PureBasic Forums - English

From another thread wrote:The programmer can never be held for things a user does with his software, Xploit Client & Server are never damaging the system, so it's no an illegal app (like a worm/virus that damages the System), illegal actions are only done by users who sit behind the trojan (sombebody must control the server, and thats not me, if you had ever started Xploit you could see that you even have to accept a disclaimer before you are able to use it).

I read this in another thread and decided to voice my opinion to see what other people think. I personally think the above author is talking nonsense, let me explain.

Even thought i have the power to create this kind of software, is it ethical for me to do so even if i wouldn't misuse it? Even if i knew that i personally could make good use of it to admin my work's network and to keep tabs on other machines throughtout my building, do i really think that other people would use it in a benign way like me? of course not!

Being programmers, i think we have a responsibility to educate people as well as provide the tools necessary to use computers. If we didn't then somewhere like the internet would be a lawless place and it would not of been the great invention it is now.

In this ever growing computerised world people like us are charged with the responsibility of guiding the rest of society to an easier life (after all thats why computers where invented) and i personally don't think we should hand them the tools to destroy this vision. It's kind of like the way we don't sell heavy arms to countries ruled by theocracies.

When i was reading the above quote in the other thread i was suddenly saddened to see another misguided (young) person think it would be 'cool' to write a program that could quite easily be used for digital vandalism of an unsuspecting user's computer. I thought to myself does this person realise what they are doing? ...i guess so, and that makes me sad. This person obviously has some skill but prefers to run the risk of alienating decent fellow programmers in order to have a laugh.

I also thought of this quote from the film 'Jarassic Park':

Dr. Ian Malcolm wrote:I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it!

Dr. Ian Malcolm wrote:...but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

Food for thought?

It saddens me no end to see talent like this wasted on such fruitless endeavors, i mean how many remote admin programs are out there already?

Any thoughts?

Kale wrote:

From another thread wrote:The programmer can never be held for things a user does with his software, Xploit Client & Server are never damaging the system, so it's no an illegal app (like a worm/virus that damages the System), illegal actions are only done by users who sit behind the trojan (sombebody must control the server, and thats not me, if you had ever started Xploit you could see that you even have to accept a disclaimer before you are able to use it).

I read this in another thread and decided to voice my opinion to see what other people think. I personally think the above author is talking nonsense, let me explain.

Even thought i have the power to create this kind of software, is it ethical for me to do so even if i wouldn't misuse it? Even if i knew that i personally could make good use of it to admin my work's network and to keep tabs on other machines throughtout my building, do i really think that other people would use it in a benign way like me? of course not!

Being programmers, i think we have a responsibility to educate people as well as provide the tools necessary to use computers. If we didn't then somewhere like the internet would be a lawless place and it would not of been the great invention it is now.

In this ever growing computerised world people like us are charged with the responsibility of guiding the rest of society to an easier life (after all thats why computers where invented) and i personally don't think we should hand them the tools to destroy this vision. It's kind of like the way we don't sell heavy arms to countries ruled by theocracies.

When i was reading the above quote in the other thread i was suddenly saddened to see another misguided (young) person think it would be 'cool' to write a program that could quite easily be used for digital vandalism of an unsuspecting user's computer. I thought to myself does this person realise what they are doing? ...i guess so, and that makes me sad. This person obviously has some skill but prefers to run the risk of alienating decent fellow programmers in order to have a laugh.

I also thought of this quote from the film 'Jarassic Park':

Dr. Ian Malcolm wrote:I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it!

Dr. Ian Malcolm wrote:...but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

Food for thought?

It saddens me no end to see talent like this wasted on such fruitless endeavors, i mean how many remote admin programs are out there already?

Any thoughts?

I agree very much, i once made a keylogger/remote admin software for use on my to , to my pc because i wanted to know who was booting my pc up during the day without my permission, i could have distributed this to the public, however i know as well as everyone here does that some little 12 year old that thinks hes hard is going to find the post on google and mess someones pc with it or spy on someone, so in a way, with my power came the responsibility not to release it.

I do not think that mature programmers such as ourselves should release such programs to the public, i am sure we all know how to, but in the exa,ple above his statement clearly suggests it has illigal use, which he clearly knows.

@Hydrate: No need to quote the entire original post.

@Kale: I agree with you. That's a great quote by Dr Malcolm too!

There's a limit.

Fred is a programmer for Purebasic. Should he be held "responsible" if someone uses PB to create a trojan?

Is java bad? Is c++ bad? Is the PB community bad because we have provided "tips" which could somehow be utilized to write a program which could contain malicious code?

Should Jon Lech Johansen have been convicted of a crime? Better yet, should the manufacturer of the scope he used to break the code have been convicted?

Should a gun manufacturer be convicted because their product was used during the commission of a crime?

Should we ban "good" things which have to potential to be used to hurt?

cheers

@rsts: The answer to all you spoke of is: NO.

Should Num3 be soundly bashed for introducing these forums to endless hasslehoffian recursions??: YES!!!! A thousand times YES!!!

Once again, I find myself agreeing with fangles

What an awful feeling

Not even a limit. The programmer can not be held liable for the programs damages if teh user uses it in such a way. Thats the same as the logic that if I make kitchen knives, and sell them, and the person I sell them to uses them in a murder, I get sent to jail too? No. Thats ridiculus and leads to a very slippery slope.

