In the US, guns are legal for anyone, and these do direct damage.
Very true... but then you probably don't want to know what I think about gun laws =) Also, don't forget, you need a background check to get a gun, which is along the lines of what I was thinking with virus code. (No debates on whether they do a good job with the gun bg checks.)
There is no reason to ban malicious code anymore there is to ban a note saying "kill yourself".
I disagree that those are the same situations. A note saying "kill yourself" is like an email saying "compile and send out a virus".
Also, a virus is damage to others, not yourself (unless you are foolish enough to unleash it on yourself of course).
I actually can't decide which way I go on the subject, I'm more being devil's advocate, because I feel like most people here think it should be allowed.
Actually, virus source code is also just telling you how to do those things and will only do those things if you take extra measures to make it do them, eg: compilation and execution. Go ahead, try and convince windows or linux or -insert os here- to execute asm source without compilation.
True, I suppose I did gloss over compiling. But it's still not the same as the book.
Yes, the virus code is just instructions, but in order to get the virus going, you don't even have to understand those instructions, because they are for the computer. You just have to make the computer compile it. And everything you need is right there, as far as "assembling" the virus (except maybe you don't have the compiler already). In the anarchists cookbook, you have to understand how everything works, go out and buy (or steal or whatever) that stuff, and assemble it all together. And then it's a one shot deal (in the case of a bomb or something).
But you are right, it isn't *only* the code that does the act.
Beyond that though, I think this is very similar to the Anarchist's Cookbook argument...should writings detailing how to make bombs and other harmful objects be illegal to distribute? I certainly don't think so, it's way too much loss of freedom for an indeterminable amount of safety in my book. And we're possible talking real, physical harm to real people with that.
That's a good point, definitely, but I think it's still worse with computer viruses. The anarchist's cookbook is right on the line, and I'm not sure exactly where I stand on that. But I think there is still a difference, in that the book describes how to do these bad things, and the virus actually does these bad things.
I don't doubt that virus code is interesting, and things can be learned from it. I could even see the actual propogation of a virus to be an artistic expression (like a "happening"). But there's sometimes things that are very interesting or cool that are still illegal, and being interesting or art is not enough reason by itself to allow it to be spread around.
Maybe being a little too forgiving is better than making too much illegal, I don't know. It's definitely not a cut-and-dry thing. But I think it's a good approach to look at it similarly to bio-viruses.
My point was, at least I know who Symantec is, and can hold them accountable for things. No, I don't entrust my soul unto them, but I sure trust them more then Mr. AnonUser8000!
Sure. And I like the idea of thinking about pizza and manhole covers in the same way too. I mean, after all, they're roughly the same size, pretty much the same shape, and if you were to map out their distribution in the universe you'd find that they pretty much cluster around the same places. Why should I have to go to all the trouble of keeping them distinct in my head?
Yes, why ever use analogies? Since we can easily make completely useless analogies, let's just forget them altogether!
If you really think my analogy wasn't any good, why not support that with evidence having to do with viruses, instead of saying that analogies are wrong?
Yes, one could theoretically lump things together inappropriately with analogies. I used an analogy, therefore I must have done that!
Garbage is art. Landscapes are art. Campbell's soup cans are art. A broken stereo is art.
My point is, anything can be art. That doesn't mean it MUST be allowed to be distributed.
We're not talking about a film that portrays graphic violence, or erotic art, which may or may not "corrupt" children. Viruses directly do damage, and that's the difference.
While we shouldn't go on a witch hunt to end virus code distribution, you can't just say "art" and make it untouchable.
Yes, I agree that, at the moment, it is probably easier to contain a computer virus than a biological virus. As computers increase in complexity, the whole situation becomes, well, more complex. I don't know if we can rely on that forever. And certainly there have been some viruses and worms that have already caused significant headaches.
Yes, there are many ways that a sysadmin can make their computers secure, to the point of being virtually unbreakable. And these actions should be taken. But that's not an argument for why it is necessary to allow virus code to be spread around as "research".
