Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!sei.cmu.edu!krvw
From: craig@tolerant.com (Craig Harmer)
Newsgroups: comp.virus
Subject: Re: AIDS Trojan (PC)
Message-ID: <0009.8912201621.AA09547@ge.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 89 07:07:30 GMT
Sender: Virus Discussion List <VIRUS-L@IBM1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>
Lines: 29
Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu

dmg@retina.mitre.org (David Gursky) writes:
>The AIDS Trojan Horse discussed by Alan Jay and John McAfee raises some
>interesting questions about accountability.
>
> ... could the perpetrators be held liable under U.S. law for
>damages, when the licensing notice clearly states the program is not
>licensed to be used in the United States, and that damage will result
>if you attempt to do so.

actualy, the licensing notices reminds me of the popular "shrink-wrap"
licenses where by breaking the shrink-wrap, you agree to the terms of
the license.  making the necessary action "running the program" doesn't
seem much different to me (though i'm not a lawyer).

so, assuming the people who's machines have been struck are in violation
of a "legally enforceable" licensing agreement, is the destruction of
data or denial of servicesomething they can sue over?  some of the
purveyors of data-block protection schemes for PCs seem to have provisions
that cause the program to stop working if monthly payments aren't made.

a friend of mine points out that there are also "good faith" types of
clauses in the law that hold that given the method of distribution,
the license agreement would not be valid.  it would be highly interesting
to see the PC Cyborg Corp. sue afflicted PC owners for breach of license!

{apple,amdahl}!tolsoft!craig				craig@tolerant.com
(415) 626-6827 (h)					(408) 433-5588 x220 (w)
	[views expressed above shouldn't be taken as Tolerants' views,
		or your views or my views.  they are facts!]