6 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
Well, that puts legislation making virus authoring a crime into a new (and difficult) position. Mark ___ Mark Neely - accessnt@ozemail.com.au Lawyer, Internet Consultant, Professional Cynic Author: Australian Beginner's Guide to the Internet Work-in-Progress: Australian Business Guide to the Internet WWW: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~accessnt
On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Mark Neely wrote: > Well, that puts legislation making virus authoring a crime > into a new (and difficult) position. For that matter, is issuing unix and tcp/ip commands an act of speech even when cracking into someone else's computer? (I realize this might be made moot by having to read the output and violating the target's privacy, but then the act of cracking, in itself, might only require commands standard on all machine, that also have standard and therefore predictable responses, entailing no privacy loss.)
s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca writes: > For that matter, is issuing unix and tcp/ip commands an act of speech > even when cracking into someone else's computer? Standing in front of a voice activated gun pointed at someone and shouting "fire" is still an act of murder. The issue is whether you have intent to kill, or break in, or whatever, not whether or not you speak. Pulling on my index finger isn't a crime either, unless there is a trigger in front of the finger, and the trigger is attached to a gun aimed at someone, and I know what I'm doing. Normally, however, pulling back on my index finger is no crime at all. This is why it can be a crime to conspire to commit murder even though speech is protected. .pm
On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Mark Neely wrote: > Well, that puts legislation making virus authoring a crime > into a new (and difficult) position. On the other hand, a virus is malicious speech, no? Sorta like libel or fraud. You said bad and untrue things to the victim's computer and the dimwitted OS believed it. Also this is impersonation. You spoke words that led the OS to think that you were a legit user and, having its gained trust on false grounds, it lets you do malicious things. So is misrepresentation also constitutional? (Not like I need this answered ;-> )
s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca wrote:
> On the other hand, a virus is malicious speech, no? Sorta like libel or
> fraud. You said bad and untrue things to the victim's computer and the
> dimwitted OS believed it.
Not when I wrote the virus I didn't.
______c_____________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX * pain is inevitable
m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com *
<URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> * suffering is optionalMark Neely writes: > Well, that puts legislation making virus authoring a crime > into a new (and difficult) position. Its not in any worse a position than laws outlawing conspiracy to commit murder. The crime is not (and must not be!) in writing the virus, which can be a perfectly innocent act -- the crime is in writing and taking active steps to use it as a weapon. > > Mark > ___ > Mark Neely - accessnt@ozemail.com.au > Lawyer, Internet Consultant, Professional Cynic > Author: Australian Beginner's Guide to the Internet > Work-in-Progress: Australian Business Guide to the Internet > WWW: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~accessnt > >