In fact, your zealous answer proves my point.
Now back to viruses and PUPs.
In fact, your zealous answer proves my point.
Now back to viruses and PUPs.
It would be like if people had used "virus" as a generic without it ever having a technical definition (by analogy to infections), then Congress proposed to ban encryption to stop "viruses", because hey, lots of viruses use encryption.
Pointing out that co-opting from the informal "infectious software" to "software that uses encryption" is a meaningful point.
I think you're correct that the usage of virus for unwanted software is fine; I think you're wrong about the evolution of language there matching what happened with "assault weapon". Specifically, one change is going from the technical to the generic, while the other is going from the generic to technical.