At 03:28 PM 4/22/96 -0400, Mark Aldrich <maldrich@grctechs.va.grci.com> wrote: [snip]

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.

Intent may not even be a necessary part of a "computer crime" case. Here in Oregon, Randal Schwartz's case was the first test (I believe) of the state's vague computer crime law. Proving that Randal had malicious intent wasn't part of the prosecution's case, AFAIK -- only that he had altered data "without authorization." Given that viewpoint, I can easily picture a virus author getting busted here even if they didn't have intent to commit harm. The O'Reilly book _Computer Crime_ (by Icove, Seger & VonStorch) has a discussion of US federal law in these areas and the state computer crime laws. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause