Great Tutorials For All: 03/01/2008

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Caught A Virus?

If you've let your guard down--or even if you haven't--it can be hard to tell if your PC is infected. Here's what to do if you suspect the worst.

Heard this one before? You must run antivirus software and keep it up to date or else your PC will get infected, you'll lose all your data, and you'll incur the wrath of every e-mail buddy you unknowingly infect because of your carelessness.

You know they're right. Yet for one reason or another, you're not running antivirus software, or you are but it's not up to date. Maybe you turned off your virus scanner because it conflicted with another program. Maybe you got tired of upgrading after you bought Norton Antivirus 2001, 2002, and 2003. Or maybe your annual subscription of virus definitions recently expired, and you've put off renewing.

It happens. It's nothing to be ashamed of. But chances are, either you're infected right now, as we speak, or you will be very soon.

For a few days in late January, the Netsky.p worm was infecting about 2,500 PCs a day. Meanwhile the MySQL bot infected approximately 100 systems a minute (albeit not necessarily desktop PCs). As David Perry, global director of education for security software provider Trend Micro, puts it, "an unprotected [Windows] computer will become owned by a bot within 14 minutes."

Today's viruses, worms, and so-called bots--which turn your PC into a zombie that does the hacker's bidding (such as mass-mailing spam)--aren't going to announce their presence. Real viruses aren't like the ones in Hollywood movies that melt down whole networks in seconds and destroy alien spacecraft. They operate in the background, quietly altering data, stealing private operations, or using your PC for their own illegal ends. This makes them hard to spot if you're not well protected.

Is Your PC "Owned?"

I should start by saying that not every system oddity is due to a virus, worm, or bot. Is your system slowing down? Is your hard drive filling up rapidly? Are programs crashing without warning? These symptoms are more likely caused by Windows, or badly written legitimate programs, rather than malware. After all, people who write malware want to hide their program's presence. People who write commercial software put icons all over your desktop. Who's going to work harder to go unnoticed?

Other indicators that may, in fact, indicate that there's nothing that you need to worry about, include:

* An automated e-mail telling you that you're sending out infected mail. E-mail viruses and worms typically come from faked addresses.
* A frantic note from a friend saying they've been infected, and therefore so have you. This is likely a hoax. It's especially suspicious if the note tells you the virus can't be detected but you can get rid of it by deleting one simple file. Don't be fooled--and don't delete that file.

I'm not saying that you should ignore such warnings. Copy the subject line or a snippet from the body of the e-mail and plug it into your favorite search engine to see if other people have received the same note. A security site may have already pegged it as a hoax.

Sniffing Out an Infection

There are signs that indicate that your PC is actually infected. A lot of network activity coming from your system (when you're not actually using Internet) can be a good indicator that something is amiss. A good software firewall, such as ZoneAlarm, will ask your permission before letting anything leave your PC, and will give you enough information to help you judge if the outgoing data is legitimate. By the way, the firewall that comes with Windows, even the improved version in XP Service Pack 2, lacks this capability.

To put a network status light in your system tray, follow these steps: In Windows XP, choose Start, Control Panel, Network Connections, right-click the network connection you want to monitor, choose Properties, check "Show icon in notification area when connected," and click OK.

If you're interested in being a PC detective, you can sniff around further for malware. By hitting Ctrl-Alt-Delete in Windows, you'll bring up the Task Manager, which will show you the various processes your system is running. Most, if not all, are legit, but if you see a file name that looks suspicious, type it into a search engine and find out what it is.

Want another place to look? In Windows XP, click Start, Run, type "services.msc" in the box, and press Enter. You'll see detailed descriptions of the services Windows is running. Something look weird? Check with your search engine.

Finally, you can do more detective work by selecting Start, Run, and typing "msconfig" in the box. With this tool you not only see the services running, but also the programs that your system is launching at startup. Again, check for anything weird.

If any of these tools won't run--or if your security software won't run--that in itself is a good sign your computer is infected. Some viruses intentionally disable such programs as a way to protect themselves.

What to Do Next

Once you're fairly sure your system is infected, don't panic. There are steps you can take to assess the damage, depending on your current level of protection.

* If you don't have any antivirus software on your system (shame on you), or if the software has stopped working, stay online and go for a free scan at one of several Web sites. There's McAfee FreeScan, Symantec Security Check, and Trend Micro's HouseCall. If one doesn't find anything, try two. In fact, running a free online virus scan is a good way to double-check the work of your own local antivirus program. When you're done, buy or download a real antivirus program.
* If you have antivirus software, but it isn't active, get offline, unplug wires-- whatever it takes to stop your computer from communicating via the Internet. Then, promptly perform a scan with the installed software.
* If nothing seems to be working, do more research on the Web. There are several online virus libraries where you can find out about known viruses. These sites often provide instructions for removing viruses--if manual removal is possible--or a free removal tool if it isn't. Check out GriSOFT's Virus Encyclopedia, Eset's Virus Descriptions, McAffee's Virus Glossary, Symantec's Virus Encyclopedia, or Trend Micro's Virus Encyclopedia.

A Microgram of Prevention

Assuming your system is now clean, you need to make sure it stays that way. Preventing a breach of your computer's security is far more effective than cleaning up the mess afterwards. Start with a good security program, such Trend Micro's PC-Cillin, which you can buy for $50.

Don't want to shell out any money? You can cobble together security through free downloads, such as AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition, ZoneAlarm (a personal firewall), and Ad-Aware SE (an antispyware tool).

Just make sure you keep all security software up to date. The bad guys constantly try out new ways to fool security programs. Any security tool without regular, easy (if not automatic) updates isn't worth your money or your time.

Speaking of updating, the same goes for Windows. Use Windows Update (it's right there on your Start Menu) to make sure you're getting all of the high priority updates. If you run Windows XP, make sure to get the Service Pack 2 update. To find out if you already have it, right-click My Computer, and select Properties. Under the General tab, under System, it should say "Service Pack 2."

Here are a few more pointers for a virus-free life:

* Be careful with e-mail. Set your e-mail software security settings to high. Don't open messages with generic-sounding subjects that don't apply specifically to you from people you don't know. Don't open an attachment unless you're expecting it.
* If you have broadband Internet access, such as DSL or cable, get a router, even if you only have one PC. A router adds an extra layer of protection because your PC is not connecting directly with the Internet.
* Check your Internet ports. These doorways between your computer and the Internet can be open, in which case your PC is very vulnerable; closed, but still somewhat vulnerable; or stealthed (or hidden), which is safest. Visit Gibson Research's Web site and run the free ShieldsUP test to see your ports' status. If some ports show up as closed--or worse yet, open--check your router's documentation to find out how to hide them.

[+/-]

Change Your Start Button in XP

Step 1 - Modify Explorer.exe File

In order to make the changes, the file explorer.exe located at C:\Windows needs to be edited. Since explorer.exe is a binary file it requires a special editor. For purposes of this article I have used Resource Hacker. Resource HackerTM is a freeware utility to view, modify, rename, add, delete and extract resources in 32bit Windows executables and resource files (*.res). It incorporates an internal resource script compiler and decompiler and works on Microsoft Windows 95/98/ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows XP operating systems.

get this from h**p://delphi.icm.edu.pl/ftp/tools/ResHack.zip

The first step is to make a backup copy of the file explorer.exe located at C:\Windows\explorer. Place it in a folder somewhere on your hard drive where it will be safe. Start Resource Hacker and open explorer.exe located at C:\Windows\explorer.exe.

The category we are going to be using is "String Table". Expand it by clicking the plus sign then navigate down to and expand string 37 followed by highlighting 1033. If you are using the Classic Layout rather than the XP Layout, use number 38. The right hand pane will display the stringtable. We’re going to modify item 578, currently showing the word “start” just as it displays on the current Start button.

There is no magic here. Just double click on the word “start” so that it’s highlighted, making sure the quotation marks are not part of the highlight. They need to remain in place, surrounding the new text that you’ll type. Go ahead and type your new entry. In my case I used Click Me!

You’ll notice that after the new text string has been entered the Compile Script button that was grayed out is now active. I won’t get into what’s involved in compiling a script, but suffice it to say it’s going to make this exercise worthwhile. Click Compile Script and then save the altered file using the Save As command on the File Menu. Do not use the Save command – Make sure to use the Save As command and choose a name for the file. Save the newly named file to C:\Windows.

Step 2 – Modify the Registry

!!!make a backup of your registry before making changes!!!

Now that the modified explorer.exe has been created it’s necessary to modify the registry so the file will be recognized when the user logs on to the system. If you don’t know how to access the registry I’m not sure this article is for you, but just in case it’s a temporary memory lapse, go to Start (soon to be something else) Run and type regedit in the Open field. Navigate to:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\ SOFTWARE\ Microsoft\ Windows NT\ CurrentVersion\ Winlogon

In the right pane, double click the "Shell" entry to open the Edit String dialog box. In Value data: line, enter the name that was used to save the modified explorer.exe file. Click OK.

Close Registry Editor and either log off the system and log back in, or reboot the entire system if that’s your preference. If all went as planned you should see your new Start button with the revised text.[/b]

[+/-]

Change Your Ip In Less Then 1 Minute

[+/-]

COMMON FTP ERROR CODES

~~~~~~~~~COMMON FTP ERROR CODES~~~~~~~~~~

# Description

110 Restart marker reply. In this case, the text is exact and not left to the particular implementation; it must read: MARK yyyy = mmmm where yyyy is User-process data stream marker, and mmmm server's equivalent marker (note the spaces between markers and "=").

120 Service ready in nnn minutes.

125 Data connection already open; transfer starting.

150 File status okay; about to open data connection.

200 Command okay.

202 Command not implemented, superfluous at this site.

211 System status, or system help reply.

212 Directory status.

213 File status.

214 Help message.On how to use the server or the meaning of a particular non-standard command. This reply is useful only to the human user.

215 NAME system type. Where NAME is an official system name from the list in the Assigned Numbers document.

220 Service ready for new user.

221 Service closing control connection.

225 Data connection open; no transfer in progress.

226 Closing data connection. Requested file action successful (for example, file transfer or file abort).

227 Entering Passive Mode (h1,h2,h3,h4,p1,p2).

230 User logged in, proceed. Logged out if appropriate.

250 Requested file action okay, completed.

257 "PATHNAME" created.

331 User name okay, need password.

332 Need account for login.

350 Requested file action pending further information

421 Service not available, closing control connection.This may be a reply to any command if the service knows it must shut down.

425 Can't open data connection.

426 Connection closed; transfer aborted.

450 Requested file action not taken.

451 Requested action aborted. Local error in processing.

452 Requested action not taken. Insufficient storage space in system.File unavailable (e.g., file busy).

500 Syntax error, command unrecognized. This may include errors such as command line too long.

501 Syntax error in parameters or arguments.

502 Command not implemented.

503 Bad sequence of commands.

504 Command not implemented for that parameter.

530 Not logged in.

532 Need account for storing files.

550 Requested action not taken. File unavailable (e.g., file not found, no access).

551 Requested action aborted. Page type unknown.

552 Requested file action aborted. Exceeded storage allocation (for current directory or dataset).

553 Requested action not taken. File name not allowed.

[+/-]

Computer Crime

KEEP IT FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE

Computer Crime:

Current Practices, Problems and Proposed Solutions

Second Draft
Brian J. Peretti

It would have been surprising if there had been

satisfactory
road traffic legislation before the invention of the

wheel, but
it would also have been surprising if the law on the

passage of
laden donkeys proved entirely satisfactory when

applied to
vehicles.1

I. Introduction
Within recent years, computer crime has

become a
preoccupation with law enforcement officials. In

California, a
group of West German hackers2 using phone lines and

satellite
hookups, gained unauthorized access into civilian and

military
computers and stole sensitive documents that were sold to

the
Soviet Union.3 A young New York programmer broke

into a
Washington computer to run a program that he could not run

from
his personal computer.4 After Southeastern Bell Stated

that a
document published in an electronic publication5 was

valued at
more than $75,000 the publisher was arrested and brought to

trial
before the discovery that the document could be publicly

bought
from the company for $12.6 The Chaos Computer Club, a

Hamburg,
Germany, club, went into government computers and

access
information and gave it to reporters.7 In May, 1988, the

United
States government launched Operation Sun Devil, which lead

to the
seizure of 23,000 computer disks and 40 computers.8

In
addition, poor police performance9 has also been

blamed on
computers.
Since its creation, the computer has become

increasing
important in society.10 The law, as in the past, has not

been
able to evolve as quickly as the rapidly

expanding
technology.11 This lack of movement on the part of

governments
shows a lack of understanding with the area. The need to

create
a comprehensive regulation or code of ethics has

become
increasing necessary.
Due to the nature of computer systems and

their
transnational connections through telephone lines12,

an
individual state's action will only stop the problems

associated
with computer crime if many states join together. The

patchwork
of legislation that exists covers only a small part of

the
problem. To adequately address computer crime, greater

efforts
must be made within the computer community to

discourage
unauthorized computer access, countries must strengthen and
co-ordinated their computer related laws, as well as

proper
enforcement mechanism created, computer program copyright

laws be
enhanced and computer systems should be created to allow

those
who wish to explore computer systems which will not

disrupt the
users of computer systems.
This paper will first set out a definition of computer

crime
and why laws or regulation by the computer community

must be
created. Section II will then discuss the United

States law
concerning computer crime and why it needs to be

strengthened.
Section III will discuss the proposed Israeli computer

crime
bill, Britain's Computer Misuse Act and Ghana's proposed

law.
Section IV will discuss what can be done by both the

government
and computer owners and users to make computer crime

less
possible.

II. Computer crime

The definition of what constitutes a computer crime has

been
the subject of much controversy. A computer crime has

been
defined as "any illegal act for which knowledge of

computer
technology is used to commit an offense."13 The

typical
computer criminal has been described as between 15 and 45

years
old, usually male, no previous contact with law enforcement,

goes
after both government and business, bright, motivated, fears

loss
of status in computer community and views his acts as

games.14
For the purposes of this article, this will be the

definition
used because of its broad reach.
Estimates regarding how much is lost to computer crime

very
widely15. In the only authoritative study, the loss

due to
computer crime was given at $555,000,000, 930 personnel

years
lost and 153 computer time years lost.16 The amount of

total
incidents for 1988 was 485 resulting in 31 prosecutions17.

In
1987, there were 335 incidents with 8 prosecutions.18

Security
spent on prevention of computer crime is becoming

more
commonplace19.
The most publicized danger to computer systems

are
viruses20 and worms. A virus is a code segment which,

when
executed, replicates itself and infects another

program.21
These viruses may be created anywhere in the world22

and may
attack anything.23 A virus may be transmitted through a

trojan
horse24 program. A worm exists as a program in its own

right
and may spread over a network via electronic mail25. A

virus
attacks a program while a worm attacks the computer's

operating
system.26 The most notorious computer worm brought

the
Internet computer network to a halt.27
Computer virus attacks may be overrated.28 It is

said
that the biggest threat to computing includes "not

backing up
your data, not learning the ins and outs of your

application
programs, not putting enough memory in your computer,

not
organizing your hard disk, [and] not upgrading to the

latest
version of your applications.29 These computer programs

have
been compared to the AIDS virus.30 One author has stated

that
the viruses are used to both increase the amount of

profits of
computer program producers and anti-virus computer

programs.31
Computer viruses may also be used to benefit

computer
systems, by either detecting flaws in security

measures or
detecting other viruses.32 Virus are very dangerous,

though.
The effects of a virus called Datacrime, activated on

October 13,
1989, brought down 35,000 personal computers within the

Swiss
government and several companies in Holland.33
With the opening up of Eastern Europe, the virus

problem is
expected to increase.34 In Bulgaria, a country which

does not
have any laws against computer viruses, one new virus

appears
week.35 Computer viruses are created in countries like

the
Soviet Union as a way to punish computer pirates because

of the
lack of copyright laws.36
Perhaps the most dangerous threat to information

contained
in a computer is the "leakage" of radiation from the

computer
monitors.37 With inexpensive equipment38 a person can

"read"
the information off the computer screen and then

replicate the

information from the screen in a readable manner.39
The threat of attack on a computer system can also come

from
a hacker. A hacker is a person who breaks into,

whether
maliciously or not, computers or computer systems.40 A

hacker
can, if the system is not adequately secured, cause havoc

in the
computer by either deleting or altering programs or

data or
planting logic bombs or viruses in the computer

system.41
Threats from hackers to plant viruses have been made in

the
past.42 The threat from computer hackers, as with

viruses, has
been said to be overrated.43
The issues surrounding computers still have not been

decided
by those within the computer community. Whether or not

persons
should be allowed to access computer systems

without
authorization is still a subject of debate within the

computing
community. A West German Computing Club, called The

Chaos
Computing Club, holds the belief that it is not improper to

enter
any system which they can gain access to and to "look"

around
inside of the system as much as they wish.44 They do

not,
however, condone destroying or altering any of the

information
within the system.45 On the other side,

represented by
Clifford Stoll, when individuals break into computer systems

they
disrupt the trust that the computer system is based on.46

This
breach of trust not only makes operating the system

tougher for
the manager in control of the system, but also will

decrease the
amount of use of the system so less information

will be
transferred within the system.47
There is also conflicting views as to whether the

authors of
computer viruses should be punished. Marc Rotenberg48

holds
the belief that a virus should be granted first

amendment
protection in some instances.49 In response to the

Internet
worm, there were 21 editorials that stated that the attack

showed
the need for more security in computers while there

were 10
letters to editors that stated that the creator

should be
applauded rather then punished.50 They argue that this

was a
good way to raise consciousness concerning computer

security.51
Alan Solomon, a consultant who specializes in virus

detection and
eradication, believes that viruses are, at most,

an
inconvenience.52

III.United States Computer Legislation
The United States government53 and most states54

have
computer crime laws. In 1979, only six states had such

laws.55
Almost every computer crime will, in addition to

violating a
state and/or federal law, can also be prosecuted under

other
laws.56
A. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Congress originally enacted the Counterfeit Access

Device
and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act57 to address the

problem of
computer crime. Understanding that the scope of the

original law
was too narrow,58 in 1986 Congress enacted amendments

to the
Computer Fraud and Misuse Act of 1984.59 The Act

essentially
lists acts that if done with a computer are illegal.

The Act
also makes individuals culpable for attempting to

commit a
computer crime.60

In order to commit any of the crimes mentioned in the

act,
the actor must have acted either "intentionally" or

"knowingly"
when committing the act. The law addresses national

security
issues by making a crime of anyone using a computer to

obtain
information and giving the information to foreign

countries.61
The penalty for this crime or its attempt is 10 years

for the
first offense62 and 20 years for subsequent offenses63.

If a
person intentionally accesses a computer either

without
authorization or in excess of his authorization and obtains

and
acquires information in a financial record of an

institution or
information contained in a financial record of an

individual64,
the person will have committed a misdemeanor for the

first
offense65 and a felony for subsequent offenses66. A

person
intentionally accessing a government computer

without
authorization which affects the government's use of

that
computer67 will have committed a misdemeanor for the

first
offense68 and a felony for the second offense.69

Accessing a
computer with knowledge and intent to defraud and

without or
exceeding authority is a crime if the person obtains

anything of
value other than use is a felony70. Accessing a

federal
interest computer without authorization and either

modifying
medical records or causing $1,000 or more worth of damage

within
a one year period71 is punishable with up to 5 years for

the
first offense72 and 10 years for any subsequent offense.73
The Act also criminalizes trafficking in

passwords.74 A
person who knowingly and with intent to defraud

traffics75 in
passwords or similar information may be sentenced for up

to one
year for the first offense76 and up to 10 years for

subsequent
offenses77 if the computer is used by or for the

Government of
the United States78 or affects interstate or

foreign
commerce.79

B. Criticisms
It is important to note that this statute only

applies to
"Federal interest computers" as defined by this section.80

If
a computer is not this type of computer, then any of the

above
mentioned crimes will not be prosecutable under this

section.
Congress intentionally made the scope of the law

narrow.81
This section has been criticized as not inclusive

enough.82
Individual and corporate computers which do not fall into

the
restrictive definition83 may not receive the protection

of the
statute.
The problem of computer viruses are not

addressed by
Act.84 The act does not punish those who add information

into
a computer, even though this may do more harm then just

accessing
information. The Congress has attempted to address this

issue
under two bills85, but neither one has been enacted.
Unauthorized access where there is no theft or damage

to the
system is not covered.86 For example, a person

access a
computer system and looks at information contained

therein, he
has not committed a punishable crime under the Act.87
Questions have also been brought up concerning many of

the
undefined terms within the Act.88 Terms such as

"intentionally
access" and "affects interstate commerce" are among the

terms not

defined.89 The need to clarify these terms is

important so
that an individual will know what action will constitute a

crime.

IV. Legislation From Around The World
A. Israel Proposed Computer Law
In March 1987, the Israeli Ministry of Justice

distributed a
draft of a comprehensive computer bill.90 This bill

covers a
wide range of areas concerning computers91. The Act first

sets
out a list of proposed definitions for computer,

program,
software, information, thing and act. Each of these,

while
short, are concise and attempt to give a brief but

comprehensive
definition.92
Chapter 2 sets out a list of offenses which, if

committed,
are punishable.93 A authorized person commits an act

upon any
computer and knows that the act will prevent or cause

disruption
of the proper operation is subject to seven

years
imprisonment.94 A person who, without authority,

commits an
act which precludes a person from using a computer

system or
deprives a person of using that system is punishable by

up to
seven years imprisonment.95 If a person prepares or

delivers
or operates software knowing that the software will

produce
faulty results and "having reasonable grounds to assume",

the
person is punishable for up to seven years.96 The Act

also
addresses those who supply, deliver or operates a computer

with
faulty data.97
Section 5 applies to those who use a computer to

attempt to
obtain some "thing"98 or with intent prevents another

from
obtaining some "thing".99 A person who prevents another

from
obtaining a "thing" by the use of software may

also be
punished.100 A person who deprives a person of an object

that
contains software, data or information and obtaining a

benefit
for himself.101 All of these crimes contain a prison

sentence
of five years.
A professional who relies on computer outputs that they

know
which are false is also subject to punishment.102 The

crime
carries a sentence of five years.103
This chapter does not apply to all computers, software

data
or information.104 It only applies to those computers,

data
or information which are used, designated to be used by

or for
(1) the state or a corporation that is supplying service

to the
public105 or (2) "business, industry, agriculture,

health
services, or for scientific purposes."106
Perhaps the most novel provision of this proposed law

is the
section governing the reporting of the offenses. Any

person who
is in charge of another and has reason to believe

that an
individual has committed an offense under the Act, he must

report
this to police as soon as possible.107 If the person

does not
do so, he may be imprisoned for up to one year.
B. Analysis
The Israeli computer crime bill is more comprehensive

then
the America bill. By creating a law which will apply not

only to
government computers, but also to those of "business,

industry,
agriculture, health services or for scientific

purposes,"108

the law essentially covers all computers in the

country.109
By creating such broad coverage, the law will be able to

make the
users of computers in Israel more secure in their knowledge

that
their systems are safe. B. Analysis
The Israeli computer crime bill is more comprehensive

then
the America bill. By creating a law which will apply not

only to
government computers, but also to those of "business,

industry,
agriculture, health services or for scientific

purposes,"110
the law essentially covers all computers in the

country.111
By creating such broad coverage, the law will be able to

make the
users of computers in Israel more secure in their knowledge

that
their systems are safe.
The most controversial provision in the act is the

proposal
requiring that individuals that may know of computer crime

must
report the crime or face fines themself. As Levenfeld

points
out112, this will mean that employers will have to

impose
internal spy rings to be able to tract down the

"reasonable
suspicions" that individuals have concerning illegal

activity.
Shalgi, however, believes that this is a good provision in

that
it will allow computer crime to come more to the

forefront so
that the crime can be more easily combatted.113
This provision is necessary for the government to

understand
exactly how large of a problem computer crime is. At

present,
statistics on computer crime are difficult to determine

because
of the lack of reporting.114 By making all persons who

would
be responsible for computer security, i.e. all persons who

use
computer systems, the problem will be brought into the

open and
can be addressed.
The proposed law also sets out a defense for those

who
violate the law. Under 11, if a person who violates

the law
makes another know that he did disrupt or alter the data, he

will
not be convicted of the crime. This will allow those who

perform
such acts to avoid the punishment of the law. Individuals

who
wish to destroy or alter such information will have an

incentive
to bring forth their mischievous acts so that when brought

before
the court they could say that they took precautions so

that
individuals would not rely on the information. This

provision
will encourage those who do such activity to come forth

without
fear of conviction.
The ability of a court to not impose a punishment

on a
person is contained in section 12.115 This allows the

court
to abstain from punishment if the offense is not grave and

was
not committed with malice. This section, in effect, will

allow
those who commit computer crime to be able to forgo

punishment if
their acts were not serious. This will be beneficial to

those
who are hackers in the original sense of the word,116

yet
still allow for punishment of those individuals who enter

systems
to do harm to it.
The law also creates standards for how a computer

may be
seized. Neither a computer, nor any part of it, may be

seized
without a court order.117 Although this seems to be a

good
provision in its effects on individual rights118, the

section
is not focused enough. The law does not address the

issue of
whether a floppy, as opposed to a hard disk, is part

of a

computer. The hard disk is located inside of a computer,

while
floppy disks may be removed from the computer. This law

should
address this issue by stating that the floppy disk is also a

part
of a computer in its definitions.119
This section also does not address what standard may be

used
for the court order. Must the officer only have a

reasonable
suspicion or probable cause to seize the computer? By

stating
explicitly in the statute that the officer must have

probable
cause to seize the computer, an overzealous police officer

will
not be able to as easily seize the computer.
C. The Great Britain Computer Misuse Act
In response to computer program concerning AIDS that

was
distributed to doctors in Great Britain and Europe that

contained
a virus,120 Michael Colvin, a British MP introduced

the
Computer Misuse Bill.121 On August 29, 1990, the

Computer
Misuse Act122 came into effect.123 It was estimated

that
the losses to British industry and government were one

billion
pounds.124 This Act is designed to not to

create a
confidential information right, but to rather protect

computer
system integrity125.
Prior to enactment, the English Law Commission

studied the
problem and laws regarding computer crime. It stated that

there
should be three new offenses to deal with computer misuse:

(1)
Unauthorized access to a computer, (2) Hacking with

intent to
commit a serious crime, and (3) Intentional destruction

of or
alteration to computer programs or data.126 The

Computer
Misuse Act states that unauthorized access occurs if the

person
is unauthorized to access the computer, he causes the

computer to
perform any function with intent to gain access to a

program or
data in the computer and he knows that this is the

case.127
He does not have to be directed to any particular program or

data
in the computer he attempted to get on or the data or

program he
wishes to access.128 If a person commits unauthorized

access
with the intent to commit129 or help another

offense,130
the person can be sentenced on summary conviction, up

to six
months in prison and a fine,131 or if convicted

after
indictment, to imprisonment of up to five years, a

fine or
both.132
If a person modifies computer material,133 the

person is
subject to a fine of up to 5 years, an unlimited

fine or
both.134 The person must knowingly modify a program

without
authorization and must have done so with the intent to

impair the
operation of the computer, to prevent or hinder access, or

impair
the operation of the program or resulting data.135

The
modification does not have to be permanent.136 A

modification
may be done by either altering, erasing or adding onto a

program
or data. By stating modification broadly, the act

attempts to
combat the placing of viruses, worms and logic

bombs on
computers.137
The Act also extends the scope of jurisdiction.138

A
person does not have to actually be in Great Britain at

the
commission of the crime. The crime itself must have

some
relation to Great Britain.139 The link must

be
"significant".140

D. Analysis

As opposed to the other statutes, the Computer Misuse Act
does not attempt to define computer. This was done

because of
the fear that any definition given for a computer may

become out
of date in a short period of time.141 Program and data

are
also not defined within the Act.
Great Britain's courts are granted large jurisdiction.

The
act allows for anyone who attempt to commit a crime under

the act
to be punished in Great Britain. The act, although

setting out
that the link must be significant,142 does not

attempt to
define this word. By this omission, the Great Britain's

courts
can expand this to any act that occurs in a foreign country

that
uses a British computer for even a short period of time.

The
defining of the word would clear up some misconceptions

that may
result from the act.
Of interest to note, the Act would not punish a

person who
distributes disks tat contain viruses on them. Although

the
drafter of the bill said that this was his goal, the law

ignores
this possibility. An amendment should be added to the law

which
will punish those who damage data even if they do not

access the
system.
E. Ghana
In response to the belief that their existing laws

were not
adequate, a draft law was proposed by the Ghana Law

Reform
Commission.143 The bill is rather simple as opposed to

the
other laws. It has definitions for access, computer,

computer
network, computer program and data.144 To commit

computer
related fraud, the person must have an intent to

defraud and
either alters, damages destroys data or program stored in or

used
by the computer or obtains information to his own advantage

or to
the disadvantage of another or uses a computer commits

and
offense.145 The Act Also sets out alternatives for

some
sections that may be adopted. The alternative states

that any
person who obtains access to a computer program or data

and
attempts to erase or alter the program or data with

intent to
help his own interests or damage other person's interest

commits
a crime.146
Damaging computer data occurs if any person, by any

means,
without authority, willfully does damage to data

commits a
crime.147 The crime of unauthorized use of a

computer is
simply defined as anyone who knowingly without authority

commits
an offence.148 Similarly, unauthorized access is anyone

who
knowingly gains access to a computer, network or any part

there
of, without authority to do so.149 The Ghana law also

creates
a crime for the knowingly and dishonestly introduction of

false
data and the omission to introduce, record or store

data.150
An authorized person who willfully or intentionally

allows
information to get into the hands of an unauthorized

person and
that person uses the information to his advantage also

commits a
crime.151
The penalties for the crimes are similar to those

of the
Great Britain law.152 On summary convictions, a jail

term may
be given of up to two years or the statutory maximum

fine or
both.153 On conviction on indictment, a prison term

of no

more then ten years or an unlimited fine, or both

may be
given.154
The jurisdiction that the Ghana courts have in accord

with
this jurisdiction is as large as their British

counterpart.155
The courts can hear any case if the accused person was in

Ghana
at the time of the act.156 Also, if the program or data

was
stored in or used with a computer or computer network in

Ghana
the person may be tried under the law.157
F. Analysis
The Ghana proposed Computer Crime Law is in accord

with the
United States, Great Britain and the proposed Israeli

laws. By
setting out definitions for the various terms used in

the
law158, the law clearly defines which acts may be

subject to
prosecution under the law. Although simple, the

definitions
attempt to capture within the law's grasp the various

different
acts which could be done with a computer that should be

outlawed.
The most original section of the act concerns the

newly
created crime of omission to introduce, record or

store
data.159 This section, however, will end up punishing

those
who work in corporations that are at the lowest level

skill-wise.
The government should, if the law is enacted, force

companies to
give each employee a sufficient amount of training on a

computer
so that the person will be able to act in accordance with

the
law. The act does provide a safeguard by making the mens

rea of
the crime "negligently or dishonestly"160
The act also sets out a crime for an individual who

allows
information to get into the hands of another.161 As

opposed
to the other laws, this section specifically address the

problem
of where an authorized individual gives information

to an
outsider. By specifically regulating this behavior,

anyone who
wishes to act according will know that the act is illegal.
The crime of computer-related fraud is

defined
broadly.162 This law effectively makes any type of

fraud
committed either with a computer or information within a

computer
a crime. The law adequately addresses the problems that

might
occur with a computer in fraud. A broad definition,

however, may
still let some act seem as though they are not covered

since the
act is not specific in the area of what constitutes a crime.
Most significantly, the act does not state which

types of
computers are covered by the act.163 By not giving a

limit on
which computers are covered, the act extends its

jurisdiction to
all "computer"164 and "computer network"165 in the

country.
If the definition of computer changes, due in part to

advance
technology, the law may have to change this section.
V. Proposed Solutions
Computer Crime laws have come a long way in

addressing the
problem of computer crime.166 The ability to regulate

the
activity will decrease the amount of crime that is

committed.
Those who use the computers of the world, however, must not

rely
totally on there respective governments to combat

this
problem.167
The best way to combat computer crime is to not let it

occur
at all. Many computer systems have not been given

enough
security by their system managers.168 It is possible to

have

a totally secure computer system169, but it is

impractical and
slows the free flow of information.170 By creating laws

that
will protect the integrity of computer systems while

also
allowing for the ability of our best and brightest to

develop and
learn about computer systems will the nation be able to

keep our
technological lead in the world.
In order to combat the problem of unauthorized access,

users
of computer systems must be taught to respect each others

privacy
within the various systems. Creating an standard of

ethics for
those who are users of computers will be the best way

since it
will hold the users to standards that must be met. Although

some
organizations have attempted to promogate standards

regarding the
ethical use of computer systems171 no one standard

has
emerged. Proposed rules of ethics should balance the

need of
individuals to be able to learn and discover about the

various
types of computer systems, while at the same time

allowing for
those who use those systems to be secure in the knowledge

that
the information stored on the computer will not be read by

those
other then person who should have access to it.
If computer crime laws are enacted, industries that

use
computers should not use the new laws as a replacement for

using
adequate security measures.172 Individuals or

corporations
that use computer have several ways to protect themselves

from
unauthorized access. If the computer can be accessed by a

modem,
the computer can have a dial back feature placed on the

phone
line so that one a computer is accessed, the computer will

then
call back to make sure that the call is coming from a line

which
is supposed to access the computer.173 The proper

use of
passwords174 are also an effective way to address the

problem
of unauthorized access. A recent study has shown that out

of 100
passwords files, approximately 30 percent were guessed by

either
using the account name or a variation of it.175 A

program
has recently been developed that will not allow a user to

select
an obvious password.176 Encryption programs, similar to

the
program used on Unix operating system, can scramble a

password in
a non reversible manner so that if the encrypted password

falls
into the hands of an individual who is not supposed to

access the
system, the person will not be able to get into the

system.
These systems can also be used so that if a hacker does get

into
a computer system and attempts to get information,

the
information will not be readable.177
A problem that must be address is the lack of

laws
concerning copyright protection of computer programs in

foreign
countries. The Pakistan Brain178 was written to

discourage
copying of a program without authorization. By creating

pirating
penalties a reason for the creation of computer viruses

will be
removed and less viruses will be created.179
Many in the field argue that computer programs should

not be
copyrighted.180 Copyright protection should not be

afforded
to computer programs since they are only

mathematical
equations.181 Copyright protection should be given to

the
maker of a computer programmer only for a short

period of
time.182
A novel concept which will both satisfy the computer

hackers

quest for knowledge through examining computer systems

and
protect the integrity of computer systems is to create a

computer
systems for the use of hackers alone.183 This computer

would
not be connected to other computer systems, but can be

accessed
through a modem.184 If created, accounts would be

given to
all interested computer enthusiasts. Those participating

will
not be prosecuted for exploring unauthorized areas of

the
system.185 Since other computer systems will not

be
accessible through this system, any activity on this system

will
not endanger the information on other systems.186 By

allowing
this to be done, a major problem will be solved, the

inability to
afford to buy a mainframe system, while a person will

still be
able to learn about different types of systems.
If any laws are to be made, they should make

"knowing"187
or "intentionally"188 unauthorized access into a

computer a
crime. By making the intent of the crime be knowing, it

will
allow those who accidently connect to a computer system that

they
think is theirs but is not to be excused from punishment.
The law must also be done in a way that will allow it

to be
enforced across national boundaries. A computer

hacker can
access computers from across the world without ever

leaving his
home country.189 If these laws can only be enforced

within
the home country, then a person can, in theory, go into a

country
of whose computers that he would never want to access and

access
into other computers without fear of punishment.190
An international convention should be convened to

address
this problem. Since the problem is of international

concern and
the crimes do occur across the boarders of countries, by

setting
standards by the international community concerning the

conduct
of computer users, the hodgepodge of computer crime laws

will be
eradicated in favor of a common international standard.

As the
boundaries in Western Europe disappear in anticipation of

1992,
international access is sure to accelerate.
Colleges, Universities and high schools must

institute
programs designed to address proper computer use.191

Although
not all computer users are not trained in school,

teaching the
ethical use of computers will allow users to understand the

need
for security on systems. These programs will also show

users
that computer crime is dangerous to society.192

Problems
concerning computer crime should be publicized so as

not to
mystify the crime.193
The United States and other countries must create

more
Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERT). These teams

are to
coordinate community responses to emergency

situations,
coordinate responsibility for fixing hole in computer

systems and
serve as a focal point for discussions concerning

computer
systems.194 These groups regularly post notices

concerning
computer viruses or other dangers in the Internet

computer
system. The scope of these groups should be expanded so

they may
be a focal point of the needs and desires of those

who use
computers. If they are used to gather information as a

clearing
house type operation, the spread of information

concerning
computer systems and problems with the systems will be

more
adequately addressed.

IV. Conclusion
Computer crime is a growing problem. With the advent

of the
computer and a more computer literate public, crimes

committed by
computers will increase. To effectively address the

problem,
laws must be created to outlaw activity which is

designed to
further illegitimate ends. These laws have moved in the

right
direction concerning what should be outlaws so as to

balance the
needs of computer users against those of the computer

owners. To
enforce these laws, governments must realize that the

problem of
computer crime is not only of local concern.
Educational programs and standards of ethics must be

created
from within the computer users community. Corporations

which use
computers must educate their employees to reduce the fear

that
one might have when addressing a computer security

issue.
Copyright laws must be strengthened in countries that

either do
not have or have weak copyright laws so that the need to

create
viruses to protect an individual's or corporation's work

will no
longer be necessary.
To satisfy users curiosity with computers, a

non-secure
computer system should be created. This system will allow

those
who wish to explore a system in order to understand the

system
may. Those individuals can do so without the

fear of
prosecution.
Only by directly addressing the causes of computer

crime and
drafting standards and laws to address the unique area

will the
problem of computer crime be adequately addressed. Light

must be
shined on the area so individuals will realize that fear

of the
machines is not justified. Only by doing so may we

enter the
21st century realizing the full potential of computers.

Appendix A
Ghana Computer Crime Law (Proposed)
Computer Crime Law
Computer Crime Law
In pursuance of the Provisional National Defense

Council
(Establishment) Proclamation 1981, this Law is hereby made:
1. Any person who, with intent to defraud,
(a) alters, damages, destroys or otherwise manipulates

data
or program stored in or used in connection with a computer,

or
(b) obtains by any means, information stored in a

computer
and uses it to his advantage or to another person's

advantage to
the disadvantage of any other person, or
(c) uses a computer
commits an offense.
Charge: Computer-related fraud.
ALTERNATIVE:
(1) A person commits an offense if that person

obtains
access to a computer program or data, whether

stored in
or used in connection with a computer or to a

part of
such program or data to erase or otherwise

alter the
program or data with the intention-
1. (a) of procuring an advantage for

himself or
another person: or
(b) of damaging another person's interests.

2. Any person who, by any means, without authority,

wilfully
destroys, damages, injures, alters or renders

ineffective
data stored in or used in connection with a computer

commits
an offense.
Charge: Damaging Computer data.

3. Any person who, without authority, knowingly uses a

computer
commits and offense.
Charge: Unauthorized use of a computer.

4. Any person who, without authority, knowingly gains

access to
a computer, computer network, or any part thereof

commits an
offense.
Charge: Unauthorized access to a computer.

5. Any person who, knowingly and dishonestly

introduces,
records or stores, or causes to be recorded,

stored or
introduced into a computer or computer network by any

means,
false or misleading information as data commits an

offense.
Charge: Insertion of false information as data.

ALTERNATIVE:
(5) A person commits an offense if, not having

authority to
obtain access to a computer program or data,

whether
stored in or used in connection with a computer,

or to
a part of such program or data, he obtains

such
unauthorized access and damages another

person's
interests by recklessly adding to, erasing or

otherwise
altering the program or the data.

6. Any person under a contractual or other duty to

introduce,
record or store authorised data into a computer

network, who
negligently or dishonestly fails to introduce,

record or
store, commits an offense.
Charge: Omission to introduce, record or store data.

ALTERNATIVE
(6) Any person under a contractual or other

duty to
introduce, record or store data into a

computer or
computer network who negligently or dishonestly

fails
to introduce, record or store, commits an offense.

7. Any authorised person who willfully or intentionally

allows
information from a computer to get into the hands

of an
unauthorised person who uses such information to

his
advantage commits an offense.
Charge: Allowing unauthorised person to use computer data.

8. A person guilty of an offense under this Law

shall be
liable:-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a

term not
exceeding two years or to a fine not

exceeding the
statutory maximum or both; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a

term
not exceeding ten years or to an unlimited

fine, or
both.

9. A court in Ghana shall have jurisdiction to

entertain
proceedings for an offense under this Law, if at the

time
the offense was committed:-
(a) the accused was in Ghana; or
(b) the program or the data in relation to which

the
offence was committed was stored in or used

with a
or used

with
computer or computer network in Ghana.
computer network in Ghana.

10. In this Law, unless the context otherwise requires:-
"access" includes to log unto, instruct, store

data or
programs in, retrieve data or programs from, or

otherwise
communicate with a computer, or gain access to

(whether
directly or with the aid of any device) any data or

program.
"computer" includes any device which is

capable of
performing logical, arithmetical, classifactory,

mnemonic,
storage or other like functions by means of

optical,
electronic or magnetic signals.
"Computer network" includes the interconnection of

two or
more computers, whether geographically separated or in

close
proximity or the interconnection of communication

systems
with a computer through terminals, whether remote or

local.
"Computer program" includes an instruction or

statement or
series of instructions or statements capable of

causing a
computer to indicate, perform, or achieve any function.
"data" includes a representation in any form

whether
tangible or intangible that is capable of being stored

in or
retrieved by a computer.

ENDNOTES
1. Financial Times Limited (London) April, 1990.

2. See, infra, endnote 36 and accompanying text.
infra

3. Stoll, The Cuckoo's Egg (1990). [hereinafter Stoll].
The Cuckoo's Egg

4. Lyons, 13 Are Charged in Theft of Data from

Computers, New

York Times, August 17, 1990, B2, col. 3.

5. Although there is no set definition of a

computer

publication, it is created and published solely on a

computer.

Peretti, Computer Publications and the First Amendment

(1990)

(available at Princeton University FTP site and The

American

University Journal of International Law and Policy Office).

6. Dorothy Denning, The United States v. Craig

Neidorf

(available at The American University Journal of

International

Law and Policy office).

7. Schares, A German Hackers' Club that Promotes

Creative

Chaos, Business Week, Aug. 1, 1988, 71.

8. Barlow, Crime and Puzzlement: In advance of the Law

on the

Electronic Frontier, Whole Earth Review, Sept. 22, 1990, 44.

9. Kopetman, Computer Gave Them Bum Rap, Los Angeles

Times,
Los Angeles

Times

Jan. 10, 1991, at B1, col. 2.

10. See, J. Thomas McEwen, Dedicated Computer Crime Units

(19--)
See,

(stating how important computers have become to society).

In

1978 there were 5,000 desktop computers in the United

States. S.

Rep. No. 432, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 2, reprinted in, 1986

U.S.
reprinted in

Code Cong. & Admin. News 2479, 2479. By 1986, this

number had

increased to about 5 million. Id.
Id.

11. See, S. 2476, Floor Statement by Senator Patrick Leahy.

12. See, Stoll at ___ (stating that all countries,

except

Albania, are connected via computer systems).

13. McEwen, Dedicated Computer Crime Units 1 (19--).

Another
_______________________________

definition used is the definition of computer crime was

"any

illegal act for which knowledge of computer

technology is

essential for successful investigation and prosecution".

Parker,

Computer Crime: Criminal Justice Resource Manual, (1989).
_________________________________________________

14. Conly, Organizing for Computer Crime Investigation

and

Prosecution, 6-7 (19--).

15. For instance, the estimated cost of the Internet

