THE majority opinion ignores the ambiguities surrounding the massive computer break-in orchestrated by Morris.

Knee-jerk declarations that "Morris must be prosecuted, both to punish his unlawful actions and to deter future hackers" present a simplistic solution to complex questions that legal and computer experts and ethicists are still debating.

Pranks such as Morris' are far from being clear-cut cases for legal interpretation. They unwittingly force the authorities into a morass of confusing arguments over how to define computer crime, how to interpret the role of an intruder's intent, how to address the vulnerability of the still relatively young computer industry and how to enforce existing laws.

Legal officials are not certain whether they can prosecute Morris because of these ambiguities. Any case against Morris is clouded by the essential harmlessness of the virus and its unintended spread to computers around the country. The majority opinion irresponsibly sweeps these concerns aside.

Moreover, the fact that Morris's program caused no permanent damage to affected systems but instead served to expose yet another serious lapse in national computer security warrants careful consideration, rather than an impulsive call for a prison sentence.

MORRIS' activity is only the latest in a long line of problematic events which point out the gaps in fully understanding technology. Are computers private? In the newly computerized business world, it depends on who you are, according to current laws. Employers who regularly monitor employees, retrieving even information which has been eliminated from its creator's files, seem to say the answer is no.

Even the definition of "privacy" can be questioned given the current conditions of the computer field. Would one arrest a curious individual wandering through a supposedly secure building with no locks?

The fundamental progress of computer technology demands experimentation, and has required it for decades. Punishing a young man for pursuing a harmless prank that has been accepted and encouraged by the entire system should be a matter of debate--not of closing one's eyes and unthinkingly invoking inadequate laws.

The majority suggests a mean-spirited and narrowly thought-out solution to issues raised by a non-criminal 23-year-old. Uncharacteristically, the majority has opted for the ignorant and ineffective response of punishing the messenger for the severity of his message.