Hacks & Cracks/Hacks_and_Cracks.iso/hackersguides-&-software/40hex-10.zip/40HEX-10.009

Text File | 1993-03-13 | 39KB | 789 lines

40Hex Issue 10 Volume 3 Number 1                                      File 009

                            40-hex Survey:
                  Should Writing a Virus Be Outlawed?

                              by DecimatoR


   Recently, while conversing with Garbageheap, I was inspired with the
idea for this article.  So, with the help of a lot of people in the UseNet
alt.security and comp.virus newsgroups, I have determined what seems to be
the answer to my question.  My thanks to all who responded - couldn't have
done it without ya!

   I posted this message in alt.security and comp.virus:

"Greetings....

  Some of you may read the infamous 40-Hex Virus magazine, published
  by us. If so, we'd like your opinions for a survery we're doing.
  The results of this survey will be published in 40-hex #10.

  Here are the survey questions.  Please answer them, and respond via
  email to me.  You may respond with simple Yes or No answers, or you
  may be as wordy as you want.  Please note - ANY response given might
  be published in 40-hex magazine.  Now, the questions:

  1) Should it be Federally illegal to write a computer virus?

  2) Should it be Federally illegal to distribute computer viruses,
     to KNOWING individuals (ie on "virus" boards)? (This does NOT
     mean infecting another person with a virus - it means giving
     them a copy of a virus, and making sure they KNOW it is a virus)

  3) If executable virus code is illegal, then should the SOURCE code
     to the viruses be illegal to copy, sell, or other wise distribute?

  Please mail me with YOUR opinions to the above, and feel free to
  explain your views, or present other opinions you may have.  We are
  attempting to get a general idea as to the thoughts of people,
  therefore we are posting this to COMP.VIRUS, and ALT.SECURITY, and
  any other appropriate newsgroups.

  Please note - we are NOT interested in the legallity of SPREADING
  virus code by infection - that IS already illegal.  We are also not
  interested in the ethic issues of viruses.  We want your opinions as
  to what should be OUTLAWED, and what should be LEGAL.  Of course, any
  other opinions you may wish to add are welcome.

                     Thanks for your time and consideration..

                             --DecimatoR
                               Phalcon/Skism
                               40-Hex Magazine Columnist"



Amazingly, almost all of the responses stated that NO, it _SHOULD_NOT_ be
illegal to write, or distribute (to knowing persons) a computer virus.  Many
respondees regarded that as censorship, and wanted nothing of the sort.
However, there were a few replies which, while not condoning the outlawing of
virus creation, also certainly did not condone the authoring or distributing
of viruses.  There was one man, from England, though, who firmly stated that
there should be international laws banning the creation of, distribution of,
and sharing of virus source code.  The fact that only one person responded in
this manner surprised me.  I expected more.

Here are a few quotes from the responses I got.  There are no names or
addresses attatched in most cases.  I posted my original survey question
through an anonymous mailer,  since I wasn't too sure of the response I'd get,
and in turn, the responses were also anonymous.


*******************************************************************************
     1) Should it be Federally illegal to write a computer virus?
*******************************************************************************

From David:

"Not at all.  The government is already quite behind the times
 when it comes to legislating technical issues.  I don't believe
 they are qualified to enact competent legislation.   We're talking
 about a government who thought Steve Jackson Games should be raided
 for compiling a cyberpunk roleplaying supplement...

 Leaving aside the question of their technical knowledge, it smacks of
 censorship.  The inception of a computer program is roughly analogous
 to the writing of a book.  Put this way, your question could be
 phrased like:

        "Should it be Federally illegal to write a [pornographic,
         anarchistic, insert-favorite-word-here] book?"

 We know that the writing of a book is protected by the US constitution
 as a form of expression.  The writing of a computer program is a similar
 form of expression, and should thus be inviolate..."

                          --------------------------

From: [e-mail]:

NO!    however, if people do not exhibit ethical behaviour regarding
       viruses, they are forcing such a law to be made. if someone wants
       the right to write what they want on their own computer, they
       would be well advised to not release to any other person this
       program unless they are -absolutely certain- that person will :

       a. not use the program for any damaging purpose
       b. not use the program to play tricks on people
       c. not allow the program to leave his/her hands without
          ensuring the above conditions are met.

