Rogue's actions Include violations of several principles of the Code. by allowing for the hosting of malicious software, Rogue facilitated the harm caused by their clients, violating both Principles 1.1 and 1.2. Additionally, Rogue was complicit in violating Principle 2.8, as the ISP was aware that their machines were hosting code that caused infections that were clearly not authorized. Finally, Rogue failed to consider the public good, violating Principle 3.1. From the perspective of the worm authors, this case highlights a key nuance of Principle 1.2. Given that the worm was designed with the specific intent of causing harm to Rogue's systems, the authors were obligated to ensure the harm was ethically justified. The worm aimed to shut down web services that were clearly harmful and malicious in nature, the intent of the worm is consistent with the moral obligations identified in Principle 1.1. Additionally, the worm included mechanisms to limit itself solely to Rogue's systems, thus demonstrating an attempt to minimize unintended harm. Rogue's retailer clients could rightfully object to the deletion of their data, so a better solution would have included additional precautions to avoid this unintentional harm. The worm also highlights the guidance in Principle 2.8. The worm clearly accessed Rogue's systems in ways that were not authorized, destroying data in the process. However, the goal of targeting malicious software demonstrates a compelling belief that the service disruption was consistent with the public good