Prosecuting virus creators

Since I've spent a lot of time lately fighting to protect a huge network from several worms that have been getting a lot of attention, I've also been thinking about punishing the people who unleash these self-propagating programs on the world. Courttv has this story about the few famous creators who have been caught and punished. I saw this story today that explains why it is so hard to catch and prosecute these people.

My mother asked me about this the other day, and I tried to explain why so many of the people responsible for the worms and viruses that hurt us the most are never caught and punished. A lot of the things I said are said in this story, and much better than I explained it. As more and more computers get connected to the Internet, and it requires less and less technical skill to do so, the problem of viruses is only going to continue to get worse. There will always be people that don't understand the problem, or just don't want to spend the money to get anti-virus software and pay to keep it updated.

I think it's incredibly selfish of people not to have up-to-date antivirus software at all times. It's not that expensive and it's not that hard. If you're going to be part of a global community, I think it's only fair to do what you can to keep from hurting the other people in it. Things are going to spread sometimes, and even the most up-to-date software won't catch everything, but most can be limited greatly. The people who create these destructive programs are criminals and should be punished. People who spread them because they are too lazy to protect their machines, though, should be ashamed.

The next step

I read the news coverage of trials that hold an interest for me. I'm not sure why they do hold an interest, but I do find myself hoping one side or the other will win. It's not conscious, and I don't think I would ever actually come to a conclusion about guilt or innocence from news reports, but it's difficult not to. Hearing the summaries of testimony and seeing the little bit that I did at home on Monday, I'm struck by how badly it seems the police and DA handled the Michael Peterson investigation and arrest. How much of that is just the perception I've gotten because of the articles I've read though?

At least now, we have more of an opportunity to get a clearer picture. Guilt or innocence is supposed to be decided by a jury after they hear all testimony and review all evidence. Summaries in stories just can't convey it, so any conclusion I draw can't be solid. Now, though, we can watch every minute of a trial on TV. We still don't get an exact picture like the jury would because we can't hold evidence and we see things that aren't admissible that the jury doesn't see.

Live coverage of trials comes on during the day, though. People with day jobs can't watch them even if they want to. I don't see this as a hardship, I'm just thinking about the potential for a market. Now with broadband and dvd technology getting less expensive, how long is it until Court TV or someone else offers complete downloads of all trial footage or a DVD pack with everything from opening statements to the verdict? You could even package it with commentary from the attorneys and the judge. Wittnesses could explain what they meant in bonus footage. You could even interview the defendant. I wonder when and if this will happen. I can see acquitted defendants getting to keep the profits themselves. In cases where the defendant is convicted, maybe the profits go to the victim or the victim's family. I can't be the only person who has considered this. Is there some legal reason this isn't happening, or do the powers just believe there isn't enough market to support it?