Computer pathogens like Blaster and SoBig aren't forcing any evolution. They're exploiting old weaknesses and causing problems for folks who aren't vulnerable and who can't even get infected. In most cases, the problem has very little to do with software, but is caused by folks opening trojan horse emails or downloads.

It used to amuse me when old vulnerabilities in Microsoft software kept causing waves of worms and associated media panics. But now I'm just tired of it, especially moronic antivirus programs sending "a virus has been deleted" messages to email lists.

I'd love to hear an example of some "evolution" that's been affected by these annoyances. I just don't see the analogy working.

cbd.

I cannot see how viruses are a *good* thing. If anything, W32.Sobig.F@mm is another example of why "Email is Dead":

see Corante and Adam Curry's weblog.

Interesting logs...I can't agree that Email is dead, though. You may as well say the phone is dead because most calls we get are telemarketers, or that snail is dead because most mail is ads.

As long as we live under the rule of international corporations and their malignant capitalist politics, we will find our "inboxes," whatever form they be, stuffed with ads for products whose makers intend to profit by temporarily and ineffectively relieving the beseiged consumer of whatever ailments he suffers as a result of the system they themselves perpetuate.

As I said earlier, it's not easy to see the positives of viruses, or to laud the virus-makers as artists and creators in their own right.

I hold that virus-makers are programmers (and capitalists) par excellence. They combine the best features of the end-user, programmer, and distributor; in short, the customer, the industrialist, and the commercialist. That they are able to assume and execute these roles with the permission of no one is worthy of praise, not censure.

Capitalism has had the virus-maker forming in its bowels since its birth. What comes next is anyone's guess, but that most important revolution of all, an economic revolution, is clearly upon us.

Consider these patterns:

1. Snail threats in the forms of anthrax, bombs, etc.
2. Email threats in the form of viruses, trojans, bombs
3. Face-threats in obvious forms; pathogens or violence
4. Phone-threats in the form of fraudalent long distance companies named "Don't ever call here again" who switch you automatically to their company if you happen to say their name when they call...

I agree with your point about email.

But I'm still not seeing the worm/virus/trojan programmers as laudable in any meaningful way. Perhaps in the same way that kids who throw bricks through windows are good for glass companies. Or bicycle thieves good for lock manufacturers.

I'm all for critique of the obvious problems with late capitalism. But I don't get the connection here. How is a w/v/t programmer productive in the same way an industrialist or commercialist is? How are they an end-user in the same way a consumer is? I don't even see a subversive role -- yeah, they might be slowing down the capitalists, but a lot of other folks too.

And they'd be insignificant were it not for Microsoft's lax attitude towards security and privacy.

cbd.

cbd.

How is a w/v/t programmer productive in the same way an industrialist or commercialist is? How are they an end-user in the same way a consumer is? I don't even see a subversive role -- yeah, they might be slowing down the capitalists, but a lot of other folks too.

It's simple: They produce digital pathogens which play the ultimate subversive role in a capitalist society: They clog up communication systems and retard the flow of capital. They turn the capitalists' own machinery against them. We can almost think of them as Luddites building machines to destroy machines.

I doubt that virus makers are aware of the role they play in society. They are the revolutionaries.

Not to sound facetious, but if we condemn virus programmers for making digital pathogens, must we not also condemn God for making biological ones? Must we not condemn Mother Nature for daring to raise her fist despite our whip? Those of us of sound philosophical minds realize that the virus has a vital role in the evolution of DNA, even if it is harmful to ourselves.

"As long as we live under the rule of international corporations and their malignant capitalist politics, we will find our "inboxes," whatever form they be, stuffed with ads for products whose makers intend to profit by temporarily and ineffectively relieving the beseiged consumer of whatever ailments he suffers as a result of the system they themselves perpetuate."

Huh??? If you follow most of the discussions about how/why/whether to eliminate spam, I think you'll find that spam is detrimental to society from a capitalist perpective. Most corporate types would acknowledge that spam is costing them money in terms of productivity. Consequently, IMHO, spam is not representative of capitalism, although it is certainly malignant.

The reasons that we don't have effective spam legislation yet are mainly because

• No one has found an effective solution to the problem.
  After all, much of the spam is coming from over seas, making it very difficult to control via any kind of penalities.
• A significantly non-capitalistiic point of view which centers around spam as free speech and a very libertarian-like objection to increased government regulation of any kind.

And the collateral damage is acceptable? Universities, non-profit organizations, and private citizens are hit hard by these coders -- regardless of their participation (or lack thereof) in capitalist economies. I have a hard time believing real revolutionaries would tolerate that.

In fact, I'd argue that w/v/t coders have advanced the interests of capital, shoring up public support to draconian anti-privacy legislation, creating ways for software and hardware manufacturers to sell more products, and ensuring that the once-public Internet is now best used by those multinational corporations who have technical support infrastructure needed to transform it into a matrix of discrete virtual private networks.

If that's revolutionary, I'd hate to see complicity.

cbd.

Well, doubtless some of the books and articles--the ideas, that is--that come out every year cause more "collateral damage" to the academy than any old virus. Think of how much "collateral damage" we're causing traditional Literature-based English departments by valuing the teaching of writing and electronic texts.

Think about how much "collateral damage" was done to the world by religious and philosophcial texts. Should we condemn Moses and Marx as two of the world's most notorious virus-coders?

We must think of computer viruses as texts. They are, in fact, code, and their structure can be mapped out on paper if need be. As texts, they must be protected by the Freedom of Speech, even if their content is seditious.

If we want to hold virus-makers responsible for the "collateral damage" their code causes, we must also hold all authors responsible whose works inspire riots or any cosly restructuring of whatever part of the capitalist system they serve.

Viruses are simply electronic texts with a highly effective publication system.