Worm, a

computer program created by Robert Morris, Jr. which shut

down

the Internet computer system, varies from $97,000,000

(John

McAfee, Chairman, Computer Virus Industry Association)

to

$100,000 (Clifford Stoll's low bound estimate).

Commitment to

Security, 34 (1989). It is difficult to determine

exactly the

cost of such crime because it is difficult to determine

what

should be included. The estimated downtime of a computer

due to

such activity could be used to determine the cost. This

may be

flawed, however, since it will not take into account how

much of

the down time actually would have been used. Electronic

Mail

Letter from Richard Stallman to Brian J. Peretti (Dec. 3,

1990)

(concerning computer crime).

16. Commitment to Security, 34. The average

facility,

consisting of 1,224 microcomputers, 96 minicomputers

and 10

mainframe computers, lost $109,000, 365 personnel hours

and 26

hours computer time loss per year. Id.
Id.

17. Id. at 23. 6 percent of incidents resulted in

prosecutions.
Id.

Id.
Id.

18. Id.
Id.

19. Only 1.5 percent of respondents to a National

Center for

Computer Crime Data used Anti-virus products in 1985. By

1988

this figure rose to 22 percent. By 1991, 53 percent of

the

respondents stated that they would be using anti-virus

software

by 1991. According to a Price Waterhouse survey in

Great

Britain, in 1985 26 percent installations spent

nothing on

security. Authers, Crime as a Business Risk-

Security/ A
Crime as a Business Risk-

Security/ A

Management as Well as a Technical Problem, Financial

Times
Management as Well as a Technical Problem

(London), November 7, 1990. By 1990 this figure had shrunk

to 4

percent and is expected to decline to 0 by 1995. Id. The

amount
Id.

spent on security for new systems has increased from 5

percent in

1985 to 9 percent by 1990. Id.
Id.

In Japan, less than 10 percent of groups that rely

heavily

on computers have taken measures to prevent virus

attacks.

Computer Users Fail to Protected Against Viruses. Although

Japan
Computer Users Fail to Protected Against Viruses.

does not have a computer crime law, there is a movement to

make

such a law. Computer Body Calls for Jail Sentences for

Hackers,
Computer Body Calls for Jail Sentences for

Hackers

Kyodo News Service, Nov. 15, 1990 (available from the

Nexis

library). The Japan Information Processing

Development

Association has stated that the new law should make the

crime

punishable of either one year of hard labor or a fine. Id.
Id.

20. The terms was first applied in 1984. Commitment to

Security,

34 (1989).

21. Ring, Computer Viruses; Once Revered as Hackers,

Technopaths

Threaten Security of Computer-Dependant Society,

Computergram,

July 7, 1989. Some of these viruses are extremely small,

e.g.

Tiny, which is 163 bytes, may be the smallest. Friday 13th

Virus

Alert, The Times (London), July 12, 1990.

22. Graggs, Foreign Virus Strains Emerge as Latest

Threat to
Foreign Virus Strains Emerge as Latest

Threat to

U.S. PCs, Infoworld, Feb. 4, 1991, 18. Viruses have

appeared
U.S. PCs

from Bulgaria, Germany, Australia, China and Taiwan. Id.

Some new
Id.

viruses include Armageddon, from Greece which attacks

through

modems and then dials to a talking clock in Crete, Liberty,

from

Indonesia, Bulgaria 50, which is thought to have come

from a

"laboratory" in Sofia, Victor, thought to originate in

the

U.S.S.R., the Joker, from Poland, which tells the user

that the

computer needs a hamburger, and Saturday the 14th,

presumed to

have been developed in South Africa, which destroys a

computer's

file allocation table. Id.

Some viruses also carry a message when they are

activated.

A virus that is though to have been developed by

students at

Wellington, New Zealand, tells the user that they have

been

"stoned" and requests that marijuana should be legalized.

Id.

Id.

Approximately 80 or 90 of the 300 viruses counted

for the

IBM personal computer originated in Bulgaria according to

Morton

Swimmer of Germany's Hamburg University Virus Test Center.

23. A report in La Liberation, a French newspaper, stated

that
La Liberation

computer viruses could be planted in French EXOCET

missiles to

misguide them when fired. La Liberation, Jan. 10,

1991,

reprinted in Klaus Brunnstein, Risks-Forum, vol. 10, iss.

78,
reprinted in

Jan. 22 1991 (available at American Journal of

International Law

and Policy Office).

24. A "trojan horse" is a program that does not seem

to be

infected, however, when used in a computer, the virus is

then

transferred the uninfected machine. On trojan horse

destroyed

168,000 files in Texas. Commitment to Security, 34 (1989).

25. Ring, Computer Viruses; Once Revered as Hackers,

Technopaths
Computer Viruses; Once Revered as Hackers,

Technopaths

Threaten Security of Computer-Dependent Society,

ComputerGram,
Threaten Security of Computer-Dependent Society

July 7, 1989.

26. Highland, One Wild Computer "Worm" Really Isn't a

Federal
One Wild Computer "Worm" Really Isn't a

Federal

Case, Newsday, Jan. 23, 1990, 51.
Case

27. Stoll, at 346. The amount of computers that were

actually

infected by the worm is still the subject of debate. Mr.

Stoll

estimates that 2,000 computers where infected, while the

most

commonly cited number is 6,000. Commitment to

Security, 34

(1989). The 6,000 estimate was based on an

Massachusetts

Institute of Technology estimate that 10 percent of the

machines

at the school were infected and was then inferred to the

total

number of machines across the country that were

affected.

General Accounting Office, Computer Security: Virus

Highlights

Need for Improved Internet Management, 17 (1989). This

number

may be inaccurate because not all locations had the same

amount

of vulnerable machines. Id.
Id.

28. For the first eight months of 1988, there

were 800

incidents concerning computer viruses. Commitment to

Security,

34. The Computer Virus Industry Association reported

that 96

percent of these reported infections were incorrectly

identified

as viruses. Id.
Id.

29. Robinson, Virus Protection for Network Users,

Washington

Post, Washington Business, p.44, Feb. 11, 1991.

30. Ross, Hacking Away at the Counterculture, 3

(1990)

(available at the American University Journal of

International

Law and Policy). On Saturday Night Live, during the news

update

segment, Dennis Miller stated, in comparing a computer

viruses to

the AIDS virus, "Remember, when you connect with

another

computer, you're connecting to every computer that

computer has

ever been connected to." Id.
Id.

31. Id. at 8-9.
Id.

32. Computer Virus Legislation, Hearing on H.R. 55 and

H.R. 287

before the Subcomm. on Criminal Justice of the House Comm.

on the

Judiciary, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 49 (1989) (statement of

Marc

Rotenberg, Director, Computer Professionals for

Social

Responsibility). In Israel, Hebrew University used a

computer

virus to detect and destroy a virus that would have

destroyed

data files. Id.

33. Computergram International, October 14, 1990.

34.

35. Watts, Fears of Computer Virus Attack from East Europe

grow,
Fears of Computer Virus Attack from East Europe

grow

The Independent, November 24, 1990, p.6. On a trip to

Bulgaria,

a British computer consultant returned with 100 viruses

that do

not exist in the West. Id.
Id.

36. Id.

37. McGourty, When a Hacker Cracks the Code, The Daily

Telegraph
When a Hacker Cracks the Code

(London), October 22, 1990, p. 31.

38. The equipment would cost about 50 (British) pounds. Id.
Id.

39. Id. A British company, has stated that they have

developed
Id.

a glass that will reduce this problem. Tieman, Spy-Proof

Glass

to Beat the Hackers, The (London) Times, Jan 17, 1991.

A more recent problem concerns the ability of

computer

hackers to access into fax machines and either change or

reroute

information from the machine. Becket, Espionage fears

mounting as
Espionage fears

mounting as

hackers tap into faxes, The Daily Telegraph (London),

December 1,
hackers tap into faxes

1990, p. 23. This problem can be circumvented by the

use of

encryption devices or passwords on the machine. Id.
Id.

40. Stoll at 9. The word itself originally had two

meanings.

People originally called themselves hackers were software

wizards

who thoroughly knew computer systems. Id. In U.S. v.

Riggs, 739
U.S. v. Riggs

F. Supp. 414, 423 (N.D. Ill. 1990) the court defined

hackers as

"individuals involved with the unauthorized access of

computer

systems by various means." The New Hacker's Dictionary

defines

hackers as "A person who enjoys learning the

details of

programming systems and how to stretch their

capabilities, as

opposed to most users who prefer to learn only the

minimum

necessary." New Hacker's Dictionary, to be published

Spring,

1991.

Hacker has also been used in a non-evil sense with the

word

"cracker" taking the disreputable part of the word. In

this

light, hacker means "computer enthusiasts who `take

delight in

experimenting with system hardware, software and

communication

systems." and cracker meaning "a hacker who

specializes in

gaining illegal access to a system." One Wild Computer

`Worm'
One Wild Computer

`Worm'

Really Isn't a Federal Case, Newsday, January 23, 1990,

p.51.
Really Isn't a Federal Case

The typical hacker has been described as "a juvenile with a

home

computer who uses computerized bulletin board systems

for a

variety of illegal purposes. Conly, Organizing for

Computer

Crime Investigation and Prosecution, 8 (19--).

41. Sulski, How to Thwart Potential Saboteur, Chicago

Tribune,
How to Thwart Potential Saboteur

November 18, 1990, p.18.

42. Computerworld, December 3, 1990, p. 122. Kryptik, a

hacker

group, was stated as having planned to plant a virus

in a

telephone network on December 5, 1990. Id. It is

unclear,
Id.

however, if the virus actually was planted. Id.
Id.

43. Sulski, How to Thwart Potential Saboteur, Chicago

Tribune,
How to Thwart Potential Saboteur

November 18, 1990, p.18. Computer security experts state

that

the risk of having hacker break into your system is less

than

being burglarized or having a power outage due to lightning.

Id.

Id.

Errant opinion poll results have also been blamed on the

work of

hackers. Holdsworth, Hackers May Have Attacked TV

Poll
Hackers May Have Attacked TV

Poll

Computers-MP, Press Association Newsfile, May 4, 1990.
Computers-MP

44. Stoll, 312.

45. Id. This view is also shared by the editors of

2600, The
Id.

Hackers Quarterly. It is also held by these persons

that a

service is done to the computing community because

those who

break in to computer systems show the operators that their

system

is not strong enough and that it should be made stronger.

46. Stoll, at 354.

47. Mr. Stoll's computer was broken into by an

Australian

hacker who said he did so to show that Mr. Stoll's

security was

not good and that hackers are good because they show

where

security problems are in computer networks. Id. at 353-54.

He
Id.

rejected such arguments. Id.
Id.

48. Director, Computer Professionals for Social

Responsibility

49. Computer Virus Legislation, Hearing on H.R. 55 and

H.R. 287

before the Subcomm. on Criminal Justice of the House Comm.

