Ban Virus writers from owning a PC? 3

[GwydionM]

In know this idea cuts across the libertarian ideals of lots of computer people. But these ideas have not worked: people will be irresponsible or selfish, especially when there is money to be made. And the more people get away with morally bad behaviour, the more others will copy.

From past debates, I assume people will complain that
a) It won't get rid of the crime
b) Innocents might possibly be punished.
But that's also true of existing laws against dangerous driving - which does result in driving bans, though maybe not enough. It applies to existing laws against murder, blackmail, rape, burglary, would you like to be without those laws?

You could also have a ban on owning virus-writing tools, and distributing them, with special licences for anti-Virus companies.

(Though I can's help suspecting that it is the less scrupulous of the anti-Virus companies who wrote some of the stuff, drumming up business in the way the author of the Sassor worm is said to have been doing. Still, it would help to remove the background of 'pranksters' who find it funny to inflict misery on strangers.)

------------------
A view from the UK

 

[jrbarnett]

In theory, its a good idea, but unfortunately because of the following reasons, it is not really feasible, partly for the reasons you have already mentioned, but also:

1. If any individual is banned from using a computer, it will make it far more difficult for them to legitimately use public services, which are now increasing their online content and availability.

2. Any ban is only as good as those who obey court orders. There are significant numbers of people who drive whilst disqualified and get caught. The same sort of thing would have to be in place. Because no license is required to use a computer, the possibility of getting caught is that much lower.

One important point though: Any such ban would have to be on computer usage rather than owning, because otherwise somebody could rent or borrow one, or use a public computer in a library or internet cafe, for example, and still comply with the restriction.

Any legislation would also have to specify the sort of computer for which usage was banned though, otherwise anybody found guilty would find themselves unable to play on their Playstations, use devices with integrated electronics (digital watches, modern car ignition systems, electronic control systems used in other tools/technical equipment - eg microwave ovens, motor vehicle engine management control equipment) etc.

As for the virus writing tools, we may just as well ban the use of every text editor and compiler, because although any editor could be used to write virus or spyware code, this is the exception rather than the rule and as such is very heavy handed.

John

 

[DrJavaJoe]

If someone writes a virus and releases it, they should be locked up for a long, long time. If they are locked up they should not have access to a computer.

"Two strings walk into a bar. The first string says to the bartender: 'Bartender, I'll have a beer. u.5n$x5t?*&4ru!2[sACC~ErJ'. The second string says: 'Pardon my friend, he isn't NULL terminated'."

 

[chiph]

As a Libertarian, I take another approach -- those who release viruses into the wild must make whole those whom they've harmed. The people who were damaged by the virus have a natural right to collect damages from the writer (or their parents if they haven't reached the age of majority).

If they're busy paying damages, they won't be able to afford a computer or so much as a dial-up account.

Chip H.


If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[ANFPS26]

Any ban is only as good as those who obey court orders

There's the rub. We have a large group in the world that thinks that laws don't apply to them. Laws do nothing but keep an honest man honest.

Jim

 

[jrbarnett]

chiph

Again, a good idea to force the virus writers to fix their mistakes, but what sane network administrator is going to let a convicted virus writer anywhere near their network, even for the purpose of clearing it up?

John

 

[DrJavaJoe]

I think taking a sledge hammer and breaking big rocks into little rocks would be a good first step in having them fix there mistakes.

"Two strings walk into a bar. The first string says to the bartender: 'Bartender, I'll have a beer. u.5n$x5t?*&4ru!2[sACC~ErJ'. The second string says: 'Pardon my friend, he isn't NULL terminated'."

 

[chiph]

But your honor, I can't afford to pay all those people back!"

"Better get a job or two, then."

Chip H.


____________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please read FAQ222-2244 first

 

[sleipnir214]

chiph:
Given, as jrbarnett has said, that no sysadmin worth his salt is going to let a convicted virus-writer anywhere near his network, and given that there is no way a virus writer, unless he is the heir to some fortune, will be able to make the slightest dent in reparations, I don't see what the point would be, other than indefinite punishment.

jrbarnett:
Loss of access to digital resources looks to me like a very good object lesson. After all, that's what their virii did -- prevent legitimate users of digital resources from accessing those resources.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[DrJavaJoe]

So what is being proposed is little or no jail time and taking away of their access to computers or digital items? To me there is little differnce in the person who intentionally starts a forest fire and a virus writer, they cause wide spread damage. Maybe the virus writer isn't risking lives but they are costing the world lot's of money. In either case they should both be doing hard time.

