No, that is a close analogy to spam. To liken a computer virus to spam is to trivialize its potential severity.
A virus can destroy data. A virus can corrupt data. A virus can unwittingly to the user of the infected system transmit personal data. A virus can execute resident programs. So on, so forth, ad nauseum...
At its most basic and innocuous level, you could argue that a virus is no different than spam. But once you cross the "information" boundary that you define a virus by, you can no longer justify its harmlessness.
To revisit the pipebomb example, by your logic the pipebomb is just a device. Harmless, at a minimum, if unactivated. But deadly otherwise.
So now there are two issues at play:
1. The severity of the thing, and 2. The intent behind the thing.
We've just established the first. Now you must consider the second in light of the first.
The virus doesn't think for itself. And the virus doesn't initially act on its own.
There is a prime mover behind the virus. We call it the virus author. The virus author creates and releases the virus into the world.
How the virus behaves once it enters the world is entirely irrelevant. The thought behind the creation of the virus, and the intent behind the release of the virus -- these are the grounds on which we condemn the author.
I'll put a homemade pipe bomb in your mailbox tomorrow. If you choose not to open it, does this invalidate the bomb?
Question the intent. Don't rationalize the results.
If I could break into my next door neighbor's house - on the premise that a flaw exists within his home security - should I be rewarded for it? Do not be so quick to glorify criminal behavior.
Software flaws exist, yes. But to reveal them by breaching network security, unleashing mass-mailing worms, and exploiting buffer overflows in target systems is NOT a service to the community.
On the other hand, creating and releasing the virus in a lab environment for the purpose of failure analysis is a worthy endeavor.
But to cripple public systems? And implore that the writers of such crippling software be rewarded? Please, don't be such a dolt.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it took 2 pages of formal logic to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.
Principia Mathematica, Whitehead & Russell.
No, that is a close analogy to spam. To liken a computer virus to spam is to trivialize its potential severity.
A virus can destroy data. A virus can corrupt data. A virus can unwittingly to the user of the infected system transmit personal data. A virus can execute resident programs. So on, so forth, ad nauseum...
At its most basic and innocuous level, you could argue that a virus is no different than spam. But once you cross the "information" boundary that you define a virus by, you can no longer justify its harmlessness.
To revisit the pipebomb example, by your logic the pipebomb is just a device. Harmless, at a minimum, if unactivated. But deadly otherwise.
So now there are two issues at play:
1. The severity of the thing, and
2. The intent behind the thing.
We've just established the first. Now you must consider the second in light of the first.
The virus doesn't think for itself. And the virus doesn't initially act on its own.
There is a prime mover behind the virus. We call it the virus author. The virus author creates and releases the virus into the world.
How the virus behaves once it enters the world is entirely irrelevant. The thought behind the creation of the virus, and the intent behind the release of the virus -- these are the grounds on which we condemn the author.
I'll put a homemade pipe bomb in your mailbox tomorrow. If you choose not to open it, does this invalidate the bomb?
Question the intent. Don't rationalize the results.
If I could break into my next door neighbor's house - on the premise that a flaw exists within his home security - should I be rewarded for it? Do not be so quick to glorify criminal behavior. Software flaws exist, yes. But to reveal them by breaching network security, unleashing mass-mailing worms, and exploiting buffer overflows in target systems is NOT a service to the community. On the other hand, creating and releasing the virus in a lab environment for the purpose of failure analysis is a worthy endeavor. But to cripple public systems? And implore that the writers of such crippling software be rewarded? Please, don't be such a dolt.