on the

Judiciary, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 26-27 (1989) (statement of

Marc

Rotenberg, Director, Computer Professionals for

Social

Responsibility). The Aldus peace virus, which displayed a

message

calling for peace and then disappeared without

damaging the

system itself, is an example of a virus which he believes

should

be protected. Id.

50. Commitment to Security, 34.

51. Stoll, 349.

52. "I can never understand why people think it is all

right to

run out of computer paper but not all right to be infected

with a

virus. The disruption is the same and it takes about the

same

amount of time to put matters right." Cane, Hygiene

See Off
Hygiene

See Off

Computer Viruses, Financial Times (London) October 14,

1989,
Computer Viruses

Section I, p. 24.

53. 18 U.S.C. 1030 (1988).

54. Ala. Code 13A-8-100 et.seq. (1990); Alaska

Stat.
Ala. Code Alaska

Stat.

11.46.200(a)(3), 11.46.484(a)(5), 11.46.740, 11.46.985,

11.46.990

(1990); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 13-2301(E), 13-2316 (1990);

Cal.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.

Cal.

Penal Code 502 (West 1990); Colo. Rev. Stat.

18-5.5-101 et.
Penal Code Colo. Rev. Stat.

seq. (1990); Conn. Gen. Stat 53a-250 et. seq., 52-570b

(1990);
Conn. Gen. Stat

Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, 931 et seq. (1990); Fla.

Stat.
Del. Code Ann. Fla.

Stat.

815.01 et seq. (1990); Ga. Code Ann. 16-9-90 et seq

(1990);
Ga. Code Ann.

Haw. Rev. Stat. 708-890 et seq. (1990); Idaho Code

18-2201,
Haw. Rev. Stat. Idaho Code

2202 (1990); Ill. Ann. Stat. 15-1, 16-9 (1990); Ind.

Code
Ill. Ann. Stat Ind.

Code

35-43-1-4, 35-43-2-3 (1990); Iowa Code 716A.1 et.

seq.
Iowa Code

(1990); Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3755 (1990); Ky. Rev. Stat.

Ann.
Kan. Stat. Ann. Ky. Rev. Stat.

Ann.

434.840 et. seq. (1990); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14(D)

71.1 et
La. Rev. Stat. Ann

seq. (1990); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. chap. 15, tit. 17-A,

357
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.

(1990); Md. Crim. Law Code Ann. Article 27 45A, 146

(1990);
Md. Crim. Law Code Ann.

Mass. Gen. L. ch 266, 30 (1990) see infra; Mich. Comp.

Laws
Mass. Gen. L. Mich. Comp.

Laws

28.529(1) et seq. (1990); Minn. Stat. 609.87 et seq.

(1990);
Minn. Stat.

Miss. Code Ann. 97-45-1 et seq (1990); Mo. Rev. Stat.

569.093
Miss. Code Ann. Mo. Rev. Stat.

et seq. (1990); Mont. Code Ann. 45-2-101,

45-6-310,45-6-311
Mont. Code Ann.

(1990); Neb. Rev. Stat. art. 13(p), 28-1343 et seq (1990);

Nev.
Neb. Rev. Stat.

Nev.

Rev. Stat. 205.473 et seq. (1990); N.H. Rev. Stat.

Ann.
Rev. Stat. N.H. Rev. Stat.

Ann.

638.16 et seq. (1990); N.J. Rev. Stat. 2C:20-1,

2C:20-23 et.
N.J. Rev. Stat.

seq., 2A:38A-1 et seq. (1990); N.M. Stat. Ann.

30-16A-1 et
N.M. Stat. Ann.

seq. (1990); N.Y. Penal Law 155.00, 156.00 et seq,

165.15(10),
N.Y. Penal Law

170.00, 175.00 (1990); N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-453 et seq

(1990);
N.C. Gen. Stat.

N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-06.1.01(3), 12.1-06.1-08 (1990); Ohio

Rev.
N.D. Cent. Code Ohio

Rev.

Code Ann. 2901.01, 2913.01, 1913.04, 1913.81 (Anderson

1990);
Code Ann.

Okla. Stat. tit. 21, 1951 et seq. (1990); Or. Rev.

Stat.
Okla. Stat Or. Rev.

Stat.

164.125, 164.377 (1990); Pa. Cons. Stat. 1933 (1990);

R.I.
Pa. Cons. Stat.

R.I.

Gen. Laws 11-52-1 et seq (1990); S.C. Code Ann.

16-16-10 et
Gen. Laws S.C. Code Ann.

seq (Law. Co-op 1990); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. 43-43B-1 et

seq.
S.D. Codified Laws Ann.

(1990); Tenn. Code Ann. 39-3-1401 et seq (1990); Texas

Code
Tenn. Code Ann. Texas

Code

Ann. tit 7 33.01 et seq. (Vernon 1990); 19 Utah Laws

76-6-
Ann. Utah Laws

701 et seq.; Va. Code Ann. 18.2-152.1 et seq. (1990);

Wash.
Va. Code Ann.

Wash.

Rev. Code Ann. 9A.48.100, 9A.52.010, 9A.52.110 et seq.

(1990);
Rev. Code Ann.

Wis. Stat. 943.70 (1990); Wyo. Stat. 6-3-501 et seq.

(1990).
Wis. Stat. Wyo. Stat.

55. Parker, Computer Crime: Criminal Justice Resource

Manual,

129 (1979).

56. McEwen, Dedicated Computer Crime Units, 60 (1989).

These

other laws include embezzlement, larceny, fraud, wire

fraud and

mail fraud. Id. at 60.
___

57. Pub. L. No. 98-473, 2102(a), 98 Stat. 1837, 2190

(codified

at 18 U.S.C. 1030).

58. S. Rep. No. 432, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., 1986

U.S. 2,

reprinted in, 1986 Cong. & Admin. News 2479, 2479.
reprinted in

59. Pub. L. No. 99-474, 2, 100 Stat. 1213 (amending 18

U.S.C.

1030).

60. 18 U.S.C. 1030(b).

61. 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(1). The person must act

knowingly to

access a computer either without authorization or

exceeding the

authorization given and obtain information with the

intent or

reason to believe that the information will either

injure the

United States of American or give an advantage to a

foreign

nation. As seen by the placement of this section, it is

clear

that the Congress was particularity aware of the dangers

that

computer might have to the national security of the

United

States. This section parallels 18 U.S.C. 793, the

federal

espionage statute.

62. 1030(c)(1)(A).

63. 1030(c)(1)(B).

64. As defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.

1681

et seq.

65. 1030(c)(2)(A).

66. 1030(c)(2)(B). The penalty is up to 10 years in

prison.

67. 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2).

68. 18 U.S.C. 1030(c)(2)(B).

69. 18 U.S.C. 1030(c)(2)(B).

70. The punishments that may be handed out are up to 5

years for

the first offense and 10 years for any subsequent offense.

71. 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5).

72. 18 U.S.C. 1030(c)(3)(A).

73. 18 U.S.C. 1030(c)(3)(B).

74. 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(6).

75. As defined by 18 U.S.C. 1029.

76. 18 U.S.C. 1030(c)(2)(A).

77. 18 U.S.C. 1030(c)(2)(B).

78. 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(6)(B).

79. 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(6)(B).

80. These computers include computers used exclusively

for the

United States government or a financial institution or if

not

exclusively by the government one which the conduct of

the

computer affects the government's or the institution's

operation,

18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(2)(A), the computer is one of two or

more

computers that commit the offense, 18 U.S.C.

1030(e)(2)(A).

Financial institution is defined in 18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(4)

and

includes and institution whose deposits are insured by

the

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 1030(e)(4)(A), the

Federal

Reserve or one of its members, 1030(e)(4)(B), a credit

union

insured by the National Credit Union

Administration,

1030(e)(4)(C), a Federal home loan bank system

member,

1030(e)(4)(D), institutions under the Farm Credit Act of

1971,

1030(e)(4)(F), a broker-dealer registered pursuant to 15

of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 1030(e)(4)(F), or a

Securities

Investor Protection Corporation, 1030(e)(4)(G).

81. S. Rep. No. 432, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 4, reprinted in,

1986
reprinted in

U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2479, 2481.

82. Note, Computer Crime and The Computer Fraud and Abuse

Act of

1986, X Computer/Law Journal 71, 79, (1990).

83. 18 U.S.C. 1030 (e)(2) states:

As used in this section-

(2) The term "Federal interest computer" means a

computer-

(A) exclusively for the use of a financial

institution

or the United States Government, or, in the case of a

computer

not exclusively for such use, used by or for a

financial

institution or the United States Government and the

conduct

constituting the offense affects the use of the

financial

institution's operation or the Government's operation of

such

computer; or

(B) which is one of two or more computer used

in the

committing the offense, not all of which are located in the

same

state.

84. "[T]here is not statute specifically addressing

viruses."

135 Cong. Rec. E2124 (daily ed. June 14, 1989) (letter of

Rep.
Cong. Rec. E2124

Herger (quoting FBI Director William Sessions)).

85. H.R. 287 and H.R. 55.

86. "Existing criminal statues are not specific on the

question

of whether unauthorized access is a crime where no

theft or

damage occurs . . ." 135 Cong. Rec. E2124 (daily ed.

June 14,
Cong. Rec.

1989) (letter of Rep. Herger (quoting FBI Director

William

Sessions)).

87. Prosecution could occur under a trespass law. It may

not be

applicable, however, since trespass is a property based

crime and

courts have not recognized information in the same manner as

real

property.

88. Note, Computer Crime and The Computer Fraud and Abuse

Act of

1986, X Computer/Law Journal 71, 80 (1990).

89. Id.
Id.

90. Shalgi, Computer-ware: Protection and Evidence, An

Israeli
Computer-ware: Protection and Evidence, An

Israeli

Draft Bill, IX Computer/Law J. 299, 299 (1989)

[hereinafter
Draft Bill Computer/Law J.

Shalgi]. This proposed bill has not progressed much since

it was

proposed and is at the stage prior to an official "bill".

Letter

from Barry Levenfeld to Brian J. Peretti (December 13,

1990)

(concerning Israel's legislature progress on the

comprehensive

computer law). This paper will use the Shalgi

English

translation of the law.

91. Chapter 2 concerns Offenses and Accessing Computers,

Chapter

3, Damages, Chapter 4, Rights of Software Creators and

Chapter 5,

Evidence. Levenfeld, Israel Considers Comprehensive Computer

Law,
Israel Considers Comprehensive Computer

Law,

Int'l Computer L Advisor 4 (March 1988). The topics

covered in
Int'l Computer L Advisor

Chapters 2 through 5 are beyond the scope of this paper.

92.

93. Shagli, at 311.

94. Chapter 2, 2, Shagli at 311.

95. Chapter 2, 3(a), Shagli at 311. An employee is

exempt if

he commits this act when it was due to a strike

concerning a

labor dispute. Chapter 2, 3(b), Shagli at 311.

96. Chapter 2, 4(a).

97. Chapter 2, 4(b), Shagli at 311.

98. As defined by Chapter 1, 1.

99. Chapter 2, 5, Shagli at 311.

100. Chapter 2, 6, Shagli at 312.

101. Chapter 2, 7, Shagli at 312.

102. Chapter 2, 9, Shagli at 312.

103. Id.
Id.

104. Chapter 2, 10, Shagli at 312.

105. By not stating that this also applies to

individuals or

others (non-corporations) who are attempting to supply

services

to the public, some important services that may be offered

to the

public may not be done. Levenfeld, 8, translates the

word

corporation as entities which may solve the problem.

106. Shalgi, 312. Levenfeld, 5, states that since this

section

is so broad the only possible areas that are not

covered are

personal and academic uses.

107. Chapter 2, 14, Shagli at 313.

108. Section 5.

109. Levenfeld, 4-5. Perhaps the only computers not

covered

would be those used for personal or academic uses

exclusively.

Id. at 5.
Id.

110. Section 5.

111. Levenfeld, 4-5. Perhaps the only computers not

covered

would be those used for personal or academic uses

exclusively.

Id. at 5.
Id.

112. Levenfeld at 4.

113. Shalgi, 305.

114. See, Computers at Risk, Safe Computing in the