"Two strings walk into a bar. The first string says to the bartender: 'Bartender, I'll have a beer. u.5n$x5t?*&4ru!2[sACC~ErJ'. The second string says: 'Pardon my friend, he isn't NULL terminated'."

 

[SGTRawlins]

Admittedly the inconvenience caused by virus scripter’s is a very large issue however, these people are creatively minded, they will continue to create scripts irrespective of any punishment. If anything viri (is that the plural?) aid the global IT effort to secure their systems.

Their are far worse things in this world than virus writers, virus's merely illuminate the discrepancies in our systems, closing the golden gates for the likes of hackers.

In my personal opinion these creative intellect’s are our saving grace.......the world is just ignorant to that!

 

[lionelhill]

No, DrJavaJoe! A virus writer IS risking lives. That's one of the reasons why they're the pits. If a coastguard/ambulance service computer system goes up the creek because of a virus writer, then their work is compromised, and their work is (partly) saving lives.
The trouble with viri is that you have no idea what effect they're going to have until let out. Ethically you have to assume the worst, and not write them. Otherwise you're the sort of person who values his/her vanity above someone else's life. And that's not good.

 

[lionelhill]

Sorry to be a bit harsh there - nothing personal intended about anyone in this thread. I just feel virus writers get away with acceptance through a sort of "well, it's only bucks from microsoft and they can afford it" attitude, which is not really fair.

 

[jrbarnett]

Short of a 24x7 surveillance operation, I can't think of a way of enforcing such a ban on use of computers or other
digital information sources.

Has anybody here any bright ideas on how to enforce this, short of locking them up?

John

 

[hilfy]

Unfortunately, even locking them up may not keep them away from computers - many prisons here in the US provide computers and web access in their libraries. Since you can't prevent a prisoner from accessing the law library in search of information that may help in their appeals, etc., you're probably not going to be able to ban access to a computer and the web.

-D

 

[Dimandja]

The name of this thread should be changed to "Rant".

Did I hear someone say computers don't create viruses, people do?...

Shall we mount a campaign to ferret out freckled teens armed with Windows XP, Notepad and a broadband connection?

 

[sleipnir214]

hilfy:
At the very least, if the virus author does disseminate a virus from computers while in jail, you'll be able to find him easily.


Dimanja:
I don't understand or even see the point you're trying to make.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[Dimandja]

sleipnir214,

I am laughing (tongue in cheek) at many of the suggestions made in this thread: banning computers, software, etc... I can't help but see this exercise as a rant against virus maker (whom, by the way, I don't sympathize with).

 

[jsteph]

...ban virus writers from owning a computer?

...well, for drugs, not only did they ban owning--but also selling, using, making, transporting, and distributing drugs.

How's that ban working out?
--jsteph

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

While this has been done in a select few cases its has been done in the context of conditions of parole. They should still be doing hard time.

SGTRawlins - I have to say I'm shocked. Many viruses and worms are the hackers you say they are protecting us agianst. I guess you don't mind if someone breaks into your house, steals all your valueable, piles up your cloths on the floor and @#$%s all over them because you know....in the end they are protecting you from that serial killer from using the same method to get into your house as they did because you'll surely put a strong lock on your door or put bars over your windows. So next time you get broken into tell the cops not to bother looking or prosecuting because that thief may save your life.

GwydionM - As I stated just sentense them as if they stole the amount of money they've wasted....heck do it for 1/10th the amount. Many of the worm writers could be put in prison for life with a small team of lawers doing their appeals for that amount. And.....honestly I don't think any virus protection company releases their own viruses. That is a bit consperacy (spelling?) theory to me. Its not worth the risk. There are plenty of viruses out there fueling their business. Two it probably won't bring them in any more business, their competitors are just as likely to get the customer. And finally if they are exposed they are out of business.

Hope I've been helpful,
Wayne Francis

If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first