Bruce Marshall writes:
On Mon, 22 Apr 1996, Mark Aldrich wrote:
The term "virus" connotes a pathogenic quality in the mind of many. Unfortunately, this tendency continues in the use of the word 'virus' within our community.
Personally, I can see many useful functions for viruses. But I find the viruses that simply destroy data--which tends to be the majority--to be quite boring and childish. A non-destructive and innovative virus is very interesting and comparable to any good software hack in my eyes.
While I understand that "intent" is something with which lawyers have to contend when they defend or prosecute a case, I don't think that the notion of intent to commit harm extrapolates correctly into the field of virus writing.
O.W. Holmes suggested out in "The Common Law" that the law delineates a certain minimum level of competence in forseeing the outcomes of our actions which all members of society are expected to attain. We'll hold you responsible for actions a "reasonable person" should have avoided because of their danger. As such, persons with limited training in manipulating biological viruses are expected to avoid doing so. Individuals *with* training are expected to take adequate precautions to avoid their spread. I see no reason why electronic viruses shouldn't be treated similarly. If you're going to write them, you *better* take steps to prevent their release, or you are liable for the damages.