O
F
V
IRUSES AND
V
ICTIMS
: F
RAMING THE
I
NTERNET
, 1988-1990 11
of the National Computer Security Center, called the incident “the work of a bored
graduate student.”
When we consider the roots, consequences, and appeals to principle in the Morris
incident, we discover a number of class issues that perhaps presage the current debate
over the “digital divide.” The press and observers alike were hard-pressed to quantify the
effects of the virus. Nothing was stolen, no one was harmed, no property was damaged.
The chief complaint about the virus was that it hampered productivity for the researchers,
academics, and government workers, who were unable to use their computers following
the virus attacks. In addition, systems operators spent hundreds of hours collectively
purging their computers of the virus and making the network operational again. In short,
Morris stole time from a group of white-collar information workers. This “white-collar”
frame also comes through in analyzing the roots of the incident. Most stories note that
Morris’s virus took advantage of a “hole,” or defect, in the network’s UNIX operating
system, as if the creators of the UNIX program had left the door open and invited Morris
to walk in. As with much of the metaphorical language, this reasoning device tended to
minimize Morris’s responsibility in the incident, suggesting that the UNIX creators
should shared blame for the virus.
Feeding directly off of this was the debate over the punishment that should have
been levied on Morris. Already present was a frame suggesting Morris’s actions were a
mere stunt or prank. Added to this was the suggestion that the creators of the UNIX
program were equally responsible for the “break in” and that Morris might have actually
done them a favor in pointing out the security flaw in the program. Although government
prosecutors and many in the computing industry advocated sending a strong message to
Convention