-The idea of benevolent viruses patching security holes is a outright terrible
-idea because of a set of reasons.
-
-Firstly this breaches the privacy of the user. Analogous, a burglar that breaks
-into a house to install better locks would be considered wrong as well. The
-system is property of the user and the internet has been an anarchistic place
-that had no rules and regulations. If the user chooses not to protect their
-system then that is their own loss. However, when the system also attacks other
-systems it should be fixed. This is not always the case and depending on the
-view on the internet of the user breaking into the system is worse then a
-possible attack on the system. This case is a living example of the security
-versus privacy duality. Unprotected users are unwanted invaded by, apparently
-benevolent, worms. Who can proof these worms are benevolent, who develops them,
-those questions become very relevant.
+This case is very much similar to the first case discussed in
+Section~\ref{sec:grey}. However, the nature of this discussion point is even
+more extreme. Patching systems through breaking in can be seen as grey hat
+hacking. The methods used are bedraggled but the consequences are positive.
+However, this matter is different from the previous ones in the sense that it
+proposes to allow such behaviour. This case proposes to encourage breaching
+systems to patch them.
+
+From a purely consequentialists point of view there is nothing wrong with it.
+The victims machine will be patched and no harm is done besides walking into an
+already open door. However, from a deontological point of view this is wrong
+because you have to resort to inherently bad techniques such as breaching into
+systems and changing systems unauthorized.
+
+The same problem as the similar discussion point arises which is the thin line
+between good and bad. The opinions on what is a well-patched system might
+change and there might even be a schism in the population on certain patches.
+Take for example the \emph{phone-home} patch that was introduced in
+\emph{Windows 7} that adds the similar \emph{phone-home} functionality to the
+system that is present in the successor \emph{Windows 10}. This functionality
+allows the system to call back to the servers of \emph{Microsoft} to send
+information such as statistics. Some user might deliberately ignore this patch
+because it infringes on their privacy. \emph{Microsoft} on the other hand will
+probably state that it is necessary to guarantee a good user experience and
+possibly even to guarantee safety. Obviously this example is arcane and
+artificial but similar problems may arise.
+
+Therefore the solution to this problem is to disallow placing ``good'' malware
+on systems. Following the same principles as the previous case it might be
+legal to notify the users in some way of their unpatched systems. But again,
+this is a very thin line and has to be tested continuously via the court of
+law.