                         --------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Cutthroat):

No.
A virus is simply a section of code that travels with another section of code.
Viruses are not inherently malicious.

                         --------------------------

From: [e-mail]

>  1) Should it be Federally illegal to write a computer virus?

No.  It's just code.  The minute you start outlawing one kind of program,
you've introduced censorship.

                         --------------------------

From: [e-mail]: (Roger)

>  1) Should it be Federally illegal to write a computer virus?

Hard one. The problem is that I'd like it to be legal: people should
be free to experiment with this kind of stuff providing they keep it
safe in their own environment. However when parallels are
sought with current law, we are forced to another conclusion:
selling a gun is potentially harmless untill the gun is used. It's
partly the responsibility of the SELLER to keep guns from spreading
to unqualified people.

Now the question rises: can a computer Virus be compared to a GUN.
I think it can: both are harmless until employed in a dangerous
fashion.

In short computer viruses provide a threat to our society. Current
law prohibits possession of objects that pose a threat to society.
(Partly because this makes it easier to prosecute people that most
likely want to employ these objects in a bad way).


                         --------------------------

From: Josh@lehigh

   Absolutely not.  It's a crummy, unethical, lousy, rotten, thing to do,
   but making it illegal to write *any* type of a computer program is
   reminiscent of George Orwell's "1984" and Big Brother.  There is also
   too much speculation as to what a clear-cut, 100% absolute definition
   of a computer virus is.  If it's just something that remains in memory
   and does something the user is not fully aware of, you're eliminating
   a significant number of useful programs such as disk caches and even
   virus scanners--how many people are fully aware of the mechanical
   workings of a virus scanner or a disk cache?  Other definitions can
   be twisted in similar manners, making just about everything a "virus"
   in some aspect.


                         --------------------------

From Oliver in the UK:

I believe that it should not only be Federally illegal, but Internationally
illegal to write a computer virus. However, one should look at the
difficulty of enforcing such a law. From what point onwards does
a program qualify as a virus; those questions, looking at the heated
regular debate on virus-l, are far from being answered categorically.
The bottom line, IMHO, is that enforcement of a federal law against
computer viruses writing is very hard. Moreover, most academic and
company sites forbid their users in using computing facilities for
writing viruses anyway, and it should be up to them to make sure
locally that no viruses are written on their facilities.

                         --------------------------

From Jay:

Of course not, this is a first amendment right in the USA.  Writing a
virus is no different than writing any other computer program.  Many
"normal" computer programs share common coding methods with viruses.
Who is to say that you intend malice by writing a small chunk of
software?  Are we supposed to sit down and have code reviews with
federal agents in random spot checks to make sure we aren't writing
malicious code?  That's silly.


                         --------------------------

From Ed:

    No. This is not the correct way to deal with the virus problem.
  Any form of restriction placed upon what someone does with their own
  computer would be unconstitutional, as it removes our personal rights.
  It has been said that the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the
  state. As the law stands, you can do what you want out *your* computer,
  but as soon as you infect *mine* it becomes illegal, and that is the
  way it must remain, or else the rights of everyone will be damaged.


*******************************************************************************
     2) Should it be Federally illegal to distribute computer viruses,
        to KNOWING individuals (ie on "virus" boards)? (This does NOT
        mean infecting another person with a virus - it means giving
        them a copy of a virus, and making sure they KNOW it is a virus)
*******************************************************************************

David:

"Again, no.  The distribution of information should be constitutionally
 protected.  There are legitimate reasons why someone may want or need
 the source or executable form of a virus.  The most obvious is in the
 field of virus research.  It is necessary to obtain the virus in question
 in order to devise a vaccine for it.  Security through obscurity
 has been tried before; it's great until some "unauthorized" person
 gets hold of some information others are hiding.  He's free to use
 it to great success because the legitimate users don't know exactly
 what he's got, making it hard to devise a defense.

A good example of this type of argument might be:
        Criminals have guns.  It should be illegal to have
        a gun.  In fact, let's keep the "knowing individuals"
        (ie. the police) from having them too... "

                           ___________________________

From: [e-mail]:

just because you make sure they KNOW it's a virus does not mean they
will not do some destructive thing with it, perhaps even unintentionally.
in my paper, 'circular time line model for addressing the impact of virus
exchange bbs', i support the conclusion that it will not especially help
to do this, and that it may not be even the most efficient way to deal
with the problem of computer viruses.

if people will not do the things that are right, however, they force
people to do the things that are wrong, in this case.

