>- Speaking of Naughty Robots, David Kirschbaum said this to David Desrosiers 
on 25 Mar 97  09:43 -<
This is only a week old, and only one person replied directly to this, and
I felt I really had to say something here...
 DK> That's the same logic that says the person distributing virus source
 DK> is totally innocent, is doing no harm whatsoever; that it's the person
 DK> who infects systems or distributes infected programs with the compiled
 DK> virus who's to blame. 
Funny, I would have thought it was relatively clear-cut, but obviously not.
To me, if a person writes a virus which self-replicates, whether or not it
has some sort of nasty payload, but keeps it to himself, that's fine.  If
he gives it to someone and says "Hey, this is a virus, check it out", that's
fine too.  But if he compiles it and gives it to unwitting people  (again,
to me it doesn't matter what the payload is), then he can be liable.
Of course, there is the matter of accidents.  Ie: Robert Morris's internet
virus (worm/virus). There should always be a case of negligence or careless-
ness.  I mean, if you build a bomb (like in someone's msg), and leave it
lying on the nature strip with a big red button saying "press me" then, sure,
you're liable.   But just writing the code is not enough IMHO.
 DK> Bull shit.  ANYONE forming ANY link in the chain between conception
 DK> ("Gee, I could write something that could REALLY screw up someone's
 DK> system!") and execution (infected file upload to a local BBS, for
 DK> instance) is guilty. 
Hey, be careful with that word ANY.  Are Microsoft liable for writing dos?
Borland for writing C?  Fidonet for providing the means for distributing it?
But yeah, again, if you write the code, and _intend_ for someone to run it
and screw their system up, sin-bin time...
Geez, maybe I should write for a magazine (ulp!).
Steve
... "You are more than what you are, my son." - Mufasa's Wisdom
--- FMailX 1.22a+ / RA2.50+
---------------