I find this discussion fascinating and am very glad you brought it up. I might have even enjoyed my computer ethics class more had Melissa hit back then :)

I think that we need to try to extrapolate from our existing laws and situations as much as possible when dealing with computer crimes. However, that may not always be so easy to do. See more below (if you want to :) ).

>For instance, suppose I wrote a virus or two (just to see if I could) and never intended to disemminate them but the 'authorities' discovered them. Would these programs be illegal?

I would liken this to the possession of illegal drugs -- simple possession as opposed to intent to sell. The criminal penalties are less severe for possession than for intent to distribute and I think the same type of thing should be considered in computer crimes. However, in the drug example, it's usually the amount of the drug possessed that determines whether it was simple possession or intent to distribute. That wouldn't work in computer crimes, but something must.

>What if someone stole my PC and then used the viruses I had written? Would I be at fault?

If someone steals your handgun and kills someone with it, are you at fault? I had a handgun once that was stolen. Let me tell you I shagged my butt as quick as I could to the phone and called the Sheriff's office. I didn't want anything done with that gun and them come looking for me. And if someone's writing viruses and putting their name on them -- well maybe they should step out of the gene pool :) :)

>Is it the code that is illegal or the use of it, or just the use of it when it causes damage?

I think this could be likened to possession of a concealed weapon (code being illegal in certain circumstances), attempted murder (use of the code, but no major damages) and murder itself (when the code causes major damages). It may seem rather arbitrary to put a specific level of damage that's called "major" but isn't that the same exact difference between grand theft and simple theft?

>Perhaps, because it is obvious that in the wrong hands a programming language can be a very dangerous tool, we ought to licence and register all programmers and their development tool software and do background and security checks on everyone who wishes to use to a programming language, even if just for recreational purposes. Criminals and psychologically unstable people need not apply.

I could perhaps be convinced of this in time. I mean we license doctors for the safety of the public. And we license attorneys (although it's debatable whether that's for the good of the public or a private good ole' boys network that they want to keep membership limited). But on first glance I am adamantly against the licensing as stated. I think it would have to be much, much more carefully crafted (as I'm sure you would have done were you trying to make an actual law of it :) ). I mean, for instance... I can't practice medicine because I'm not a doctor. But I can perform most first aid and don't need a license for that. Heavy duty programming, sure... license it. In fact, license anyone that makes a living as a programmer (maybe). But the casual user? I think that's a bit of overkill.

Besides, we just can't stop every bad thing from happening in this world. Look at Ted Kazinsky (sp?). Should we have had a license required to send mail just because of one crazy fool? No, while I'm open to argument, right now I'm against licensure of programming. Keep the government out of my business and let me keep my freedom to learn.

>I don't condone viruses, I just don't feel comfortable that we understand what the real crime is and know how to deal with it appropriately.

I agree with you 100% there. And let me say once again, thank you for this discussion. It is absolutely fascinating!