                           ---------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Cutthroat):

No.
A weak system can be hit by a virus.  A strong system is less likely to
 be hit by a virus.
Make computers more secure.  Viruses will always exist.

                           ---------------------------

From: [e-mail]

>  2) Should it be Federally illegal to distribute computer viruses,
>     to KNOWING individuals (ie on "virus" boards)? (This does NOT
>     mean infecting another person with a virus - it means giving
>     them a copy of a virus, and making sure they KNOW it is a virus)

Nope.  It's just *executable* code this time.  :-)

                           ---------------------------

From: [e-mail]: (Roger)

>  2) Should it be Federally illegal to distribute computer viruses,
>     to KNOWING individuals (ie on "virus" boards)? (This does NOT
>     mean infecting another person with a virus - it means giving
>     them a copy of a virus, and making sure they KNOW it is a virus)

Following the reasoning in the answer to the last question: yes. However
I think there is a difference between distributing the actual code and
only pseudo code. It's like telling someone the principle of an atom bomb,
or sending him a "do  it yourself kit". The last is certainly beyond the
limit, whereas the first isn't.

                           ---------------------------

From Josh@lehigh:

   Doing so would absolutely cripple virus-fighting developments.  If a
   user cannot legally send a virus-infected program to the author of a
   virus scanner/cleaner, it becomes impossible for the utility to detect
   and/or remove that type of virus unless the author somehow becomes
   accidentally infected by it.


                           ---------------------------

From Oliver in the UK:

>   2) Should it be Federally illegal to distribute computer viruses,
>      to KNOWING individuals (ie on "virus" boards)? (This does NOT
>      mean infecting another person with a virus - it means giving
>      them a copy of a virus, and making sure they KNOW it is a virus)

Yes. Virus boards, etc. are all nests for hackers-crackers & people
envolved in the "computer-underworld". Distribution of sources on
BBS to knowing individuals can only add to the spread of computer
viruses. In addition to that, so many people would then be able to
modify the original source code, that one would end-up with a
virtually unlimited number of variants of each virus - definitely
the horror scenario.

                           ---------------------------

From Paul Ferguson:

   That depends. If it can be proven in a court of law that the
   provider of the computer virus knew before-hand that recipient
   would irresponsibly allow it to pass into the hands of someone
   who would a.) willingly transplant it into an unsuspecting public
   domain or b.) modify it and then release it into an unsuspecting
   public domain, then YES, I believe that is wrongful action that
   should be illegal. If the program (virus) is passed amongst two
   trusted individuals with little or no chance of it "escaping"
   into the public domain, then that is a matter of personal
   transaction which does not affect other computerists.


                           ---------------------------

From Jay:

>   2) Should it be Federally illegal to distribute computer viruses,
>      to KNOWING individuals (ie on "virus" boards)? (This does NOT
>      mean infecting another person with a virus - it means giving
>      them a copy of a virus, and making sure they KNOW it is a virus)

Of course not, if you write a note on a piece of paper and share it with
a friend, is that a federal offense?  What if that note contains information
that could show your friend how to kill someone?  What if the note contains
a beautiful little poem that happens to describes how to kill someone?
Software is a vehicle for expressing an idea or concept, no different from
the written word.  If there is no malice, there is no crime.  It's not
illegal to infect someone with a virus if you don't know that you passed
it along, so why should it be illegal to give away a virus to someone
who can handle it?


                           ---------------------------

From Ed:

> Should the distribution of viruses to knowing individuals be illegal?

    Again, no. One reason is that I doubt very many virus authors would
  heed such a law, and so only the anti-virus community would suffer,
  making conditions worse. Another reason is the First Ammendment of the
  Constitution of the United States, which guarantees freedom of speech
  to everyone. Distribution of viral code is a form of speech, as it is
  a transfer of data and information. If it weren't for virus transactions,
  no one virus scanner would be very complete, as each would only detect
  a handful of viruses, and one would have to obtain a copy of every scanner
  to have a complete detection system.



