RWarehall: And the example you give doesn't apply here. That worm self-replicated and did damage to the systems and as such violated the appropriate laws. Back to what I said about intent to defraud or do damage. Because I actually took the time to at least read the various laws. Plenty of software accesses information on one's computer. But the laws have criteria which differentiate between what is legal and what is illegal behavior. Plenty of people call Steam's overlay "malware" or the same with ad delivery software, yet they are not illegal. And that is because neither is attempting to defraud or damage the computer.
joppo: Nope, plenty of people call Steam's overlay malware because they don't actually have a clue about neither the legal nor the
technological aspects of Steam, and those tech aspects are the first reason why it doesn't qualify as malware. If you're going to quote people's opinion, either use your own (with caveats) or quote specialists on the subject matter. Bringing up random clueless people and then reducing all their arguments to "wrong" because you can prove they are wrong about something else is a hell of a fallacy.
Also as you said my example "
doesn't apply here. That worm self-replicated and did damage to the systems..." Hold on. Aren't you the one that kept throwing around "
show me that that is the legal definition of malware"? Well okay then, where does the law say that it has to propagate in a specific way to qualify as malware? And don't bother arguing that it just doesn't qualify because it didn't do any damage, because as you can see below...
RWarehall: This part of the article you link seems to show it probably is not illegal in the UK either...
[snip]
joppo: You read all of that and you happened to leave out the very adequate next paragraph. Allow me to reintroduce it:
"The deliberate introduction of any malware will meet any of these requirements by taking memory and processing from the system and feasibly damaging the system." Do you deny that the uninvited malware takes up memory and processor time it was never intended to by the user?
Read the article again why don't you. It's specifically talking about "malware (such as a virus)." All infections are going to be using memory and processing time as they continue to run in excess of existing programs.
The problem here is that this IS the program as defined by the developer. You would have a really hard time convincing any judge that this is not DRM but malware instead given that it is part of the installer, runs once and stops just like the rest of the installer and is being used to enforce digital rights.
You keep looking at this with blinders starting from the concept that this is "obviously" malware to you. It will not be so "obvious" to a judge who will carefully weigh arguments by both sides.
But let's also be clear, if you over define a term to the point a phrase becomes completely meaningless in a law, your argument will fail. All programs use memory and processing, so there has to be a clear distinction why this program damages a computer. By your argument, ALL programs apparently damage a computer by using memory and resources. A judge isn't going to buy that argument because it makes the term "damage" completely irrelevant. Then why is that term included in the law?
It makes sense with worms and viruses which reproduce or continue running as an extra process, continuing to use resources slowing down a system. It doesn't make sense with a piece of code which runs once and stops.
You are clearly trying too hard to make an exception of this.
