The Internet Virus--A Commentary

[Der Tynan]

In article <17533 at adm.BRL.MIL>, drears at ardec.arpa (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) writes:
>   These is no question that what the "wormer" did is wrong.  The
> question is was it illegal?  I don't think so.  Most laws on the
> books (federal & state) talk about destruction of data or
> unauthorized access.  He did not (to my knowledge) destroy any data.
> He access was authorized, implied maybe but still authorized.
> 
> 	o)  sendmail -  The sendmail daemon accepted the
> transmission and processed it.  Sendmail by definition allows anyone
> to talk to it. How can this be considered unauthorized access?
> 
> Dennis

And using your example, if I log into the TRW credit database as 'root'
(assuming that it runs UN*X), then in effect, no crime has been committed?

	I quote; "Login by definition allows anyone to talk to it.
		  How can this be considered unauthorized access?"

I could take the analogy further, but I don't think it's necessary.  In the
long run, I think it will come down to semantics.  Who has the better
lawyers.  Don't forget also, that NBC would prefer something dramatic in the
TV version, so RTM will probably plead guilty, take a year of community
service (time to write the book), and sell the film rights for $250,000.
						- Der
-- 
	dtynan at zorba.Tynan.COM  (Dermot Tynan @ Tynan Computers)
	{apple,mips,pyramid,uunet}!Tynan.COM!dtynan

 ---  If the Law is for the People, then why do we need Lawyers? ---