9 ms·
The fact that policy folks (essentially non-productive folks living off other people's work) are considering making unpaid volunteers criminally liable for secu
by bitL 4y ago
The fact that policy folks (essentially non-productive folks living off other people's work) are considering making unpaid volunteers criminally liable for security bugs leads to a question: how did we end up here?
- flangola7 4y ago[flagged]
- bdw5204 4y agoThis policy paper argues pretty strongly against making unpaid volunteers criminally liable for security bugs. People in the political realm think of tech as "big tech" (their term for FAANG) and are currently trying to come up with solutions to address the societal problems caused by the FAANGs. That's why it's important for people who understand tech to explain the full consequences of their policy ideas to politicians, regulators and others discussing how to regulate tech. It would also help if there were more people from the tech world going into politics because there's a real risk that computer illiterate politicians will pass something stupid or will inadvertently allow FAANG to capture a regulatory agency and use it to crush their smaller competitors.
- bitL 4y agoJust posing the question of criminal liability for FOSS devs is weird. Moreover, all the proposed solutions are "keep the samaritans non-liable", but prevent them from making any money (or just a very low sum/year) off FOSS. What gave these policy makers right to do this? What kind of perverted mind must be present to come up with these arguments?
- esperent 4y ago> "big tech" (their term for FAANG) Big Tech is a way better name than FAANG, I hope it catches on. FAANG sounds way cooler than the reality of these terribly dull companies and is also very US centric.