Hi,
I think you're confused. The editorial didn't say a word about virus source code, but rather expressed views people have on public virus distribution.
If you'd read the article a bit more carefully, you'd see that I stated clearly laws don't seem to be an effective deterrent. Gee, as we seem to agree, I wonder why you're so hostile?
In the (many) viruses I've analysed, and those analysed by other scientists as well, we've rarely seen anything that was close to rocket science. In the few innovative viruses we have seen, the innovation was not in the self-replication (which is trivial!) but in some other aspect of the code which didn't need to be viral to be cool.
Finally, it's already illegal in some countries to write and/or publish viruses. WHile I don't imagine it will become illegal to write a virus in the U.S., (what you do in your own home is your own business), one could be extradited to a country with reciprocal laws.
Sarah
Hmm...well, I disagree with it too, and I wrote it:) The original article, which was edited (several times) due to space did lose a bit in the translation. The original (which I may post in its entirety, on my WWW site ) said something more like this:
" With computer viruses, however, there are questions as to what is a constitutionally protected "right" and what is not. Pure speech has always been held almost without exception to be a "right", protected by the Constitution. The argument against public virus distribution claims that virus writing and distribution is not pure speech, on the grounds that the US Supreme Court has historically recognized that speech and action, while closely intertwined, are not one and the same.
A simple look back through history reveals several instances where speech and action, or symbolic speech, were not always protected. Furthermore, just because something is not YET illegal it does not necessarily follow as a Constitutionally protected "right". Those who are going to use "first amendment rights" as an argument to protect the unregulated dissemination of virus programs should consider some of the pinnacle cases establishing which forms of speech are protected and which are not."
So, while the "misguided opinion" you call absurd may (or may not) indeed be absurd, it is not my opinion. It is a presentation of the arguments people make. My opinion regarding the distribution of computer viruses from public web sites is that it is irresponsible, and sends a mixed message as to what is "acceptable".
Your analogy of "teaching someone to use a gun, they use a gun to kill, so the teacher is responsible" doesn't fit. It might fit (and only in the U.S.) if we were talking about material that teaches people to use viruses. But we aren't. We're talking about viruses themselves.
A more apt analogy, if you want to use a gun analogy (which I would tend to avoid), would be "you leave a gun out in a public place, someone uses it to kill, so you are responsible". People don't generally leave guns out in public places because they recognize there is an unacceptable element of danger in doing so. It is even illegal to do so.
Now, this is not to say that viruses equate with guns, ok?:)
As for it not being illegal until you "compile that source and use it", that is true, in the United States.
However, it is not true in other countries, where merely placing a virus on the WWW, or inciting others to use a virus, is criminal. Christopher Pile was sentenced for (among other things) "inciting others to use his viruses". We are living in an international climate in lot of ways, and I think it is good to be aware of what is going on around us.
I am glad to see this article has generated so much attention. I've said for a long time if we don't act responsibly, someone might well force us to. I think that's still true.
Testing antivirus software is pretty
specialised. You wouldn't get a very valid/meaningful/scientific test if you just grabbed some viruses off the Internet and ran some scanners against them. Vulnerability exploits are a different issue - but the article wasn't addressing non-replicating programs, just self-replicating ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi, I think you're confused. The editorial didn't say a word about virus source code, but rather expressed views people have on public virus distribution. If you'd read the article a bit more carefully, you'd see that I stated clearly laws don't seem to be an effective deterrent. Gee, as we seem to agree, I wonder why you're so hostile? In the (many) viruses I've analysed, and those analysed by other scientists as well, we've rarely seen anything that was close to rocket science. In the few innovative viruses we have seen, the innovation was not in the self-replication (which is trivial!) but in some other aspect of the code which didn't need to be viral to be cool. Finally, it's already illegal in some countries to write and/or publish viruses. WHile I don't imagine it will become illegal to write a virus in the U.S., (what you do in your own home is your own business), one could be extradited to a country with reciprocal laws. Sarah
Hmm...well, I disagree with it too, and I wrote it:) The original article, which was edited (several times) due to space did lose a bit in the translation. The original (which I may post in its entirety, on my WWW site ) said something more like this:
:)
" With computer viruses, however, there are questions as to what is a constitutionally protected "right" and what is not. Pure speech has always been held almost without exception to be a "right", protected by the Constitution. The argument against public virus distribution claims that virus writing and distribution is not pure speech, on the grounds that the US Supreme Court has historically recognized that speech and action, while closely intertwined, are not one and the same.
A simple look back through history reveals several instances where speech and action, or symbolic speech, were not always protected. Furthermore, just because something is not YET illegal it does not necessarily follow as a Constitutionally protected "right". Those who are going to use "first amendment rights" as an argument to protect the unregulated dissemination of virus programs should consider some of the pinnacle cases establishing which forms of speech are protected and which are not."
So, while the "misguided opinion" you call absurd may (or may not) indeed be absurd, it is not my opinion. It is a presentation of the arguments people make. My opinion regarding the distribution of computer viruses from public web sites is that it is irresponsible, and sends a mixed message as to what is "acceptable".
Your analogy of "teaching someone to use a gun, they use a gun to kill, so the teacher is responsible" doesn't fit. It might fit (and only in the U.S.) if we were talking about material that teaches people to use viruses. But we aren't. We're talking about viruses themselves.
A more apt analogy, if you want to use a gun analogy (which I would tend to avoid), would be "you leave a gun out in a public place, someone uses it to kill, so you are responsible". People don't generally leave guns out in public places because they recognize there is an unacceptable element of danger in doing so. It is even illegal to do so.
Now, this is not to say that viruses equate with guns, ok?
As for it not being illegal until you "compile that source and use it", that is true, in the United States.
However, it is not true in other countries, where merely placing a virus on the WWW, or inciting others to use a virus, is criminal. Christopher Pile was sentenced for (among other things) "inciting others to use his viruses". We are living in an international climate in lot of ways, and I think it is good to be aware of what is going on around us.
I am glad to see this article has generated so much attention. I've said for a long time if we don't act responsibly, someone might well force us to. I think that's still true.
Sarah
Testing antivirus software is pretty specialised. You wouldn't get a very valid/meaningful/scientific test if you just grabbed some viruses off the Internet and ran some scanners against them. Vulnerability exploits are a different issue - but the article wasn't addressing non-replicating programs, just self-replicating ones.