Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Virus Writing

   

   Steve Mueller, Nov 18th, 2004 @ 2:13pm

   
   

   Is it illegal to write viruses? Or illegal to spread them? If so, should the punishment be determined by how much damage the viruses did?

   While I don't encourage anybody to write viruses, I don't think writing them should be illegal in and of itself. There are places where they could be educational (academia) or even useful (product upgrades). Remember the "good" virus that was supposed to remove a "bad" virus?

   However, virus writers should be liable if they didn't take proper precautions. If a virus writer posts his code on a hacker site, I think existing negligence laws could apply. If a college researcher writes one and a student steals the code and distributes it, I wouldn't hold the researcher liable.

   Of course, distributing a virus to the general public should almost always be a criminal act. And, like other criminal acts, the damage caused should definitely be taken into account. A drunk driver who didn't cause any property damage or any injuries shouldn't be punished as harshly as one who ran into a car and killed six people.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: Virus Writing

   

   Anonymous Coward, Nov 18th, 2004 @ 3:14pm

   
   

   Steve -- I more or less agree with you yet you forget that one man's coder is another man's hacker!
   
   I've been in plenty of conversations, in person, in newsgroups, in email lists, where the conversations goes something like this...
   
   "hey, there's a problem with x, can someone explain"
   "hey, x happens because a limit in y which is there because of z"
   "so, wait, you mean if i change y i blow the whole thing wide open?"
   "yes, here's a sample that shows it."
   posts code.
   
   this is how exploits are found and developed in professional conversations on respectable sites. people might post frameworks that do amazing things just to show a point. these things don't happen in malice and I think one makes a mistake by attempting to regulate where the expression happens or by attempting to divine motive.
   
   I'd stick with 'whoever intentionally compiles and intentionally releases is the guilty party'.
   
   The authors are naturally going to want to stay out of trouble and they do that by posting fragments or excerpts, if they were to post full source, they'd have to deal with defending against accusation.. yet when the virus is just 50 lines of code they will have to show the whole thing so that people can defend against it and should not be held responsible is someone goes nuts with their model!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Posting Code

   

   Steve Mueller, Nov 18th, 2004 @ 5:31pm

   
   

   I've been in plenty of conversations, in person, in newsgroups, in email lists, where the conversations goes something like this...

   "hey, there's a problem with x, can someone explain"
   "hey, x happens because a limit in y which is there because of z"
   "so, wait, you mean if i change y i blow the whole thing wide open?"
   "yes, here's a sample that shows it."
   posts code.

   The problem comes in that last step, I think. Why isn't "yes" a sufficient answer? Why post code instead of leaving it as an exercise to the reader?

   Using my negligence model, if you post code that exploits a system problem without knowing who your audience is, that's pretty negligent.

   In the real world, I can be put in jail for having a gun in my own house if somebody finds and kills somebody with it. If I gave a loaded gun to somebody I didn't know, that would be worse -- and very similar to posting dangerous code where you don't know who you're giving it to.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Proportionality

   

   TJ, Nov 18th, 2004 @ 6:29pm

   
   

   No doubt many disagree with me, but with most crimes at most a few people are negatively affected; perhaps very much so as in the case of murder or rape. I'm not making light of that. But isn't a moderate harm to millions at least as substantial as enormous harm to one or a few?
   
   
   I say fry some of the bastards, and potential authors of future viral code will think twice before deciding to unleash their creations on the world. Same with spammers. But I'm not overly extreme, and would despense with the death penalty. Just make them mandatory enrollies in organ donor programs instead; and if they have an organ that a DECENT human being needs, then it is mandatory that they donate it at once. Harsh, yes. Deterrent? You bet your ass!, or kidney, or heart, or eyes, or...
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Make it fit the crime

   

   RJD, Nov 19th, 2004 @ 8:17am

   
   

   Yes they should be punished but it should be like any other crime. When someone kills another person, you have Murder 1,2,3 or Manslaughter 1,2,3 or etc etc. Which basically indicates that every 'crime' is committed to some degree and the burden of guilt/innocence is decided by a jury of their peers.
   
   So if some writes and virus and posts it's or let's it free, the degree of the crime should be comisserate with the harm caused. If all you get is an annoying pop-up dialog and nothing else, maybe a small fine. If the virus unintenationally causes harm then something akin to manslaughter would apply ie yes you did the crime but you didn't really mean to cause that much harm. And my favorite, causing intentional harm to others. Make the time fit the crime in some way. Prison time, yes. Removal from all computer related items, yes. Virus's which are written to cause financial harm should be treated as robbery or attempted robbery.
   
   Our law system has the basic foundation in place to handle most computer related crimes but needs some definite tweaking in some places to incorporate technology advances. Which just need all the lawyers and citizens committees and business committees etc to get out of the way so they can get amended and put on the books. They can be amended over time as other laws are.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   No Subject Given

   

   HackedandF**DByViruses, Apr 9th, 2005 @ 2:07pm

   
   

   Torture them until they cry out like the pathetic pasty faced, puny, pimply nerd weasels they are, then torture them some more, take a dump and piss (both right on their faces and all over them), then after making them lick it all up, shoot them several times and decapitate them; shit all over them again and leave them there for all to see; you're now all set.....

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re: Proportionality

   

   P*d off computer user, Dec 26th, 2005 @ 11:00am

   
   

   Hear! Hear! Except that virus writers should be tortured severely, at least psychologically!!
   Also, I am for the death penalty for virus writers. If those slimy little pencil neck, pimpled geeks know that they may pay with their lives for what their nerdy little excuse for a sense of humor erroneously tells them is cool or funny, maybe they'll think twice, or at least s**t themselves, which I'm sure they do on a regular basis anyway!!!! (I've had PC's that have been destroyed by viruses and worms planted by these no-good, pocket protector wearing, tape on glasses trolls!!!) FRY THEM ALL, BUT TORTURE THEM FIRST (UNTIL THEY CRY OUT LIKE THE PATHETIC LITTLE P**SIES THEY REALLY ARE!!!!!!)

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re: Proportionality

   

   David Duke, Jan 16th, 2009 @ 9:28pm

   
   

   How about 40 lashes on their bare bottom
   in public? Its quite a moderate punishment for a
   slime who takes over millons of computers and
   wont let go until u buy his "anti-virus" software.
   On second thoughts, just fry em

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment