CompuServe Thread

#Ethics vs. Sex on CDROMs

13 messages in this thread
#48657From: Rich Bowers/OPAMay 18, 1993 5:03 PM
Jan: I was away for a long day of travelling/airplane/fiascos, so I apologize for the delay in my response. I agree with Nick, I can't believe this could cause you any problem at all. At minimum, it appears the publisher called _himself_ a porn dealer, not the reviewer! While the dirty pictures might be disturbing, I'm most concerned about the "Trojan Horse" business. Is there any kind of legitimate reason for distributing this kind of thing? It scrambles the FAT? Is this something that pc users like to do of a Saturday evening (you crazy kids 'ya-!)? Are these types of things commonly available on shareware disc? If so, how are they announced/billboarded usually? I would think it bad policy to distribute anything of this nature because it can have no real purpose other than cause damage. This kind of thing deserves to be regulated, just as ATF regulates those who can sell dynamite or nitro. (Well, if you can make an analogy of bubonic plague on hamburgers…!). I have thought for sometime about developing a CDROM publishers code of ethics to which the industry could contribute and subscribe. It would seem to me that delivering a harmful program would float to the top of such a list. Tell me more! – Best – Rich
#48783From: JAN SCHWENKMay 19, 1993 9:48 PM
Rich, I'm not worried about a lawsuit, it's just the unmitigated gall (Lt. Worf's appreciation of same not withstanding) that get's my goat. Talk about sticking one's head in the sand! I think you are being overly kind, however, in what you allow the publisher to call himself. A "porn dealer" is what he is and admits it (laughing all the way to the bank). To distribute smut, and especially Torjan Horses and to deny it, or at least not advertise the fact is far more insideous! By the way, I had heard that there is a concerted international effort to develop a line of viruses for the MAC platform. Why should PC users have ALL the fun! (Just joking, of course, I hope you MAC guys never have the experience – in fact I'm shopping for a MAC right now, probably a CENTRIS, and yes, it is because all my MAC friends wont let me get any sleep). I believe there is a Federal Law against putting a virus or Trojan Horse on someone else's computer. I know the Feds don't like it when someone sticks one on (in?) one of theirs. I would assume that just about any judge would construe distributing a disc with one on it in less than favorable terms. Your analogy of selling nitro is appropriate. Unfortunately, yes, viruses do creep into all sorts of things. I know of at least two major software companies that have been contaminated and the speed with which they reacted leads me to think they were intending to cover far more than just their reputation. There is a book on the market, called, I believe, "The Little Black Book" that will teach you how to write these things. The newer versions are really something, very clever, very thorough in their destructive capacity, very difficult to detect or remove, and right up there will mass murder. Internet has been the entre for many, (this is the five year anniversary of "THE CUCKOO'S NEST", a neat book on the topic. Oh, yes, just to make your day – I've heard there is a CD-ROM version of "The Little Black Book" out now. Rgds Jan
#48839From: Nick ArnettMay 20, 1993 11:23 AM
Jan, There are plenty of Mac viruses, believe me. This guy should, as you and Rich point out, be more concerned about his legal exposure for distributing a Trojan Horse, than about your review. It certainly is illegal to knowingly distribute software that will damage a computer like that… I'm not sure that disclosure of it will cover his butt or not. Nick
#48906From: JAN SCHWENKMay 21, 1993 7:38 AM
Nick, Sorry to hear Mac has it's share (I am in the process of buying a Mac). The sale of the disc with the virus has been reported to authorities – they are deciding if they have the time to do anything about it. I will keep you advised. Rgds Jan
#48879From: Bruce CichowlasMay 20, 1993 10:04 PM
I've got to wonder whether the legal "attractive nuisance" theory would apply to those trojan programs on the CD-ROM. -bc-
#48907From: JAN SCHWENKMay 21, 1993 7:38 AM
Bruce, Please explain the theory. Rgds Jan
#48982From: Bruce CichowlasMay 22, 1993 12:03 PM