Information

Age, 36 (1991) (discussing the need for a repository to

gather

computer crime information).

115. Chapter 2, 12, Shagli at 313.

116. New Hacker's Dictionary.

117. Chapter 2, 13, Shagli at 313. The law states that

if the

owner of the computer is not given in his presence, the

order is

only good for twenty-four hours. Id.
Id.

118. Shagli, at 304. Under Israeli law, an object that

may be

proof of an offense may be seized without a court order.

Id. The

Id.

law will bring the seizure of computers in accord with the

United

States Constitution's sixth Amendment.

119. Chapter 1, 1, Shagli at 310.

120. Alexander, Suspect Arrested in AIDS Disk Fraud

Case,
Suspect Arrested in AIDS Disk Fraud

Case

Computerworld, Feb. 5, 1990, 8.

121. Colvin, Lock up the Keyboard Criminal,

Telecommunications

PLC (England), June 1990.

122. Computer Misuse Act, 1990, ch. 18.

123. In the five years prior to the adoption of the Act,

there

were 270 cases of computer misuse in Britain of which

only six

were brought to court and only 3 resulting convictions.

Fagan,

Technology: EC urged to strengthen laws on computer

crime, The
Technology: EC urged to strengthen laws on computer crime

Independent (London), February 13, 1990, p. 19.

124. Id.
Id.

125. Davies, Cracking down on the computer hackers, Fin.

Times
Cracking down on the computer hackers

(London), October 4, 1990.

126. Law Commission No. 186, Cm 819.

127. Computer Misuse Act, 1990, ch. 18, 1.

128. The penalty for this type of behavior is up to six

months in

prison, 2000 pounds or both.

129. Computer Misuse Act, 1990, ch. 18, 2(1)(a).

130. Computer Misuse Act, 1990, ch. 18, 2(1)(b).

131. Computer Misuse Act, 1990, ch. 18, 2(5)(a).

132. Computer Misuse Act, 1990, ch. 18, 2(5)(b).

133. Computer Misuse Act, 1990, ch. 18, 3(1).

134. Computer Misuse Act, 1990, ch. 18, 3(7).

135. Computer Misuse Act, 1990, ch. 18, 3(2).

136. Computer Misuse Act, 1990, ch. 18, 3(5).

137. Id. Colvin, Lock up the Keyboard

Criminal ,
Id.

Telecommunications PLC (England), June 1990.

138. Computer Misuse Act, 1990, ch. 18, 4.

139. Computer Misuse Act, 1990, ch. 18, 4(1).

140. 5(2) states that a significant link under 1 can be

(a) the

person was in Great Britain at the time in which he

caused the

computer to act in a certain way or (b) the computer he

attempted

to get access to was in Great Britain. 5(3) states

that a

significant link under 3 can be (a) that the person was

Great

Britain at the time when he did the act or (b) the

modification

took place in Great Britain. However, this may not an

exhaustive

list.

141. Davies, Cracking down on the computer hackers, Fin.

Times
Cracking down on the computer hackers

(London), October 4, 1990.

142. Computer Misuse Act, 1990, ch. 18, 5.

143. Although proposed on February 14, 1989, the proposed

bill

has not yet become law.

144. Appendix A, 10.

145. Appendix A, 1.

146. Appendix A, 1, alternative.

147. Appendix A, 2.

148. Appendix A, 3.

149. Appendix A, 4.

150. Appendix A, 5.

151. Appendix A, 7.

152. The Ghana Law Reform Commission states that they

created

their proposed law from the Scottish Law Commission and

the Law

Reform Commission of Tasmania, Australia reports on

computer

crime.

153. Appendix A, 9(a).

154. Appendix A, 8(b).

155. See, infra, endnote __ and accompanying text.
infra

156. Appendix A, 9(a).

157. Appendix A, 9(b).

158. Appendix A, 10.

159. Appendix A, 6.

160. Id.
Id.

161. Appendix A, 7.

162. Appendix A, 1.

163. Appendix A, 10.

164. Id.
Id.

165. Id.
Id.

166. The first computer crime law in the United States

was

enacted in 1979.

167. S. Rep. No. 432, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 3, reprinted in

1986
reprinted in

U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2479, 2481.

168. By increasing security, the ease with which one can

enter

the system will become more difficult. Some systems,

believing

that if such unauthorized access does occur that no

sensitive

information will be stolen, opt to have less security then

other

systems. In actuality, by one system not having enough

security,

the entire network can be put at danger when a mischievous

user

wishes to break into a users account which may be

accessed by

that system. See Stoll, 353-54 (stating an Australian

hacker

broke into Mr. Stoll's computer account because a

connected

computer's system manager did not wish to have a high

level of

security.

169. Stoll, 32. Many military computers and

sensitive

scientific computers operate in a secure environment.

This is

created by not allowing the computer system to have any

telephone

links to the outside world (i.e. outside of the building.

170. By having a secure system, information at the computer

site

can only be removed by a person walking into the computer

center,

copying the information and then walking out with it.

This is

both burdensome (it is much easier to access the computer

from

one's home or office) and cumbersome (since a person will

have to

walk around with reels of data that will later be put back

into

the system.

171. Computer Virus Legislation, Hearing on H.R. 55 and

H.R. 287

before the Subcomm. on Criminal Justice of the House Comm.

on the

Judiciary, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 44, n. 27 (1989)

(statement of

Marc Rotenberg, Director, Computer Professionals for

Social

Responsibility).

172. Colvin, Lock up the Keyboard Criminal,

Telecommunications
Lock up the Keyboard Criminal

PLC (England), June 1990, p. 38. Michael Colvin, the

author of

Great Britain's Computer Misuse Act stated that the

passage of

the bill should not be looked at that the computer owner

should

not have security measures on their computers. Id. The

bill, he
Id.

states, was made only to compliment, not substitute, the

users

security measures. Id. In West Germany, the severity

of the
Id.

punishment for hacking depends on the effort that was

required to

commit the offense. Fagan, Technology: EC urged to

Strengthen
Technology: EC urged to

Strengthen

Laws on Computer Crime, The Independent, Feb. 13, 1990, 19.
Laws on Computer Crime

173. McGourty, When a hacker cracks the code, The

Daily
When a hacker cracks the code

Telegraph, October 22, 1990, p. 31.

174. A Password is a word that is either given to the

user by

the system or selected by the user to prevent others

from

accessing his computer or account within the computer.

This

words, groups of letters or symbols are supposed to be

kept

secret so as to not let other who are not authorized to

access

the system have access to it.

175. Donn Seeley, A Tour of the Worm, Department of

Computer
_____________________

Science, University of Utah, Nov. 1988, reprinted in

General
reprinted in

Accounting Office, Computer Security: Virus Highlights

Need for

Improved Internet Management, 20 (1989).

176. Authers, Armed with a secret weapon, Financial

(London)

Times, Feb. 5, 1991, Section I, 16.

177. Id.

178. For a discussion of this virus, see, Branscomb,

Rogue
see

Rogue

Computer Programs and Computer Rogues: Tailoring the

Punishment
Computer Programs and Computer Rogues: Tailoring the

Punishment

to Fit the Crime, 16 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J.

1, 14-16
to Fit the Crime _______________________________

(1990) (discussing the applicability of state and federal

law to

computer viruses).

179. Jim Thomas, publisher of the Computer Underground

digest

argues that computer pirates actually buy more programs

then the

average computer program buyer. Letter from Jim Thomas to

Brian

J. Peretti ( (discussing computer pirating of software)

180. See, GNU Manifesto (available at American University

Journal

of International Law and Policy). See also, Stallman, GNU

EMACS
See also,

General Public License, (Feb. 11, 1988) (available at

American

University Journal of International Law and Policy).

181. The GNU Manifesto (available at the American

University

Journal of International Law and Policy).

182. The author proposes that such copyright protection

last for

only two years. By granting the creator such protection

for a

short period of time, he will be able to recover the

expenses

that he put into the writing of the program.

If this type of protection is granted, it

should be

understood that the creator of the program has a copyright

to the

sourcecode of the program for that period. If he updates

the

program after the two year period, the updated code

will be

protected, but the original code will not be granted

the
protection. In this manner, an author cannot attempt to

give

copyright protection to a program after the copyright

has

expired.

183. Electronic letter from Brian J. Peretti to Dorothy

Denning

(Nov. 13, 1990) (concerning computer crime).

184. This will be a semi-secure system.

185. The system, of course, will have a system manager who

will

create the accounts for the users. His account will be

off

limits to those who wish to use the system. At the same

time,

individuals will be encouraged to attempt to break into

the

manager's account and tell him how it was done in

order to

improve security for this and other systems.

186. The problem still exists that information learned

through

the use of this system may allow those who use the

system to

break into other computer systems. This problem can be

corrected

by having the system manager and the users communicate

problems

with the system so that they may be corrected on other

systems.

187. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S.

422, 425

(1978).

188. S. Rep. No. 432, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 6, reprinted in

1986
reprinted in
U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2479, 2484.

189. Stoll, The Cuckoo's Egg.

190. The countries which a person can go to could be any

country

in the world, except Albania, since they are the only

country

whose computers are not connected to outside computers.

Stoll.

191. A school in Red Bank, New Jersey, has instituted a

"computer

responsibility training". Weintraub, Teaching Computer

Ethics in
Teaching Computer

Ethics in

the Schools, The School Administrator 8, 9 (apr. 1986).
the Schools, ________________________

192. S. Rep. No. 432, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 3, reprinted in

1986
reprinted in

U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2479, 2481.

193. Electronic Mail Letter from Rop Gonggrijp to

Brian J.

Peretti (Jan. 25, 1991) (concerning computer viruses). "We

have

to watch that we keep telling people how virusses work,

because

that is the only solution to the problem: mystifying the

whole

thing ans just hunting down "computer terrorists" is

useless and

(as proven in the US and Germany) leads to a questionable

style

of government in the field of information technology..." Id.
Id.

194. General Accounting Office, Computer Security:

Virus

Highlights Need for Improved Internet Management, 25 (1989).

Great Tutorials For All

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

EMAIL SERVICES

Catch Virus Without PC Guard

Change Your Start Button in XP

Change Your Ip In Less Then 1 Minute

COMMON FTP ERROR CODES

Computer Crime

Followers

Total Pageviews

Blog Archive