Of course, then we have to ask: how does one get considered part of the profession in the first place?
Certainly that is an important consideration. I'm not sure of all the specifics of researching biological viruses, but I feel like the analogy could work for that as well. Bio-virus researchers have to get some sort of clearance, and computer virus researchers should have similar structure.
Some guy couldn't suddenly declare himself a biological virus researcher, and it should be the same with computers, IMO.
The whole point is that the good guys are really the ones who *would* have legal access to this stuff.
Maybe you can download viruses, examine them, and then better protect yourself as a result, but you should realize that you are not part of the 99.999999% who don't have the knowledge, time, or desire to study virus code in order to "protect" themselves. So Joe average-computer-victim is getting nothing out of it being available.
I feel fine letting Symantec et al worry about studying viruses. I don't think we need to keep virus code distribution legal so that the few "freelance" virus-stopper folk can do the equivalent of chasing trespassers off their property with a shotgun. It isn't a good enough reason. If you really want to actively stop viruses by examining them, maybe you should take up that profession.
I like the idea of thinking about biological and computer viruses in the same way.
Researching biological viruses is legal, although people could attempt to spread said viruses maliciously. Those who deal with lethal viruses and diseases often can't just make samples and research easily accessible to anyone, even anonymous people. Why should virus "researchers" be able to do what is essentially the same thing?
Free speech is good, research is good... but so are ethics and responsibility.
I agree completely. It would be similar to a situation like: a drug addict steals my wallet. Let's not blame him, he's just trying to make a buck to pay for his addiction. It's the drug cartels who we should go after, the thief is not at fault.
You would of course go after the thief, as well as the drug cartel.
Don't get me wrong, when I said it was mostly illegal, I didn't mean that people were screwing over the artists, I just meant that most of what people do is actually "illegal", so proponents of MP3s shouldn't claim otherwise.
My point is this behavior could become legal if the music industry really tried to work with the process instead of against it.
I definitely bought more CDs back in the Napster heyday... probably 5 a month. Now, the only CD I got in the past 6+ months was a Christmas gift. Not that everybody operates this way, but going with this has got to be better than against it, in which case they absolutely *won't* stop anyone.
Merchandise that was ordered online but was never paid for or shipped accounted for 20 percent of complaints last year, the IFCC said.
Isn't there some way to work out a reliable escrow service that can act as a middleman for these types of transactions (if desired)?
Otherwise, I don't see a way that this could improve. There's scam artists out there. The Internet is the ultimate place for anonymity. Even a smart consumer could get tricked.
But much of the RIAA's opposition is based on the false premise that most people use MP3's legally.
I don't think it's like that exactly (sure, some people mistakenly say that). It's more that the music industry wants to charge $17.99 for a CD, and doesn't give consumers any even halfway-decent way to download music from the Internet and enjoy it. I think the argument is that most people, when given the chance, will go the honest route. But there's no real way to do that.
And I think anyone who says that the majority of MP3 downloading right now is legal is not going to be taken seriously by the opposition.
Why can't a few tech companies with deeper pockets spend money for this quest?
Apple's got something like $4 billion sitting around, as well as a hardcore cult following, so I'd say they are a pretty good company to have on our side.
That only depends if you believe in souls. You would in all respects be the same person - the distinction between you and the original is meaningless, unless the original was just copied instead of destroyed.
The distinction will definitely be meaningless to everyone else, and even the clone himself. He will believe he is me, and be exactly like me. But, isn't he actually an exact copy of me, in which case I die... souls or not?
I wouldn't be shocked to hear about a.NET implementation for OSX in the future.
I would not be shocked either... but the 5 year contract that MS and Apple had just recently ran out, and although Apple assures us that MS will keep supporting, some Mac users are a little nervous.
So, I think it's actually in MS's best interest to do it, but they haven't committed, and as a Mac user, you can't always trust them.
Considering the *large* architectural changes between OS X and OS 9, I felt your example had no bearing on the conversation and therefore was "meaningless"
I was pointing out how easy it is to do on OS 9, just to contrast, and maybe bring up the question of whether it's better for it to be easy like this or be part of the framework of the OS like OS X.