Here are my impressions of "attractive nuisance" theory. I'm not an attorney. If some legal beagle spots this and wants to correct me, so much the better. My understanding: If you have a swimming pool in your yard and there is no fence around it (or the gate's not locked) and there is no cover over it, some person could wander onto your property, fool around and drown, or maybe crack their skull if the pool wasn't filled. (Similarly, you might have some other hazard which would tempt passers-by.) As I understand it, even though these people were trespassing, you are still, at least in part, responsible, because you provided an "attractive nuisance". I don't know how much it matters if the person is a minor, but in your case the CD-ROM user could be a minor just as easily. The analogy that occurs to me is that the CD-ROM seller is providing an insidious trouble-making program, all ready to run, on the CD-ROM. This seems to be to be an "attractive nuisance", all set to cause trouble for an unsuspecting user or even one casually fooling around. Even if it is labelled as a "trojan", I think the theory still applies, because the swimming pool wasn't disguising itself either. Its hazards were clearly visible, just as the "trojan's" would be if it labelled itself as such. Another, possibly separate, analogy occurs to me. There is the classic case of protecting one's property be setting a gun to go off if the door is opened. It isn't a valid legal defense against killing or injuring the trespasser to say that they didn't belong there or that signs were posted (as I understand it). A "trojan" program with a warning seems, to me, to be a lot like that loaded gun with a warning sign outside. Maybe they'd have something to say in the legal forum… -bc-
#48967From: JAN SCHWENKMay 22, 1993 9:20 AM
Hi Jim! Knowing your publishing background and experience, I'm sure that you are right. I don't want to hurt this guy or his company. Nor do I want him to hurt me or mine. I keep coming back to a situation that I face every day, and I am still a lot confused – maybe you can help me find an answer. As you know, I live on a ranch in the boon-docks of Texas. We have lots of wild life around here. Two days ago, a fawn came into our backyard. I have a pet wolf. I enjoy watching the red-tailed hawks hunt rabbits and mice. My idea of being close to paradise (Texas, and all that). We also have rattle snakes and copperheads. They have as much "right" to live as I do. When we cross paths, I don't want to kill them but I am very much afraid that one might get stepped on by my wife, my grandchildren, or even me. They bite and they are deadly. So when I meet them, I kill them, even if I do regret it. I know I am intruding into their world–they were here long before me. I want to coexist peacefully but they probably don't understand the concept. So I become the aggressor and kill on sight. Sort of like writing reviews, isn't it? Rgds Jan
#49041From: Rich Bowers/OPAMay 23, 1993 9:36 PM
Jan: I can appreciate your analogy, but truthfully I'm still working on the idea of "paradise" and "in the boon-docks of Texas" in the same paragraph <G>! Hope to see you in Atlanta! Best – Rich
#49067From: JAN SCHWENKMay 24, 1993 8:10 AM
Rich, Thanks for the note. Shall I send you a collection of good country music that PROVES Texas is as close to paradise as a non-Texan can get? Happily, though, if you're willing to move to Texas and do pennance for about fifty years, learn how and when to say "y'all", and call your father "Daddy", you may be admitted to the fold. Sorry, I wont be able to meet you in Atlanta. I just can't bear to leave Texas, even for just a few days! Rgds Jan
#49212From: Rich Bowers/OPAMay 25, 1993 11:25 PM
Jan: Next time I'd appreciate a little warning – a chance to ge my high boots on (or is it "owwn"). Now, let's see, do the pants legs stay outside, or get tucked in? A whole new set of fashion issues to deal with! Best – Rich
#49237From: JAN SCHWENKMay 26, 1993 7:56 AM
Rich, Aw, common! Its "en", just like its "erl", and you left one "o" out of "booots". Girls tuck them in, boys don't. Saw a neat tee-shirt on what appeared to be a senior bank president as a Bar-B-Que: It had a picture of a mangy cowboy on skis, flies buzzing round his head. The caption: "If God had intended for Texans to ski, he'd made B.S. white!" Part of the fun in being a Texan is being able to laugh at oneself. A little town near where I live has the sign: Welcome to XXXXX! Now, GIT OUT! Rgds Jan
#49287From: Rich Bowers/OPAMay 26, 1993 9:04 PM
Jan: ROFL! I'm going to have to appropriate that sign for my office! Take care – Rich