4 ms·

By extension should every device I own require me to have access to the source code and output data? Not a rhetorical question.

dec0dedab0de 10y ago
Yes.
falcolas 10y ago
Do you want to control the device, or do you want someone else to control your devices? If you're OK with someone else (who probably doesn't have your well-being anywhere in their list of priorities) controlling all of your devices, then the answer is no, you are not required to have access to the source code and output data. EDIT: I didn't realize this was such a controversial statement. I stand by it, though; even as I knowingly own many such devices myself. I can certainly see, however, how I may want more control over a pacemaker than, say, my phone.
- krapp 10y ago
  In theory, open sourcing pacemaker software make sense, but in practice, the pool of people qualified to review and edit that software may not be very large. Most people would still be depending on someone else to control their devices in any case.
  - abraae 10y ago
    If I had a pacemaker I would most definitely review the source code for it if I could get access to it. Even if it meant learning golang or ARM assembly or whatever the kids use to build pacemakers these days. I'm sure I'd lack a lot of the heart mechanics side of the equation, but I would be very highly incentivised to hunt out programming bugs.
  - beagle3 10y ago
    the editor pool is small, but the reviewer pool is large.
  - Illniyar 10y ago
    There are probably very few parts of the code of a pacemaker that requires knowledge about medical devices or pacemakers specifically - probably the drivers that connect to the sensors and the algorithms that determine what the pacemaker should do based on the result of the sensors. The majority of the code, especially if as said in the article it has wifi and listens to external requests, is code that requires only expertise in more general software, of which there are many many people who are qualified to review such software (or write it).
- pdkl95 10y ago
  If someone else is controlling the device, then they de facto own it and should be liable for any damage it causes. The user cannot both be liable for something and be unable to manage/fix it. In the case of a pacemaker or other medical devices, this liability could even include manslaughter.
- taneq 10y ago
  There's another whole level to this question of control, which is do you want someone else's algorithm, written in the past, to control your device, or do you want them to have realtime access to change your device's behaviour whenever they want? The latter is becoming more and more common and, I think, is far more disturbing than the former. (As an aside, the suggestion that a software developer writing firmware for pacemakers "probably doesn't have your well-being anywhere in their list of priorities" seems unfair. You wouldn't believe the amount of effort that goes into ensuring that critical systems behave properly.)
  - jordigh 10y ago
    > You wouldn't believe the amount of effort that goes into ensuring that critical systems behave properly. I wouldn't either. I have seen some of it, and not that much effort goes into it. A lot of paperwork goes into saying that the effort was done, but the actual effort carried out pales in comparison. It's more about finding someone else to blame than to make sure nothing bad happens. Organisations like the frickin' FDA who have no idea how software is developed are in charge of worldwide standards of medical software bureaucracy.
jordigh 10y ago
Y'know, back in the early 2000's and the days of Slashdot, it was quite common to find people who advocated for free software everywhere. Now we find people who like yourself have to specify that the radical position that all software should be free is something worthy of serious consideration. That they're not joking or trying to be deliberately provocative. What happened to us? Why did we go from boasting about installing Linux on a dead badger and talking about how all software will some day be free to being afraid to seriously consider the proposition?
- yostrovs 10y ago
  Because Linux was supposed to become a great thing, but instead it remained a paradise for geeks to do what they think is best. Software built to make money, on the other hand, was built to improve things like ease of use, aesthetics, and buyer's happiness, because that's what buyers were looking for. The open-source people never really cared about the dumb people and lay folks, the ignoramuses that didn't care to learn how to compose commands and figure out regular expressions. And that Linux was supposed to be the shining example of open-source software, one that so many people installed and tried, only to find out it blows and is effectively unusable for their needs.
  - visarga 10y ago
    I was under the impression that Mac OS, iOS, Android and recently Windows all run "Linux" under the hood nowadays. Not to mention the presence of Linux in the cloud, which is essential for the functioning of most websites, apps and mobile devices. Am I wrong? Basically, it's easier to tell where there is no Linux than the opposite. That surely doesn't sound like such a failure. It's as if all the other OSes and systems are front-ends for Linux subsystems.
    - ashitlerferad 10y ago
      Only Android actually uses Linux. macOS/iOS are proprietary Apple things with bits of mach and FreeBSD. The Windows thing you are probably thinking of is that Microsoft reimplemented various Linux APIs, so software built for Linux can run under Windows without Linux being involved.
dtornabene 10y ago
By what extension? There's a very real criteria here, it literally controls the rhythm of a persons heartbeat. This isn't a trivial device that runs on a wall outlet. "By extension" is doing a significant amount of work in this comment.

