Bill Frantz sez: + + If lawmakers are to come up with a rational law, a big if, they will have + to differentiate between a bug in a "tame" worm which lets it get loose as + a virus, and a virus which was meant to be destructive from the get go. + And then they will have to decide what to do about the virus that was + designed to write, "Hi Mom!" on as many screens as possible with no + malicious damage, and bugs in it. 18 USC 1030(a)(5) makes such a distinction, treating intentional harm more severely than releasing a virus "with reckless disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk" of harm. The latter is only a misdemeanor; the former, a felony. The statute didn't always make this distinction. In fact, it was the RTM case -- brought under the former felony-only version of the statute -- that inspired the 1994 amendment dividing the offense into two separate offenses. -- Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schreiben. Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.com