And I thought the tone was a bit rude, as it was assuming that I just wasn't paying attention.
There are a lot of reasons to like.NET... in fact, the only reason I know of NOT to like.NET is the usual 'Windows Only' bullshit. But it's a MS product... that's a given.
Well, as a Mac user for over 10 years, I'd rather not have.NET overtaking the market., and having to deal with another Windows-only situation.
Not really. There's an antitrust law that prevents "underselling" to drive out competition, and once the competition is virtually extinct, you jack the price up. If MS all of the suddon started charging $40 (like it used to) for IE, then they would be in violation.
Since your description of "underselling" directly follows your "not really" comment, I assume that is supposed to rebut my statement, but it doesn't really have anything to do with it. The original post said, essentially, "I don't see the bad in MS adding extra stuff to Windows for free-- it's free afterall." And I agree with that in the very short term, but definitely not in the long term or even the medium-term. (More on that in a moment.) Therefore: short-sighted.
As for your description of underselling, well, you are correct, that is an illegal practice. However, just because they didn't jack up prices after Netscape went down, doesn't mean they didn't break the law. Obviously this is the case, as MS was found guilty. But this really doesn't have to do with short-sighted-ness or anything.
I wouldn't call IE "barely good enough".
I'm not saying IE is bad, I'm saying it's just good enough. It might be by far the best thing out there right now. But imagine if Netscape and IE had stayed neck and neck all the way up to now. Where would IE and Netscape be then, if they were competing for dominance? IE could potentially be WAY better. IE should win out over browsers because of the merits of IE, not because of 95% market dominance in Windows. This is why there are laws against anti-competitive practices.
I'd say that makes the subject line meaningless, not the post. I just thought it was interesting that I had done this with great ease and in no time on OS 9. I made no claim that this holds true with OS X, which is why I indicated it was OS 9. Reread my post. Or don't.
I'm not trying to prove anything one way or the other, in fact, the anecdote might lead one to believe that OS X has some shortcomings in that area. How is that meaningless?
I'm so very *sorry* that I left the subject line unchanged, I hope it didn't ruin your day.
So if you're a monopoly you have to give the customers LESS value? If MS want's to package OFFICE with Windows, power to them (as long as it doesn't directly raise the price). They them keep adding value. IE and WM are Added Value Features to Windows whether or not you personally like them or not.
That is a shortsighted view of the situation. Using the total dominance of Windows to give just about every person MS Office, IE, people may get a deal pricewise at first. But now, these products are such a standard that MS doesn't have to compete with any rivals in order for those products to remain popular. They just have to give you whatever is barely good enough to keep you from wanting to spend extra money to replace it.
That's what's bad (for everyone but MS), the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
Very true... but then you probably don't want to know what I think about gun laws =) Also, don't forget, you need a background check to get a gun, which is along the lines of what I was thinking with virus code. (No debates on whether they do a good job with the gun bg checks.)
I disagree that those are the same situations. A note saying "kill yourself" is like an email saying "compile and send out a virus".
Also, a virus is damage to others, not yourself (unless you are foolish enough to unleash it on yourself of course).
I actually can't decide which way I go on the subject, I'm more being devil's advocate, because I feel like most people here think it should be allowed.
mark
True, I suppose I did gloss over compiling. But it's still not the same as the book.
Yes, the virus code is just instructions, but in order to get the virus going, you don't even have to understand those instructions, because they are for the computer. You just have to make the computer compile it. And everything you need is right there, as far as "assembling" the virus (except maybe you don't have the compiler already). In the anarchists cookbook, you have to understand how everything works, go out and buy (or steal or whatever) that stuff, and assemble it all together. And then it's a one shot deal (in the case of a bomb or something).
But you are right, it isn't *only* the code that does the act.
mark
No, I don't think they should be treated as one in the same. If it sounded that way, it's not what I meant.
I meant the way that we approach securing/censoring/stopping/whatever viruses should be similar to real life viruses.
