3 ms·

Honest question: in many cases, how can you _not_ have a backdoor? Obviously, it depends on what kind of software you're writing, but pieces like this seem to h

Honest question: in many cases, how can you _not_ have a backdoor? Obviously, it depends on what kind of software you're writing, but pieces like this seem to have this utopian goal of software that "just works", independent of any human except its user. In reality though, other humans are always necessary — whether to explain how to use the technology, to do something that can't be done through the software, to fix the software (after isolating the problem using your data). If there's trust between the user and the software provider, why not leverage it to fill in the gaps that software leaves in functionality. If there's no trust, how do you use software without giving the provider the keys to the kingdom?

TeMPOraL 7y ago
All your questions have a single answer, which FSF is arguing for: Free Software. No, seriously: > In reality though, other humans are always necessary — whether to explain how to use the technology, You can do that through good UI design, manuals, tutorials and support (possibly paid support). > to do something that can't be done through the software, to fix the software This doesn't mean the people doing this have to be the vendors selling the software. You should be able to do it yourself, or hire a third party. > (after isolating the problem using your data). Doesn't justify getting that data without consent. > If there's trust between the user and the software provider, why not leverage it to fill in the gaps that software leaves in functionality. One of the point of Free Software is that this shouldn't be a two-party relationship. The relationship should include all other users of the software, and put them all in similar positions of power. (Personal aside: maybe this is because I'm past my 20s, but I start to hate this growing trend where buying a product forces you to establish a relationship with a vendor. I don't want a relationship, I want the product.) > If there's no trust, how do you use software without giving the provider the keys to the kingdom? Open source.
- jonstaab 7y ago
  Maybe it has something to do with the domain I work in, or maybe it's just a problem with how software is done, but the expectation in my industry that there ought to be a relationship that comes along with the software. Also, Open Source is not an answer to the last question. The majority of software users don't have the technical expertise to evaluate the safety of a given OSS, even if there's a community established around making recommendations — but even then, that's a trust relationship too. Edit: maybe I should be more open minded. How is OSS a substitute for trust? Is it a redirection of trust to a group whose interests are aligned with yours? How do you facilitate that network without putting too much burden on the user? Are there any good examples of working OSS that involves non-technical end users?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > Maybe it has something to do with the domain I work in, or maybe it's just a problem with how software is done, but the expectation in my industry that there ought to be a relationship that comes along with the software. It absolutely is a problem with how software is done. A decade or more ago, back before everything turned from a product into a SaaS subscription, you could buy software, and any relationship was strictly optional. > How is OSS a substitute for trust? Is it a redirection of trust to a group whose interests are aligned with yours? I should have said more and not just dropped a term, sorry. OSS is not a substitute for trust in general; trust is a desirable quality. But it is a refinement of trust (per the usual "trust but verify" approach), and also potentially a redirection - you have an option to base your trust not just on promises of the software provider, but also on the opinions of other people who looked into it, and who give you more reasons to trust them. > How do you facilitate that network without putting too much burden on the user? Open Source helps with that by allowing communities of users with knowledge about the inner workings to form. These communities naturally connect to other communities. It's not effortless, but humans in general are good at navigating this. OSS isn't a necessary thing here, but it's very helpful.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

All your questions have a single answer, which FSF is arguing for: Free Software. No, seriously: > In reality though, other humans are always necessary — whether to explain how to use the technology, You can do that through good UI design, manuals, tutorials and support (possibly paid support). > to do something that can't be done through the software, to fix the software This doesn't mean the people doing this have to be the vendors selling the software. You should be able to do it yourself, or hire a third party. > (after isolating the problem using your data). Doesn't justify getting that data without consent. > If there's trust between the user and the software provider, why not leverage it to fill in the gaps that software leaves in functionality. One of the point of Free Software is that this shouldn't be a two-party relationship. The relationship should include all other users of the software, and put them all in similar positions of power. (Personal aside: maybe this is because I'm past my 20s, but I start to hate this growing trend where buying a product forces you to establish a relationship with a vendor. I don't want a relationship, I want the product.) > If there's no trust, how do you use software without giving the provider the keys to the kingdom? Open source.

jonstaab 7y ago
Maybe it has something to do with the domain I work in, or maybe it's just a problem with how software is done, but the expectation in my industry that there ought to be a relationship that comes along with the software. Also, Open Source is not an answer to the last question. The majority of software users don't have the technical expertise to evaluate the safety of a given OSS, even if there's a community established around making recommendations — but even then, that's a trust relationship too. Edit: maybe I should be more open minded. How is OSS a substitute for trust? Is it a redirection of trust to a group whose interests are aligned with yours? How do you facilitate that network without putting too much burden on the user? Are there any good examples of working OSS that involves non-technical end users?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > Maybe it has something to do with the domain I work in, or maybe it's just a problem with how software is done, but the expectation in my industry that there ought to be a relationship that comes along with the software. It absolutely is a problem with how software is done. A decade or more ago, back before everything turned from a product into a SaaS subscription, you could buy software, and any relationship was strictly optional. > How is OSS a substitute for trust? Is it a redirection of trust to a group whose interests are aligned with yours? I should have said more and not just dropped a term, sorry. OSS is not a substitute for trust in general; trust is a desirable quality. But it is a refinement of trust (per the usual "trust but verify" approach), and also potentially a redirection - you have an option to base your trust not just on promises of the software provider, but also on the opinions of other people who looked into it, and who give you more reasons to trust them. > How do you facilitate that network without putting too much burden on the user? Open Source helps with that by allowing communities of users with knowledge about the inner workings to form. These communities naturally connect to other communities. It's not effortless, but humans in general are good at navigating this. OSS isn't a necessary thing here, but it's very helpful.