jasmerb@mist.CS.ORST.EDU (Bryce Jasmer) (07/15/89)
I was reading an article in the July 11, 1989 issue of MacWeek about
a disk that Apple had sent to dealers that was infected with nVIR.
The article said, "[your disks] should be checked with a commercial
antiviral program such as..."
I can't believe that they suggested use of commercial programs to fight
viruses. Selling a product to fight viruses seems like the most
unethical thing a programmer could do. (And for MacWeek to suggest
such a product is another story.) What has happened to our ethics?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|"The problem that I find most distressing is that
Bryce Jasmer | people tend to make sweeping generalizations. We
jasmerb@hobbes.cs.orst.edu | all are guilty of this."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (07/15/89)
In article <11648@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> jasmerb@mist.CS.ORST.EDU (Bryce Jasmer) writes: >I can't believe that they suggested use of commercial programs to fight >viruses. Selling a product to fight viruses seems like the most You've never paid for a vacination at the doctors, you get all your shots for free??? Who's your doctor?? I'll go to him. >unethical thing a programmer could do. (And for MacWeek to suggest >such a product is another story.) What has happened to our ethics? I don't see/agree with your point. They are simply selling a product to protect the computing public from the doings of a few mentally unstable people. Securtity systems in the home are a similar example. It would be nice if people made these programs availible for free, Virus RX from Apple is an excellent example, but there's only so many resources the industry and individual's at large can "donate" for the common good, at some point someone needs to get paid for their professional skills. -- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|///////////////////////////////////////// David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu | God doesn't know, he would have never designed it like that in the first | |_ place. ____________________________________________________________________|
mha@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Mark H. Anbinder) (07/16/89)
In article <11648@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> jasmerb@mist.CS.ORST.EDU (Bryce Jasmer) writes: >I was reading an article in the July 11, 1989 issue of MacWeek about >a disk that Apple had sent to dealers that was infected with nVIR. >The article said, "[your disks] should be checked with a commercial >antiviral program such as..." >I can't believe that they suggested use of commercial programs to fight >viruses. Selling a product to fight viruses seems like the most >unethical thing a programmer could do. (And for MacWeek to suggest >such a product is another story.) What has happened to our ethics? I disagree with you on two points. The first is that it is wrong to sell a product to fight viruses. Programmers put their time and energy into many kinds of products that we use to make our work easier. Why should they NOT get paid? Antiviral software is just another kind of utility. Of course some programmers choose to make their software available for others to use free of charge. This is true of antiviral software as well as other types. Robert Woodhead released Interferon, and John Norstad released Disinfectant, and Don Brown released Vaccine, so that people COULD have virus protection without paying for it. That's no reason for good programmers (including Robert, now with the commercial Virex program) NOT to get some return on their efforts. As for MacWeek suggesting a commercial program... there are so many antiviral programs out in the world right now that it's hard to be sure which programs are solid and stable and which might be more dangerous than the viruses they are supposed to be preventing or removing. MacWeek chose to specify the commerical programs, such as Virex and SAM, because that gives the user the confidence that the program they are using is relatively safe to use. An uneducated user might not be able to tell the difference between a safe free program like Disinfectant and some less- safe free program. Someone else has pointed out already that buying antiviral software is comparable to buying innoculations against biological diseases. There's nothing wrong with either. -- Mark H. Anbinder ************************** mha@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu Baka Industries ** (biar!)memory!mha.uucp 200 Pleasant Grove Rd. H: (607) 257-7587 ******** Ithaca, NY 14850 W: (607) 257-2070 ******* "It's not safe out here." Q
heberlei@iris.ucdavis.edu (Todd) (07/17/89)
In article <11648@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> jasmerb@mist.CS.ORST.EDU (Bryce Jasmer) writes: >I can't believe that they suggested use of commercial programs to fight >viruses. Selling a product to fight viruses seems like the most >unethical thing a programmer could do. (And for MacWeek to suggest >such a product is another story.) What has happened to our ethics? > >Bryce Jasmer | people tend to make sweeping generalizations. We >jasmerb@hobbes.cs.orst.edu | all are guilty of this." The ethics question should first be addressed to the people who write the viruses! Does anyone know if any virus writers have ever been caught and prosecuted? Here are a few (completely unfounded) suspects for virus writers (please take this as purely tongue in cheek): * software houses - if there is a good public domain package out there that competes with your product (ie. Disinfectant vs Virex:-), wouldn't you want to discredit the public domain arena. That is, if you could convince everyone that free software is VERY DANGEROUS, they may pay the bucks for you software. * software sellers (including software houses) - If your business is hurting because people are using pirated software, you could distribute pirated software with viruses. If ethics won't stop a person from copying software, maybe a virus will. Convince people that pirated software is dangerous, and maybe people will buy the originals. (I believe this was the motivation for the creators of the Pakastani Virus) * sellers of virus protection software - Create a problem then sell the solution. On the serious side, I find it terribly sad that talented people would spend their time creating viruses. Even if the virus is benign (sp?), someone else will probably mutate it into something dangereous. -Todd
d88-jwa@nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte) (07/18/89)
In article <4900@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> heberlei@iris.ucdavis.edu (Todd) writes: >The ethics question should first be addressed to the people who write >the viruses! Does anyone know if any virus writers have ever been Hear, hear !! >Here are a few (completely unfounded) suspects for virus writers >(please take this as purely tongue in cheek): >* software houses - if there is a good public domain package out there And if they got caught in the act or a leak (they would) noone'd buy their programs. >* software sellers (including software houses) - If your business is So when the word gets out their stock crashes to about $0.03 >* sellers of virus protection software - Create a problem then sell It just MIGHT be that way. Maybe. Not possibly, of course. >On the serious side, I find it terribly sad that talented people would Oh, I see. But talented ? My experience with virus makers (no first-hand, but with that kind of people) is that it's Kobolds in the teens who want to get famous and well-known and see their "feat" talked about. They are NOT that talented, since then they would a) Have better things to do (and get paid for ?) b) Hide their viras much better (I could think of a few ways, none of which I'll tell anyone of course) This is, of course, just MY view of things. Take it or leave it. -- __ Jon W{tte (The dread Smiley Shark) email:h+@nada.kth.se / \ (+46 (0) 8 258 268) /--- (c) 1989 Yessbox Allright Professional Products Inc. - Y.A.P.P.I. / -- No More --