giving the author(s) of the aforementioned `viruses' any
recognition at all, since that is the only reason that the code exists.  I
don't think it is helping us to continue to mention these particular
people/programs.

   >Note that there are also good purposes for self-propagating code,
   >such as amusement value (max headroom virus), and system-maintenence
   >(new-software-release-updater).

   I disagree.  I don't want ANYTHING fiddling with any of my files
   unless I *know* that it's going to fiddle with my files. [...]

   As a software developer, it's very important to me that I *keep* old
   versions of system software around for testing my products with
   older versions.  If I want to use the latest system software, I'll
   BOOT it!

Fine.  You will not subscribe to the service which provides automatic updates.
That is your wont, and you are welcome to your own decisions on the matter.
Please do not try to prevent me from availing myself of this service.

   >I dislike calling someone[']s file-deleter a "virus" program because
   >it gives that non-person undeserved respect.  Any moron can delete
   >files; we certainly don't need some idiot to write a program to do it
   >for us.

   EXCUSE ME?  >NO< virus or other software that fiddles with files or
   volumes without the user's permission earns its author any of MY
   respect.  Exactly the opposite, in fact.

One thing that I have noticed is that you apparently believe that a virus
program must manipulate files in order to propagate.  That is not true.  If
computers are attached via a network, then only one of the machines needs to
be turned on for the virus to have a place to live.  Since the machines are
interconnected via the network, the virus can travel from place to place
through wires, such as the phone line, ethernet, flat-ribbon, twisted-pair,
etc.

At any rate, I have thought of reasons why a self-propagating program might be
useful, and I do not want any less-informed legislator making a decision as to
whether or not I can use it for myself, my own network of machines, whatever.

Brian Fox