From: Mark Eckenwiler <eck@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 11:31:15 +0800
To: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
Subject: Re: Bernstein ruling meets the virus law
In-Reply-To: <199604231714.KAA14970@netcom9.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199604231749.NAA09020@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Bill Frantz sez:
+ 
+ If lawmakers are to come up with a rational law, a big if, they will have
+ to differentiate between a bug in a "tame" worm which lets it get loose as
+ a virus, and a virus which was meant to be destructive from the get go. 
+ And then they will have to decide what to do about the virus that was
+ designed to write, "Hi Mom!" on as many screens as possible with no
+ malicious damage, and bugs in it.

18 USC 1030(a)(5) makes such a distinction, treating intentional harm
more severely than releasing a virus "with reckless disregard of a
substantial and unjustifiable risk" of harm.  The latter is only a
misdemeanor; the former, a felony.

The statute didn't always make this distinction.  In fact, it was the
RTM case -- brought under the former felony-only version of the
statute -- that inspired the 1994 amendment dividing the offense into
two separate offenses.

-- 
	Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schreiben.

                      Mark Eckenwiler   eck@panix.com