The response from the provider illustrates the sort of dilemma viruses create for public access providers who obviously want to provide the best services for their customers:

Viruses and information relating to viruses are not, at this time, controlled code. We allow users to make available via anonymous FTP any and all data as long as it is legal, which viruses, viral source code, and newsletters published by virus groups are. It is not placed there by xxxxxxxx, and it's distribution is not necessarily endorsed by xxxxxxxx.

To assume that it IS endorsed would be to assume we also endorse Doom, GIF's of nude males and females, various programs, concerts, or any other of the hundreds of megs our users choose to make available through public FTP directories.

Making software using encryption available for download does not violate international cryptography laws, only the act of someone receiving them in another country is. If you have concrete proof this software is being distributed to users outside the US, and wish to press charges against those users (Difficult, considering you're not yourself in the US.) you are welcome to do so and xxxxxxx will assist in the prosecution of such illegal activities. But until then users who wish to make legal software available to Internet users are free to do so, from xxxxxxx.

Thank you,
xxxxxxx
[Skulason , 94]

Some public providers allow distribution of various counter-culture journals, with the condition that actual virus source code be removed prior to release of the publication from their site. In this way, freedom of "speech" and dialogue are supported, while the questionable virus code problem is eliminated.

The debate over the responsibilities of public access providers is growing. It is clear that legal does not mean "right" to all persons involved. Whether or not it is "right" for a commercial provider to allow itself to be used for virus distribution is a question each provider must answer for itself, at least for now. It is often the case that when a community does not police itself, it finds itself in the awkward position of having laws foisted upon it by a governmental body which is perhaps not in the best position to determine what (if any) law is actually necessary.

Anti-virus software is certainly a good defense against viruses, but it is not the only defense. Likewise, workable, effective policies and procedures set in place are a good defense against viruses, and necessary to ensure damage control; they are, however, not the only defense. We need public discussion and dissemination of accurate information!

When we do see the public engaged in discussions, we often find them in less than full posession of factual information. We sometimes find them dashed to pieces by some defenders of the virus as God's gift to mankind or pseudo-intellectuals who sound as if they really know what they are talking about. We hear things like "Viruses never really did any harm to any individual, not in a real sense"; "Viruses have never even come close to causing a major disaster"; "Viruses don't cost anyone very much, they are just minor annoyances"; "One product is as good as another, the anti-virus guys are just out to make money -- they even WRITE and distribute viruses to rip off users"; "Not many people ever get a virus. Users cause more damage than viruses"; "It's my right to free speech, writing viruses. You can't take away my Constitutional Rights!". These are not the only minimization of the virus threat that we hear, but they are among the most common. Letting people know your feelings is one important thing you can do to help stop viruses; however, feelings alone are not quite enough. You need facts. With that in mind, we will take a look at some of these arguments in detail, and provide documentation which supports the position that viruses are in fact a problem.

• "A virus replicates itself to overwrite other data."
• "In the virus community, the people who write viruses are called virogens."
• "Scanners are essentially useless."
• "By the time their work is discovered, they're long gone."

Dark Avenger boasted,"The American government can stop me from going to America, but they can't stop my viruses".

That statement was never made as a boast. The original interview made this clear.

"Tips from the virus writers" presented a "tip" from Dark Avenger, as if he "advised" users for this article. He never spoke to the author, and the "tip" was not given as advice, but as part of the aforementioned interview.

However, the most disturbing aspect of the article is its presentation of Dark Avenger as still writing and releasing computer viruses, although it is well known that he has not released a computer virus for over two years.

It remains to be seen if any clarifications and retractions are issued by the editors.

In 1993 the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists/AAAS Conference on Legal, Ethical and Technical Aspects of Computer and Network Use and Abuse commissioned a paper dealing with computer viruses [AAAS, 93].

In 1994, the Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics named viruses as part of the Computer ethics issues it would explore [Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics, 94].

Sec 94's Curacao conference awarded the "Best Paper" award to a paper dealing with ethical implications of technology [IFIP, 94].

Virus Bulletin commissioned a paper on the issues surrounding ethics as related to virus writers themselves. [Virus Bulletin, 94].

Viruses -are- a recognised concern for people who are concerned with ethical behaviour and ethical models in science. Science and technology do not exist in a vacuum. Viruses are not solely an isolated technological phenomenon.

There are dozens more commercially released programs that could have given you a virus. [Gordon, 93]

Words are tools. Tools shape and build images. That is the point of communication -- to communicate ideas. Some communicators need to build strong cases, using not just facts, but appeal to the heart. There is nothing wrong with word play or emotionalism in communication as long as it is not dishonest. It is not wrong to talk about "what is right" or "honourable". It is wrong to lie. Facts should be represented accurately at all times. In the case of viruses, many people have ideas and opinions; they have the right to their opinion, and to express their opinion. They even have the right to convey misinformation in many cases; We as responsible persons, have a responsibility to see that the misinformation is balanced with correct information. Until now, the "misinformation proponents" have not been only those with the loudest voices"; in many cases they have been the only voices the general public has had to listen to.

People have a right to listen to whomever they choose; they also have a right to know the motives of the persons they are relying on for information, whether that reliance is passive or active. One problem, that of "new" participants in the public debate (sometimes old participants using a new identity) can be addressed by questioning motives. If a person is not a publicly known figure whose motives and affiliations are well known to the general public, it is a duty to question, respectfully, their qualifications and affiliations. We must be willing to state our motives and affiliations as well, and to question the motives of others. If someone is not willing to discuss their reason and motivation for for a particular opinion, it is a duty to question that opinion.

Opinions however, are not facts. Many times misinformation is presented as "fact", followed by "well, I am entitled to my opinion". There is a difference. We must be careful to make the distinction, and to make others aware of the distinction.

We should adhere to certain principles of ethical communication when attempting to use information to cast light on "The Big Lie". We have an obligation to seek out accurate information and make sure that the information we distribute is as factual as possible; we need to be accurate, fair, and just in our treatment of ideas and arguments; we must be willing to submit private motivations to public scrutiny, and we must be, finally, willing to tolerate dissent with respect. These four principles, outlined by Karl Wallace in "An Ethical Basis of Communication" [Wallace, 55] can help establish the facts about computer viruses in the minds of the public.

We must be careful to not try to silence what we view as "the opposition" but to engage in productive, public debate. By doing this we can also possibly help teach those who honestly believe the Big Lie and the little lies that grow from it. We have passed the time where we can deal with the virus problem as passive bystanders dependent on software to solve "the problem" for us. Let the facts speak for themselves.