bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (01/19/90)
In article <3985@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> doug@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Douglas W O'neal) writes: In article <BOB.90Jan17124428@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: In article <77443@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a "virus"... Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium."... Careful - it's still only *allegedly* Morris' program. Nothing has been proven in court... Quoted from the Baltimore Sun (1/18/90) (without permission): During the five days of testimony in the case, neither the prosecution nor the defense has disputed that Mr. Morris loosed a computer worm. I think that if Morris' lawyer accepts that it was Morris' program, then it is probably safe for us to do so to. Fair enough. I hadn't heard that Morris' association with the worm was undisputed. I'll take off my Civil Libertarian hat now :-)
schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) (01/20/90)
In article <BOB.90Jan18191618@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >In article <3985@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> doug@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Douglas W O'neal) writes: >> In article <BOB.90Jan17124428@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >>> In article <77443@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>>> While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a >>>> "virus"... Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium."... >>> >>> Careful - it's still only *allegedly* Morris' program. Nothing >>> has been proven in court... >> >> Quoted from the Baltimore Sun (1/18/90) (without permission): >> During the five days of testimony in the case, neither the >> prosecution nor the defense has disputed that Mr. Morris >> loosed a computer worm. >> >> I think that if Morris' lawyer accepts that it was Morris' program, >> then it is probably safe for us to do so to. > >Fair enough. I hadn't heard that Morris' association with the worm >was undisputed. I'll take off my Civil Libertarian hat now :-) According to CNN last night, Morris to the stand for the first time yesterday, and acknowledged that the 'worm' was his. While not commenting on the law itself, I am a little confused on this. This may be an overly simple question, but since no one seems to be disputing what happened (as far as where the 'worm' came from), what exactly is the crime that Morris has been charged with? (ie., what is the prosecution trying to prove to the jury?) Is it an issue of 'damage' to the Internet or host computers? Is it an issue of unauthorized access? This is, without a doubt, a precedent setting case, but somewhere along the line, I managed to lose track of the alleged crime involved. Anyone out there care to amplify/comment on this? Jeff Schweiger -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger CompuServe: 74236,1645 Standard Disclaimer ARPAnet (Defense Data Network): schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************