Computers aren't people, so it doesn't have to be as super-secure, but I think using a similar approach would be useful.
mark
That's a good point, definitely, but I think it's still worse with computer viruses. The anarchist's cookbook is right on the line, and I'm not sure exactly where I stand on that. But I think there is still a difference, in that the book describes how to do these bad things, and the virus actually does these bad things.
I don't doubt that virus code is interesting, and things can be learned from it. I could even see the actual propogation of a virus to be an artistic expression (like a "happening"). But there's sometimes things that are very interesting or cool that are still illegal, and being interesting or art is not enough reason by itself to allow it to be spread around.
Maybe being a little too forgiving is better than making too much illegal, I don't know. It's definitely not a cut-and-dry thing. But I think it's a good approach to look at it similarly to bio-viruses.
mark.
Ah yes, a "slippery slope" argument.
What is with people today?
My point was, at least I know who Symantec is, and can hold them accountable for things. No, I don't entrust my soul unto them, but I sure trust them more then Mr. AnonUser8000!
mark
Yes, why ever use analogies? Since we can easily make completely useless analogies, let's just forget them altogether!
If you really think my analogy wasn't any good, why not support that with evidence having to do with viruses, instead of saying that analogies are wrong?
Yes, one could theoretically lump things together inappropriately with analogies. I used an analogy, therefore I must have done that!
Right.
mark
Garbage is art. Landscapes are art. Campbell's soup cans are art. A broken stereo is art.
My point is, anything can be art. That doesn't mean it MUST be allowed to be distributed.
We're not talking about a film that portrays graphic violence, or erotic art, which may or may not "corrupt" children. Viruses directly do damage, and that's the difference.
While we shouldn't go on a witch hunt to end virus code distribution, you can't just say "art" and make it untouchable.
mark
Yes, I agree that, at the moment, it is probably easier to contain a computer virus than a biological virus. As computers increase in complexity, the whole situation becomes, well, more complex. I don't know if we can rely on that forever. And certainly there have been some viruses and worms that have already caused significant headaches.
Yes, there are many ways that a sysadmin can make their computers secure, to the point of being virtually unbreakable. And these actions should be taken. But that's not an argument for why it is necessary to allow virus code to be spread around as "research".
mark
Certainly that is an important consideration. I'm not sure of all the specifics of researching biological viruses, but I feel like the analogy could work for that as well. Bio-virus researchers have to get some sort of clearance, and computer virus researchers should have similar structure.
Some guy couldn't suddenly declare himself a biological virus researcher, and it should be the same with computers, IMO.
mark
The whole point is that the good guys are really the ones who *would* have legal access to this stuff.
Maybe you can download viruses, examine them, and then better protect yourself as a result, but you should realize that you are not part of the 99.999999% who don't have the knowledge, time, or desire to study virus code in order to "protect" themselves. So Joe average-computer-victim is getting nothing out of it being available.
I feel fine letting Symantec et al worry about studying viruses. I don't think we need to keep virus code distribution legal so that the few "freelance" virus-stopper folk can do the equivalent of chasing trespassers off their property with a shotgun. It isn't a good enough reason. If you really want to actively stop viruses by examining them, maybe you should take up that profession.
mark
I like the idea of thinking about biological and computer viruses in the same way.
Researching biological viruses is legal, although people could attempt to spread said viruses maliciously. Those who deal with lethal viruses and diseases often can't just make samples and research easily accessible to anyone, even anonymous people. Why should virus "researchers" be able to do what is essentially the same thing?
Free speech is good, research is good... but so are ethics and responsibility.
mark
I wonder if they've developed gills after being underwater for so long.
mark
I agree completely. It would be similar to a situation like: a drug addict steals my wallet. Let's not blame him, he's just trying to make a buck to pay for his addiction. It's the drug cartels who we should go after, the thief is not at fault.
You would of course go after the thief, as well as the drug cartel.
mark
Don't get me wrong, when I said it was mostly illegal, I didn't mean that people were screwing over the artists, I just meant that most of what people do is actually "illegal", so proponents of MP3s shouldn't claim otherwise.
