Hi Ron;

Some people might say the dog owner isn't responsible if he took every precaution to keep the dog fenced in (because it was dangerous) and it was beyond his control that the dog got out.

I think I might possibly agree with your statement on viruses - I feel that anyone that makes a virus just for fun or for improper intentions should be fined - but I don't believe that is the case today.

What would the rules be? How would the law define the code that is *BAD* and subject to prosecution?

The better course, I think, is if you think someone has done you damage, sue them. It's a civil offense, not criminal.

Maybe in some macabre way, the virus writers of the world are helping to point out the weaknesses and deficiencies in our systems. I'm not suggesting they are providing a public service but the ideas and thought that has been provoked does have some value.


>What if you put this virus in terms of dogs and humans. we train a dog to be mean and to attack people, but we will always keep the dog fenced in. no problem, right? well the mail man opens the fence and lets the dog out, now this mean dog is going to attack everyone it sees. do we fine the dog owner because he trained the dog or do we put down the dog? right now we do both which is the way it should be. what about the people that this dog has attacked, they have damage done to them and what if it was a child? I feel that anyone that makes a virus just for fun or for improper intentions should be fined.
>
>just my opinion
>
>Ron