6 ms·

I actually think it would be a good thing if governments required access to the source code for all software that they use.

kibwen 7y ago
I'd go further and extend that to "every citizen has access to the source code of all software their governments use".
- dmix 7y ago
  The government already has enough crippling inefficiency, but yeah let’s throw a grenade onto all the software they ever wanted to use.
  - vangelis 7y ago
    We should simply persecute anyone finds issues with this software to the full extent of the law. A culture of fear around security research is the most effective culture.
- sabas_ge 7y ago
  For software developed by / for government this is already the case in some countries..
jtms 7y ago
For all software the government itself uses, yes, but the article is detailing a law in China that gives them the ability to just take ALL data (and source code) unilaterally if it exists anywhere within the border.
- IllogicalLogic 7y ago
  So China is publicly announcing that it's deploying what the Five Eyes have deployed in democratic countries under the cover of darkness across the world (while lying to their citizens, who have a constitutional right to know)? Points for transparency.
  - pembrook 7y ago
    IllogicalLogic, these discussions have more value when we focus on the topic at hand, not devolve into whataboutism. Your comparison is both a mischaracterization and off-topic.
    - IllogicalLogic 7y ago
      Not whataboutism, if the case can be made that 350 million people need protection then the case can more easily be made for 1.3 billion people. Wikileaks also showed us that US agencies were engaged in industrial espionage, stealing German/French industrial technology using the Five Eyes tools and giving it to GE & friends ... The problem is, my more "reality-based" framing destroys the "China is uniquely evil" narrative that western media/gov is pushing everywhere for primarily economic reasons.
    - MiSeRyDeee 7y ago
      I don't see any mischaracterization since Five Eyes was for exactly the same purpose.
  - fouric 7y ago
    Factually incorrect. None of the Five Eyes do any sort of mass decryption even remotely similar to what is mentioned in the article.
    - IllogicalLogic 7y ago
      You have proof that no mass decryption (or attempts) occur/have occurred? I'm not as optimistic. History shows human nature tends to work as we expect when US economic/security interests are involved... https://wikileaks.org/nsa-france/selectors.html https://wikileaks.org/nsa-france/selectors.html https://wikileaks.org/nsa-germany/selectors.html https://wikileaks.org/nsa-germany/selectors.html https://wikileaks.org/nsa-japan/selectors.html https://wikileaks.org/nsa-japan/selectors.html
kebman 7y ago
Why? What's "good" about it? What if you don't want to? Should you be forced to, just because a government chose your software? On what grounds? Are there any bad things that could come out of this, aside from the obvious use of coercion and infringements of individual rights?
- justinclift 7y ago
  > What if you don't want to? Then your software should be excluded from gov purchase. You'd be ok to keep selling to non-gov places though.
  - kebman 7y ago
    You just used the word "should". That implies the philosophical concept of morality. What makes you think that you're more qualified to set the rules above any individual they might affect? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
    - justinclift 7y ago
      > That implies the philosophical concept of morality. Not seeing how it could even possibly be considered philosophical, but okay... And sure thing. Consider that me casting said first stone... :)
downrightmike 7y ago
Other side: The US doesn't even publish software paid for by tax payers, or the a lot of the FDA information also paid for by citizens.
justinclift 7y ago
Read access, or write access? ;)
mensetmanusman 7y ago
Their unofficial policy is to provide the source code to local competitors. They can just rebrand, and compete. Happens all the time now.

kibwen 7y ago

I'd go further and extend that to "every citizen has access to the source code of all software their governments use".

dmix 7y ago
The government already has enough crippling inefficiency, but yeah let’s throw a grenade onto all the software they ever wanted to use.
- vangelis 7y ago
  We should simply persecute anyone finds issues with this software to the full extent of the law. A culture of fear around security research is the most effective culture.
sabas_ge 7y ago
For software developed by / for government this is already the case in some countries..

jtms 7y ago

For all software the government itself uses, yes, but the article is detailing a law in China that gives them the ability to just take ALL data (and source code) unilaterally if it exists anywhere within the border.

IllogicalLogic 7y ago
So China is publicly announcing that it's deploying what the Five Eyes have deployed in democratic countries under the cover of darkness across the world (while lying to their citizens, who have a constitutional right to know)? Points for transparency.
- pembrook 7y ago
  IllogicalLogic, these discussions have more value when we focus on the topic at hand, not devolve into whataboutism. Your comparison is both a mischaracterization and off-topic.
  - IllogicalLogic 7y ago
    Not whataboutism, if the case can be made that 350 million people need protection then the case can more easily be made for 1.3 billion people. Wikileaks also showed us that US agencies were engaged in industrial espionage, stealing German/French industrial technology using the Five Eyes tools and giving it to GE & friends ... The problem is, my more "reality-based" framing destroys the "China is uniquely evil" narrative that western media/gov is pushing everywhere for primarily economic reasons.
  - MiSeRyDeee 7y ago
    I don't see any mischaracterization since Five Eyes was for exactly the same purpose.
- fouric 7y ago
  Factually incorrect. None of the Five Eyes do any sort of mass decryption even remotely similar to what is mentioned in the article.
  - IllogicalLogic 7y ago
    You have proof that no mass decryption (or attempts) occur/have occurred? I'm not as optimistic. History shows human nature tends to work as we expect when US economic/security interests are involved... https://wikileaks.org/nsa-france/selectors.html https://wikileaks.org/nsa-france/selectors.html https://wikileaks.org/nsa-germany/selectors.html https://wikileaks.org/nsa-germany/selectors.html https://wikileaks.org/nsa-japan/selectors.html https://wikileaks.org/nsa-japan/selectors.html

kebman 7y ago

Why? What's "good" about it? What if you don't want to? Should you be forced to, just because a government chose your software? On what grounds? Are there any bad things that could come out of this, aside from the obvious use of coercion and infringements of individual rights?

justinclift 7y ago
> What if you don't want to? Then your software should be excluded from gov purchase. You'd be ok to keep selling to non-gov places though.
- kebman 7y ago
  You just used the word "should". That implies the philosophical concept of morality. What makes you think that you're more qualified to set the rules above any individual they might affect? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
  - justinclift 7y ago
    > That implies the philosophical concept of morality. Not seeing how it could even possibly be considered philosophical, but okay... And sure thing. Consider that me casting said first stone... :)

downrightmike 7y ago

Other side: The US doesn't even publish software paid for by tax payers, or the a lot of the FDA information also paid for by citizens.

justinclift 7y ago

Read access, or write access? ;)

mensetmanusman 7y ago

Their unofficial policy is to provide the source code to local competitors. They can just rebrand, and compete. Happens all the time now.