I think that at some point there must be a limit, and I think it goes back to your point on intent, surely? (dracflamloc?)

For example, say I write code that is entirely designed to trash a computer, and provide mechanisms for installing it on the sly. Say I then make it available to the general public. I personally never use it as it was intended. Others do, though. They are culpable. Am I?

(Yes, I am aware that there is an analogy with guns. However there is another analogy with drugs. The manufacturers, distribution chain and end users are all considered baddies.)


OTOH, I do agree there is indeed a slippery slope here, when there is a good and a bad purpose possible with something. Nuclear energy comes to mind. However the logic of it all sometimes escapes me, especially when it seems obvious the intent was nasty. (Mind you, the logic behind punishment for criminals sometimes escapes me as well, the criminal often appearing to have more rights and protections than the victim. But that is another topic.).

On the whole I agree with Kale, power brings responsibility. Definition of misuse is the difficulty.

> For example, say I write code that is entirely designed to trash a
> computer, and provide mechanisms for installing it on the sly. Say I
> then make it available to the general public. I personally never use it
> as it was intended. Others do, though. They are culpable. Am I?

Yes, you are, because you purposely made it do damage and even made
a way of installing it secretly. You provided a deliberate way to sabotage
a PC. This is NOT the same thing as using a gun for murder because the
gun can have legitimate uses (eg. a farmer shooting vermin on his farm),
but what legitimate use can your program have? None. It's designed to
do one thing: secretly trash a computer. There is no legit use for that,
and I think you'd have a hard time defending your code in court.

I agree. So it would appear (according to thee and me ) that there are limits. Both ways.

Dare2 wrote:I think that at some point there must be a limit, and I think it goes back to your point on intent, surely? (dracflamloc?)

For example, say I write code that is entirely designed to trash a computer, and provide mechanisms for installing it on the sly. Say I then make it available to the general public. I personally never use it as it was intended. Others do, though. They are culpable. Am I?

(Yes, I am aware that there is an analogy with guns. However there is another analogy with drugs. The manufacturers, distribution chain and end users are all considered baddies.)


OTOH, I do agree there is indeed a slippery slope here, when there is a good and a bad purpose possible with something. Nuclear energy comes to mind. However the logic of it all sometimes escapes me, especially when it seems obvious the intent was nasty. (Mind you, the logic behind punishment for criminals sometimes escapes me as well, the criminal often appearing to have more rights and protections than the victim. But that is another topic.).

On the whole I agree with Kale, power brings responsibility. Definition of misuse is the difficulty.

You actually aren't liable. Security companies do this constantly, they release code to exploit a vulenerability in Windows, for example, in hopes that MS will fix ti and that administrators in general will be better prepared and more knowledgable. Microsoft takes it damn time fixing the flaw, and some hacker takes the security companies code and uses it to make a malicious webpage, etc. The security company is NOT liable. This is how it should be. There is no such thing as limiting this power. If you wrote a code and deployed it yourself thats one thing, but like i said before, holding someone liable for how others use thier software is a very dangerous path no matter how well intentioned you might be. (and i wont give ANOTHER metaphor)

Btw, intent of USE and intent of the writing of the program itself are not the same thing. I write a code to learn how to do some kind of attack or damage, its NOT illegal just to write it, even distribute it as educational for other people. Its only illegal if I use it MYSELF!

dracflamloc wrote:There is no such thing as limiting this power. If you wrote a code and deployed it yourself thats one thing, but like i said before, holding someone liable for how others use thier software is a very dangerous path no matter how well intentioned you might be. (and i wont give ANOTHER metaphor)

dracflamloc wrote:Not even a limit. The programmer can not be held liable for the programs damages if teh user uses it in such a way. Thats the same as the logic that if I make kitchen knives, and sell them, and the person I sell them to uses them in a murder, I get sent to jail too? No. Thats ridiculus and leads to a very slippery slope.

Yes i agree on this point that you can not be responsible for another persons actions but this post was to gather views on responsibility of distribution.

Lets take the analogy of a gun:
Fred has made the metal available for you to manufacture your gun and you are going to use it to control pests on your farm. Even though you have no evil intention, once you have manufactured that gun you now have a responsibility to control wether or not to make it available to other people. You realise that some people would misuse it and cause harm. Although you will not be held accountable for any harm others inflict while using your gun you still have the power to stop any such action from ever happening.

I'm just saying personally in my opinion, we as programmers have this responsibility too, to not distribute such tools, especially potentionally very harmful ones that can be used by people that 'didn't use any discipline to attain'.

I think there is one simple principle:

My computer is mine, its processing time is mine, its data is mine.

I should have full control over who has access to my property.

If an application gives me the ability to provide these resources to another, such as a remote administration tool or VNC, then that is a good thing. However, the developers must go to lengths to ensure that I keep control over this. At the very least, this should include:

* Visible presence when running
* A log of all activity
* The ability to turn on and off any features

If this isn't met, then it is harmful.

A good example of when this principle was violated was Sony rootkit for enforcing DRM.

http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/1 ... ights.html

I have no problem with software that enforces DRM. If I write software, I want people to pay for it. If someone records a song, they want the same.

However, what I do want is the option to decide wether or not I wish to have that DRM installed.