Related Resources • Virus Encyclopedia • Glossary of terms

Elsewhere on the Web • Virus Bulletin

In the March 2003 issue of Virus Bulletin, Dr. H.W. LeBourgeois, III examines the psychological impact of computer virus infection (CVI). In the article, Dr. LeBourgeois coins the term "Electronically Transmitted Disease" and infers that "judges who determine sentencing (for virus writers) should take into consideration the psychological toll inflicted upon society."

Dr. LeBourgeois' study was performed at the Tulane University Health Sciences Center and is comprised of survey results gathered from 308 students of the University of Southern Mississippi. The study found that "psychological symptoms were a common reaction to CVI" and that "the most severe reactions to CVI were feelings and behaviors associated with anger." Not surprisingly, the findings also indicate that the feelings of anger lessened when immediate identification of the virus source were ascertained and/or if antivirus software were in use at the time of infection. Without performing psychological impact studies, antivirus vendors have known for years that information about the threat is one of the most important factors for infected users, second only to the actual removal of the threat. For this very reason, comprehensive virus information databases are maintained by most antivirus vendors.

As noted, this same study shows that the use of antivirus software suggested a "prophylactic effect against psychological morbidity." In other words, those who used antivirus software yet subsequently became infected felt less anger and distress regarding the infection. While brand was insignificant, researchers discovered that purchasing antivirus software within 24 hours of the infection incident also reduced the anger and stress felt by the victim.

The survey results raise many questions, including whether it is the use of antivirus software per se, or whether it is the personality traits of persons most likely to employ antivirus software, that accounts for the reduced aggravation. The proper use of antivirus software suggests a certain level of knowledge and understanding regarding computer threats, all of which might lead to feelings of more control. Conversely, a group of users who did not previously use antivirus software could be expected to be less familiar - and thus, less in control - of their computing environment. Would these same users tend to feel more "victimized", i.e. through fear of the unknown or feelings of lack of control?

What implications does the term disease bring forth? If an admissable argument for assessing sentencing of the virus writer/distributor, can the same argument be used to bring personal injury lawsuits designed to compensate the victims for the pain and suffering caused by their infection? If so, will defendent lists be extended to include wealthy corporations who were themselves victim of a virus assualt and who subsequently - and unknowingly - passed the infection on to the less-monied plaintiffs. Considering the perceived deep pockets of corporate IT, perhaps legal arguments will be made to convince jurors that said corporation had both the knowledge, the means, and the responsibility to effectively thwart virus infection and that their inability to do so is a direct result of negligience which subsequently led to considerable mental anguish for the plaintiff.

Of course, fear of lawsuits is no reason to declare a term inappropriate. However, as a society, we are increasingly quick to apply disease labels to a variety of behaviors. It is not lack of self-control, it is an addiction. Obesity is not the result of overeating and lack of exercise, it is a genetic malfunction. Aggressive or inappropriate actions are dubbed stress disorders. While there are certainly instances in which these labels are appropriate, how often are they misused as a convenient excuse? By labeling virus infection an "Electronically Transmittable Disease", do we risk sending the message that somehow users are exonerated from the need to protect their systems? Worse, do we risk watering down the very term "disease" and increasing its acceptance as a catch-all term for whatever ails us - self-inflicted or otherwise? In a society reluctant to point fingers, would it be completely unacceptable to ask that rather than labeling CVI a disease, we instead use the survey to suggest the "do not use" folks take their cues from the more mellow members of society and buy antivirus software? If nothing else, based on the survey results, it will at least make them feel better.