My point is this behavior could become legal if the music industry really tried to work with the process instead of against it.
I definitely bought more CDs back in the Napster heyday... probably 5 a month. Now, the only CD I got in the past 6+ months was a Christmas gift. Not that everybody operates this way, but going with this has got to be better than against it, in which case they absolutely *won't* stop anyone.
mark
mark
Isn't there some way to work out a reliable escrow service that can act as a middleman for these types of transactions (if desired)?
Otherwise, I don't see a way that this could improve. There's scam artists out there. The Internet is the ultimate place for anonymity. Even a smart consumer could get tricked.
mark
Right. Sounds like he's talking more about vikings than pirates.
mark
I don't think it's like that exactly (sure, some people mistakenly say that). It's more that the music industry wants to charge $17.99 for a CD, and doesn't give consumers any even halfway-decent way to download music from the Internet and enjoy it. I think the argument is that most people, when given the chance, will go the honest route. But there's no real way to do that.
And I think anyone who says that the majority of MP3 downloading right now is legal is not going to be taken seriously by the opposition.
mark
Apple's got something like $4 billion sitting around, as well as a hardcore cult following, so I'd say they are a pretty good company to have on our side.
mark
The distinction will definitely be meaningless to everyone else, and even the clone himself. He will believe he is me, and be exactly like me. But, isn't he actually an exact copy of me, in which case I die... souls or not?
mark
I would not be shocked either... but the 5 year contract that MS and Apple had just recently ran out, and although Apple assures us that MS will keep supporting, some Mac users are a little nervous.
So, I think it's actually in MS's best interest to do it, but they haven't committed, and as a Mac user, you can't always trust them.
mark
I was pointing out how easy it is to do on OS 9, just to contrast, and maybe bring up the question of whether it's better for it to be easy like this or be part of the framework of the OS like OS X.
And I thought the tone was a bit rude, as it was assuming that I just wasn't paying attention.
mark
Well, as a Mac user for over 10 years, I'd rather not have
(I submitted the article, BTW.)
Maybe that clarifies a bit...
mark
Since your description of "underselling" directly follows your "not really" comment, I assume that is supposed to rebut my statement, but it doesn't really have anything to do with it. The original post said, essentially, "I don't see the bad in MS adding extra stuff to Windows for free-- it's free afterall." And I agree with that in the very short term, but definitely not in the long term or even the medium-term. (More on that in a moment.) Therefore: short-sighted.
As for your description of underselling, well, you are correct, that is an illegal practice. However, just because they didn't jack up prices after Netscape went down, doesn't mean they didn't break the law. Obviously this is the case, as MS was found guilty. But this really doesn't have to do with short-sighted-ness or anything.
I'm not saying IE is bad, I'm saying it's just good enough. It might be by far the best thing out there right now. But imagine if Netscape and IE had stayed neck and neck all the way up to now. Where would IE and Netscape be then, if they were competing for dominance? IE could potentially be WAY better. IE should win out over browsers because of the merits of IE, not because of 95% market dominance in Windows. This is why there are laws against anti-competitive practices.
Not ludicrous.
mark
How rude.
I'd say that makes the subject line meaningless, not the post. I just thought it was interesting that I had done this with great ease and in no time on OS 9. I made no claim that this holds true with OS X, which is why I indicated it was OS 9. Reread my post. Or don't.
I'm not trying to prove anything one way or the other, in fact, the anecdote might lead one to believe that OS X has some shortcomings in that area. How is that meaningless?
I'm so very *sorry* that I left the subject line unchanged, I hope it didn't ruin your day.
mark
That is a shortsighted view of the situation. Using the total dominance of Windows to give just about every person MS Office, IE, people may get a deal pricewise at first. But now, these products are such a standard that MS doesn't have to compete with any rivals in order for those products to remain popular. They just have to give you whatever is barely good enough to keep you from wanting to spend extra money to replace it.
That's what's bad (for everyone but MS), the long run.
mark