From: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:37:57 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Bernstein ruling meets the virus law
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.960422151102.19963B-100000@wichita.fn.net>
Message-ID: <199604231954.PAA22836@universe.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Bruce Marshall writes:
>On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Mark Aldrich wrote:
>>  The term "virus" connotes a pathogenic quality in the mind of 
>> many.  Unfortunately, this tendency continues in the use of the word 
>> 'virus' within our community.
>
>    Personally, I can see many useful functions for viruses.  But I find the 
>viruses that simply destroy data--which tends to be the majority--to be 
>quite boring and childish.  A non-destructive and innovative virus is 
>very interesting and comparable to any good software hack in my eyes.
>
>> While I understand that "intent" is something with which lawyers have to 
>> contend when they defend or prosecute a case, I don't think that the 
>> notion of intent to commit harm extrapolates correctly into the field of 
>> virus writing. 

O.W. Holmes suggested out in "The Common Law" that the law delineates a
certain minimum level of competence in forseeing the outcomes of our
actions which all members of society are expected to attain.  We'll
hold you responsible for actions a "reasonable person" should have
avoided because of their danger.  As such, persons with limited
training in manipulating biological viruses are expected to avoid doing
so.  Individuals *with* training are expected to take adequate
precautions to avoid their spread.  I see no reason why electronic
viruses shouldn't be treated similarly.  If you're going to write them,
you *better* take steps to prevent their release, or you are liable for
the damages.