dec0dedab0de 10y ago

Yes.

falcolas 10y ago

Do you want to control the device, or do you want someone else to control your devices? If you're OK with someone else (who probably doesn't have your well-being anywhere in their list of priorities) controlling all of your devices, then the answer is no, you are not required to have access to the source code and output data. EDIT: I didn't realize this was such a controversial statement. I stand by it, though; even as I knowingly own many such devices myself. I can certainly see, however, how I may want more control over a pacemaker than, say, my phone.

krapp 10y ago
In theory, open sourcing pacemaker software make sense, but in practice, the pool of people qualified to review and edit that software may not be very large. Most people would still be depending on someone else to control their devices in any case.
- abraae 10y ago
  If I had a pacemaker I would most definitely review the source code for it if I could get access to it. Even if it meant learning golang or ARM assembly or whatever the kids use to build pacemakers these days. I'm sure I'd lack a lot of the heart mechanics side of the equation, but I would be very highly incentivised to hunt out programming bugs.
- beagle3 10y ago
  the editor pool is small, but the reviewer pool is large.
- Illniyar 10y ago
  There are probably very few parts of the code of a pacemaker that requires knowledge about medical devices or pacemakers specifically - probably the drivers that connect to the sensors and the algorithms that determine what the pacemaker should do based on the result of the sensors. The majority of the code, especially if as said in the article it has wifi and listens to external requests, is code that requires only expertise in more general software, of which there are many many people who are qualified to review such software (or write it).
pdkl95 10y ago
If someone else is controlling the device, then they de facto own it and should be liable for any damage it causes. The user cannot both be liable for something and be unable to manage/fix it. In the case of a pacemaker or other medical devices, this liability could even include manslaughter.
taneq 10y ago
There's another whole level to this question of control, which is do you want someone else's algorithm, written in the past, to control your device, or do you want them to have realtime access to change your device's behaviour whenever they want? The latter is becoming more and more common and, I think, is far more disturbing than the former. (As an aside, the suggestion that a software developer writing firmware for pacemakers "probably doesn't have your well-being anywhere in their list of priorities" seems unfair. You wouldn't believe the amount of effort that goes into ensuring that critical systems behave properly.)
- jordigh 10y ago
  > You wouldn't believe the amount of effort that goes into ensuring that critical systems behave properly. I wouldn't either. I have seen some of it, and not that much effort goes into it. A lot of paperwork goes into saying that the effort was done, but the actual effort carried out pales in comparison. It's more about finding someone else to blame than to make sure nothing bad happens. Organisations like the frickin' FDA who have no idea how software is developed are in charge of worldwide standards of medical software bureaucracy.

jordigh 10y ago

Y'know, back in the early 2000's and the days of Slashdot, it was quite common to find people who advocated for free software everywhere. Now we find people who like yourself have to specify that the radical position that all software should be free is something worthy of serious consideration. That they're not joking or trying to be deliberately provocative. What happened to us? Why did we go from boasting about installing Linux on a dead badger and talking about how all software will some day be free to being afraid to seriously consider the proposition?

yostrovs 10y ago
Because Linux was supposed to become a great thing, but instead it remained a paradise for geeks to do what they think is best. Software built to make money, on the other hand, was built to improve things like ease of use, aesthetics, and buyer's happiness, because that's what buyers were looking for. The open-source people never really cared about the dumb people and lay folks, the ignoramuses that didn't care to learn how to compose commands and figure out regular expressions. And that Linux was supposed to be the shining example of open-source software, one that so many people installed and tried, only to find out it blows and is effectively unusable for their needs.
- visarga 10y ago
  I was under the impression that Mac OS, iOS, Android and recently Windows all run "Linux" under the hood nowadays. Not to mention the presence of Linux in the cloud, which is essential for the functioning of most websites, apps and mobile devices. Am I wrong? Basically, it's easier to tell where there is no Linux than the opposite. That surely doesn't sound like such a failure. It's as if all the other OSes and systems are front-ends for Linux subsystems.
  - ashitlerferad 10y ago
    Only Android actually uses Linux. macOS/iOS are proprietary Apple things with bits of mach and FreeBSD. The Windows thing you are probably thinking of is that Microsoft reimplemented various Linux APIs, so software built for Linux can run under Windows without Linux being involved.

dtornabene 10y ago

By what extension? There's a very real criteria here, it literally controls the rhythm of a persons heartbeat. This isn't a trivial device that runs on a wall outlet. "By extension" is doing a significant amount of work in this comment.