*******************************************************************************
     3) If executable virus code is illegal, then should the SOURCE code
        to the viruses be illegal to copy, sell, or other wise distribute?
*******************************************************************************

David:
"I don't agree that either should be illegal, but outlawing the source
 would make it much more difficult to devise a defense.  It's an extension
 of the above argument..."

                          ----------------------------

From: [e-mail]:

  >> 3) If executable virus code is illegal, then should the SOURCE code
  >>    to the viruses be illegal to copy, sell, or other wise distribute?

If, then; else not. but should be not to begin with.

                          ----------------------------

From: [e-mail]

The answers arise from my views about individual freedom for every human.
Governments should interfere as little as possible in this.

                          ---------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Cutthroat):

No.
A virus is less likely to be "accidently" released if it exists only
 as source code.
Viruses are much easier to study for "legitimate" security purposes
 if it is released as source code.

                          ---------------------------

From Josh@lehigh:

   For similar reasons to 1) above, the thought is abhorrent.  Taking an
   extreme example, suppose I was to write a compiler.  The source code
   for this compiler consists of any text file, and its output is a file
   infector which randomly stamps the source code (text file) on someone's
   hard drive.  Therefore, your resume, your letters--in short, any text
   you have whatsoever--becomes source code for a virus.  Big brother
   returns--and with a vengeance.

                          ---------------------------

From Oliver in the UK:

>   3) If executable virus code is illegal, then should the SOURCE code
>      to the viruses be illegal to copy, sell, or other wise distribute?

See the answer to 2. The SOURCE code is even more lethal than the
executable. The only way that such code would be transfered, should
be for research purposes. I am talking here about serious scientific
research. The more people that have access to source viral code, the
more likely it is for non-authorised people to have access to it.
In scientific research, a researcher has access to chemicals & data
which (s)he is often not entitled to take out of the lab. The same
should be for viral code.

The argument of making Viral Code available to the public "because this
is the only way to get to know about computer viruses" is hence a
stupid argument. The sole purpose of releasing viral source code to
the public is misleadingly "for informational purposes only" and can
alas only lead to further propagation of the virus itself, as well as
new variants.

                          ---------------------------

From Paul Ferguson:

   Executable code of any kind should not ever (and will not, IMHO)
   be illegal. That is absurd. It is the use of said code that would
   constitute a violation of another's practice of safe computing. If
   this code (viruses) are released into the public domain, I consider
   it a practice of reckless computing. Hey, we have laws against
   reckless driving and reckless endangerment, why not reckless
   computing?


                          ---------------------------

From Jay:

>   3) If executable virus code is illegal, then should the SOURCE code
>      to the viruses be illegal to copy, sell, or other wise distribute?

Executable code shouldn't be illegal.  Is it illegal to translate a book
from English to Spanish?  Can you translate a book from English to Spanish
without knowing either language?  You CAN convert source code to executable
code without knowing the source language, or assembly/machine code.

Let's assume that I was to give a computer illiterate friend, a floppy
containing source code to computer mortgage payments, a public domain
compiler, and instructions for compiling the application, "type MAKE".
Lets also assume that I received the source code from someone else, and
the code contained a virus hidden in the source (in source code form) that
I was unaware of.  If the friend follows the instructions, and compiles
the virus did he break the law?  He thought he was just getting a program
to calculate mortgage payments.  Am I guilty of a crime?  I just gave a
friend some innocent source code.  This is ludicrous.

If source code for a virus causes no problems for either the giver or
receiver, why should it be banned?  If I write a book that contains a
series of instructions that detail a plan to overthrow the US goverment,
is that a crime?  If I sell the book, is that criminal?  Tom Clancy does
it...he sells millions.  If I write a book that details instructions
for overthrowing MSDOS, is that crime?  What if I choose distribute it
electronically?

This is all stupid, prohibiting information doesn't work.

The bottom line is that if an act was done with malice, there may
be a crime, if the act was done without malice, there is no crime.


                          ---------------------------

From Ed:

> If executable virus transfer is made illegal, should source code be
> restricted as well?

    I would prefer that neither are made illegal, but if this situation were
  to arise, I would have to say no. Source code qualifies for the First
  Ammendment more so than viral samples. Now, I'm not saying it's justified
  to go and give source code to anyone who asks for it, after all why do you
  think there are so many variants of Vienna and Pixel? But legal action used
  to restrict the actual transactions of viral material is not a valid course
  of action, practically or ethically.

