Computer damage almost always translates to dollar figures - and no amount of money is worth an intelligent life. It's amusing to me that these are the same people who are pro-life because they don't believe in taking an innocent life... Especially considering the way viruses sometimes spread incidentally, how can we place all of the blame squarely on the shoulders of the virus writer? Aren't the companies who SELL the bug-infested software at least partially to blame? I think our priorities are a little messed up. Desktop computer usage has become so simple for mundane tasks that people underestimate the importance of properly learning to use their computers. Then they start to depend on them for business. The poor fool who puts infected or porous software on his computer and does not bother to update it or investigate its security flaws needs to take at least a little responsibility for his possession. You can equip a car with seat belts, but the law says you HAVE to wear them. Why not pass a law that requires people to lock down their computers, or else not bitch about getting screwed. If you did everything you could and you were STILL wiped clean - that's a different story? Perhaps we need a new arm of the insurance industry (*smacks own face*) - one that insures people against security breaches, but requires them to take certain precautions. That all said, I agree that there should be crimes and penalties for people who write malicious code - but when you accept for a second that code does exactly what it's told to do - and realize that data doesn't care about itself - how do we separate people who write "malicious" code from a keyboard manufacturer who puts a "delete" key on his keyboard? Do we start going after companies that make it very easy to delete a lot of data at once? How do we define "good code" vs "bad code"? Is intent really all that matters? Then do we arrest people who write code with malicious intent before they release it? If intent is the crime, then we run into thought-crime and the possibility to arrest someone who begins to plan a virus on paper without ever even writing the code. If we go to that extreme, who do we say is allowed to write proof of concept code and is allowed to find fixes? The lines begin to blur - and while I agree and accept that someone needs to take responsibility somewhere along the way, I think it all goes back to software manufacturers simply writing better code. If we demand more, we will find that we get more. Passing the buck and threatening lives has got to be the dumbest solution.