On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, David Schwartz wrote: > > > I can't believe anyone honestly considers a "counter-attack" worm the same > > as self-defense. Deadly force, or otherwise normally illegal amounts of > > force, is justified only in defense of your life, or the lives of others, > > your physical well-being, or the physical well-being of others. Defense is > > something done to prevent something from happening, retaliation > > is something > > done in response to a previous act. Furthermore, from what I gather, it's > > not even retaliatory, it's pre-emptive, being a automated worm like CR. In > > any case, it is illegal, and rather morally and ethically > > suspect. Releasing > > yet another worm that attempts unauthorized access to someone's > > machine, and > > then runs code on it is illegal. > > Say someone has left a loaded gun on their lawn, where anyone could pick it > up and shoot it at anything they chose. Is it morally justified to trespass > onto their property to remove and unload the gun? Do you have to wait until > you see a child nearby? Until a child picks up the gun? This isn't about guns and it's not about children. If someone uses a compromised system and does something destructive, it's in the hands of the infected user or his or her company to deal with it. It's not up to you or anyone else to decide what's best for other people's property. > > DS > Regards, Stan -- Stan Bubrouski stanat_private 23 Westmoreland Road, Hingham, MA 02043 Cell: (617) 835-3284
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 07 2001 - 14:24:12 PDT