  I can not condone distribution of viral samples to anyone who asks for it
(especially "Nuke-EM!!" types), however I've found that many anti-viral
researchers simply can't obtain the samples they need because they aren't in
the "inner circle" of trusted anti-virus vendors. It's a very difficult
issue to deal with, as to how to deal with virus distribution, such as
who should be allowed to procure the viruses they need, and who shouldn't.
It's an ethical and moral delemma, but one this is for sure, it should not
be illegal!


*****************************************************************************
   Please mail me with YOUR opinions to the above, and feel free to
   explain your views, or present other opinions you may have.
*****************************************************************************

From: [e-mail]:

There are already enough laws in existance. we do not need more laws.
we need people who know how to interpret the existing laws in light of
the societal and technological changes in our society.

                          ---------------------------

From Marc:

        There is no statement of illegality in this domain that
        wouldn't lead inexorably to the licensing of anti-virus
        software developers and the stifling of most forms of
        independent research into system security. You would end up
        with the same kind of idiocy that makes it impossible to use
        certain drugs as medicines or even to do research with them.
        You would also end up having to give the police extraordinary
        powers to enable enforcement, as in all cases of victimless
        crime.

                          ---------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note From DecimatoR:  The following conversation was between myself and
Oliver, the one person who stated that everything dealing with the creation
of viruses should be internationally controlled.  Since his opinions differed
so strongly from mine, and most of those I recieved, I chose to include our
conversation here, unedited.  I appreciate the time he took in corresponding
with me.  Thanks, guy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(The quoted text is from me, the others from him.  Like you couldn't tell)

From Oliver:

Hello,
    I got your 2 emails regarding the fact that I was the only
person to favour a full clampdown on viruses etc.
Let me answer the direct questions in your 2 emails:

>Your response so far has been the only one which out-and-out said that YES,
>viruses, source code for them, etc should be internationally illegal.  I
>actually thought there would be more opinions like yours, however this seems
>not to be the case.  So, if you don't mind, I'd like a little more insight
>into your ideas.  I noticed you were from London, where there have recently
>been arrests of people who write and sell viruses.  I assume you agree that
>the government has the right to make such an arrest.  My question to you:

Yes, I agree with the government regarding those arrests.

>where do you draw the line regarding censorship?  Many respondents claimed
>that banning the writing of viruses would be censorship, to an extreme they
>are NOT willing to tolerate.  You think differently.  So, where do you think
>the line should be drawn?  With viruses?  Maybe "trojanized" code?  Or code
>that will disable itself after x number of runs?

This is a very difficult line to draw. I think that the first selection that
one must make is whether the code is to destroy data, or will simply
replicate (like a worm). The easiest piece of code to look at is trojanized
code. Its sole purpose is usually to destroy data.  I qualify purpose-
made trojanized code as malicious vandalism. In addition to that,
"trojanization" of a commercial or public domain program itself already
breaks the law due to copyright infringements and/or license breaches.
Viruses are, also by definition, data destructors. Anyone writing a virus
and planning to distribute it should hence also be breaking the law.
Worms are supposed not to destroy data; however let us consider the fact
that a worm spreads on computer systems and a bug in the worm's code
corrupts user data. What I am trying to get to is the fact that worms
spread in people's machines without their approval, and I find this to
be morally wrong. Compare this with, say, skeleton keys of apartments
in a town. Would you support the idea of making skeleton keys, exchanging
them on "skeleton-key-BBS" legal ? It would mean that it's legal for anyone
to have skeleton keys and use them to "visit" apartments at will.
So here, we are reaching  the fact that a computer's HD has now grown
to be part of someone's house, someone's belongings, someone's living
space, and that any breach of privacy is unwelcome. Since worms breach
that privacy, then wouldn't it be a protection for the public to
outlaw those worms ? So I support the fact of making all code that
self-replicates from system to system illegal.


>Doesn't the intervention of the government in such areas bother you?  If
>not, why not?  Obviously your opinions are quite different than mine.

