4 ms·
You're agreeing with the OP. The point they were making was that the Australian government could've gotten the source code under an alternative license by askin
by cyphar 7y ago
You're agreeing with the OP. The point they were making was that the Australian government could've gotten the source code under an alternative license by asking the sole copyright holder (which I believe is either the Singaporean government, or a contractor of the Singaporean government).
But to be honest, as an Aussie I don't think our government is remotely competent enough to have considered the copyright license of the code they were using. There were initial reports they would provide the source code of the application, but these promises were quickly revoked for reasons of "national security" or some other such rubbish.
EDIT: I meant to say that it was a bullshit reason such as "national security", not that it was a direct quote. The actual reason they claimed was that it was easier to hack if the source code was public.
- crispinb 7y agobut these promises were quickly revoked Were they? Where did you see that? The Health Dept's response to the Privacy Impact Assessment's recommendation for release of the app's source code says as follows: Agreed. The PIA and source code will be released subject to consultation with the Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre (https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/covidsafe-application-privacy-impact-assessment-agency-response https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/covidsafe-a...) Now that 'consultation' might be a delaying tactic, but it's just as likely to be that the Dept. of Health has no idea of the implications of such release. It certainly doesn't suggest the revocation you claim.
- cyphar 7y agoI was basing it on the public statements of the Health Minister[1]. Now, it's very possible that they'll release it tomorrow and this whole discussion will have been a waste of time -- but at the time of writing the Minister for Government Services said unequivocally that they would release the source code[2] and later the Health Minister said they were "unsure it would be safe"[1], and finally when the app was released the source code was nowhere to be seen. To be fair, he was insistent that they would release it (despite being "unsure it would be safe"). But sure, I also wouldn't be surprised to discover that the whole process has been delayed by some other bureaucracy. After all, they probably see releasing the source code as a token gesture and not a form of review by the public. [1]: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/health-minister-now-unsure-if-source-code-for-covid-contact-tracing-app-is-safe-to-release-546981 https://www.itnews.com.au/news/health-minister-now-unsure-if... [2]: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/govt-to-release-source-code-of-forthcoming-covid-trace-app-546884 https://www.itnews.com.au/news/govt-to-release-source-code-o...
- lukevdp 7y agoDo you have a source for the source code not being released for “national security”?
- cyphar 7y agoThey didn't say it was for national security ("or some other such rubbish" was the point I was making -- that it was a bullshit reason, not that it was a direct quote). The Health Minister claimed that having the source code public would make it easier to hack[1]. But it's just as ridiculous of a statement. [1]: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/health-minister-now-unsure-if-source-code-for-covid-contact-tracing-app-is-safe-to-release-546981 https://www.itnews.com.au/news/health-minister-now-unsure-if...
- lukevdp 7y agoFrom that article: “The first thing we want to do is make sure that we're protecting the safety and the privacy of individuals. Everything that can be released, will be, for sure,” I don’t share your cynicism but I do hope that “everything” means everything.