No. The government has many duties towards the people of a country, and
one of them is protection of the people themselves. Remember, I am
not asking for the government to censor ideas, I am asking for it to
stop propagation of malicious items; people often refer to this as
censorship since we're talking about intellectual data, but this is
a big mistake. I believe that freedom will be more easily enforceable
if simple basic laws of morals can be enforced.
Consider gun laws:
- in UK, gun laws are very tough indeed. No individual is allowed to
carry a gun without special permits, and those are extremely hard to
obtain. Individuals allowed to carry a gun are usually under threat
from terrorism, etc. Those are very isolated cases. As a result, the
British police is mostly still unarmed. The number of gun-related
offenses is very low indeed, and any injury is usually caused by knives.
As a result, repression from the British police needs not be so strong.
- in USA, in some states, gun laws are very relaxed. Gun-related offenses
are high, and the US police needs to carry guns as well. The amount of
repression used by the police has to be much higher than elsewhere.
I was shocked to hear that police in USA had their gun out when stopping
a car for speeding. How "friendly" does that make them ?
Pro-gun individuals would immediately shout that any clamping-down on
guns is a breach of their freedom, etc. etc. And they even have an
advantage over pro-virus-enthusiasts that they can argue that the gun
is for their safety, while I can't think of a positive use for a virus.

>is a good thing, because I am looking for differing points of view.  I
>consider England to be far too strict in censorship, and government control.
>It would really bother me to have to put up with that kind of control over
>my life.  Yet you seem to agree with it.

Agreed, there are a few things which the UK government censors that I
don't agree with. But take, for example, the freedom of the press:
- Should newspapers have the right to write *anything* about *anyone* ?
Freedom of speech in this case is only possible if newspaper editors
are reasonable about what they write. But what often happens is that
editors praise their "freedom of speech" and allow defammatory articles,
made-up of lies, etc., thus hurting individuals to such an extent that
those individuals may have their life affected by that so-called "freedom-
of-speech" forever.
Full open democracy, full freedom of speech, full openness only works when
everybody is nice and kind, and no-one is malicious etc. But this unfortu-
nately isn't the case in real life. Censorship has to be applied in areas
which could hurt more people than help them.


>like your answers to a few more in-depth questions.  First of all, many who
>responded said that banning viruses would be a form of censorship, one which
>they would not be willing to tolerate.  How would you reply to this?

Censorship applies both to intellectual ideas, as well as material ideas.
The only thing that people make mistakes about is believing that censorship
of intellectual ideas is bad, and censorship of things (something which
may be dangerous to them - say a chemical) is okay. The big mistake made
is to think that intellectual ideas may not hurt them. Computer viruses
are thought of as intellectual ideas, and thus people usually adopt a
soft policy towards them by thinking that it cannot hurt them.

>ALso, I believe you are from England, what do you think of the recent raids
>on virus writers, and the man who was selling virueses in your country?
>Good?  Bad?

I completely agree with the government on those matters. What good to society
are virus writers ? Their sole purpose was to spread their viruses
worldwide. Their initial statement (which I didn't keep a copy of,
unfortunately, thinking it was a joke) was so childishly written, I
could not believe it, but let's not divert to talk about the personality
of some virus writers. The fact is clear: Viruses can do more harm than
a lot of other things in life. Have you ever witnessed someone who has
made no backup of his work, and has had much of his work destroyed by
a virus ? We aren't talking here about a corrupted copy of Windows 3.1
that can be re-installed in 30 minutes but about 1 week's original
work from somebody. I personally haven't been hit, but I have seen people
in the labs here, and believe me, it's time we stop treating virus-writers
as "joyful hackers" that do this for fun.

>And lastly, a question: do you write computer programs?  If so, then doesn't
>it bother you knowing that you are _not_allowed_ to write a certain KIND of
>program, simply because the government considers it "bad"?

I write computer programs daily, in the course of my research (which is
unrelated to viruses). I use my programming skills to develop systems
not only for my benefit but also for the benefit of mankind, through
better future telecommunication systems. My competence in programming
is high enough to write viruses, trojans, etc. but I am not attracted to
it whatsoever. If those programming geniuses (aka virus writers), devoted
their programming time to other activities than virus writing, than
perhaps they would be able to make something out of their life, instead
or ruining other people's.
But let's imagine that I was interested in writing a virus. Who would know ?
If I wrote a virus on my PC at home, and not release it, not publicize it,
not mention it to anyone, who would know ? If then I made a mistake,
and transfered it (against my will) to my computer at work, and infected
computers all around the place, then whose fault would it be ? Mine.
I would then have to be ready to face the consequences.

>think censorship and banning of code should go?  And, for those who violate
>the bans, what punishment do you believe is suitable?

Banning of the code, IMHO, should be as far as public posting of the
source on BBS, distribution by any means, infection of any computer.
I am hesitating about banning the publication of flow charts for the
code, since this would involve a fair amount of work from potential
copycats. But banning of full-working virus sources is certainly a
priority.
I am not a lawyer, so it would be hard for me to expand on the form of
punishment for those violating the bans. I think that each case should
have to be taken separately, depending on the potential danger of
each piece of code, and also on the damage already inflicted (if any)
before the trial.

Cheers,

   Oliver


                          --------------------------
                             Final note from Dec:
                          --------------------------


All in all, the majority response was that no, the coding of and distributing
of virus code should _not_ be outlawed in the United States.  Of course, I
certainly feel the same way.  The government should NOT be able to say that
any piece of code, no matter what the purpose or possible use may be, should
not be written.  Programming is freedom of expression, and to some, even art.
To limit that with laws and stipulations not only takes away the rights of ALL
Americans, but goes against the freedoms that America was founded upon.

No matter what your point of view on viruses - be they ethical, unethical,
whether you write them or hunt them down and destroy them, I truly hope you
would never want them to be outlawed.

Of course, I should mention my views concerning the spreading of viruses to
unknowing users.  I firmly believe that such action IS unethical, and, quite
simply, wrong.  And yes, that action SHOULD be made illegal.  Many of the
respondees to my post compared the legallities of viruses with those of
firearms.  While this may be a valid comparison in some cases, in others it is
quite unrealistic.  Most who used this idea said that virus code should be
restricted to those responsible enough to handle it, just like guns are
restricted to those who are responsible.  I have a small problem with this.
Firearms are restricted because they can be used to cause serious or fatal
injuries.  No computer virus can be used to kill another person.  However, no
gun actually KILLS another person.  People kill people, the gun is simply an
instrument used.  Maybe a knife would be a better comparison.  Just becuase
murders are committed with knives, should we restrict them?  OR ban them
outright?  No, of course not.  Same with viruses.  Although they have the
potential to be used in destructive ways, they should not be banned.  The
people who abuse them should be treated as the criminals they are.  The people
who create and help educate others with them should not be treated as
criminals.

We in Phalcon/Skism all believe in the freedom of information, and the right
that each and every American has to his own opinions.  Yes, we've written
viruses, and yes, we have no qualms about distributing virus code.  (This
magazine is one good example)  No one will be injured through our actions,
because we simply cranked out this 100% ascii text magazine.  We don't spread
our creations intentionally.  We do distribute them to those who want them,
and sometimes people do spread them.  We cannot control the actions of others.
Breaking the law is wrong.  We don't break the law by programming.  We don't
break the law by sharing code.  Don't hold us responsible for those who use
our creations to break the law.  After all, you wouldn't hold Smith and Wesson
responsible for a crime committed using one of their firearms, would you?  No.
Nor would you hold GMC, Inc. responsible for a death caused by a drunk driving
one of their vehicles.  They were not at fault for creating the vehicle.  The
drunk was at fault for acting the way he did.  Same goes for viruses, and virus
authors.  Don't place the blame on the wrong party.  There is a strong
difference between creation and abuse.

Next time you ponder the legality of virus writing, think about this.  You
wouldn't want cars banned just because a few people don't handle them
responsibly.  Attack the criminal, not the creator.  And NEVER take away a
person's right to create.
                                --DecimatoR
                                  Phalcon/Skism

Author's Note:

This article is dedicated to the members of the ARCV, a England based group of
virus authors, who were arrested, jailed, and had their equipment confiscated,
simply because they chose to express themselves through the creation of self-
replicating code.  This is also dedicated to the man arested by Scotland Yard
on December 10th, for advertising to sell virus code in the UK.

I hope to God that NEVER would ANYONE in America need to fear for their
freedom, simply because they chose to program a computer or sell public domain
code.