3 ms·

They don't address conflicts of interest but it seems like they're fine with privacy: "[...] the use of open source computer operating systems and applications

They don't address conflicts of interest but it seems like they're fine with privacy: "[...] the use of open source computer operating systems and applications reduces the risk of privacy intrusion by mass surveillance. They seem to be touting that as a benefit, not a drawback.

brudgers 12y ago
When the same governments are funding signals intelligence gathering with one hand and open source software development with the other, there is potential conflict of interest, if not actual conflict. The NSA's role in weakening open source encryption standards was the result of the internal logic by which all intelligence organs typically operate irrespective of sponsoring state. The differences between the politics of some EU states and the politics of the US or Russia or the UK don't change that internal logic of intelligence organs. Their job remains to maintain data collection capability.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  And with OSS we can see when the create back doors or modify the code. We can see what the modifications do. And if they are doing anything wrong we can revert the changes and publicise it. Following on from your thinking, what is their angle here? On the surface it seems more difficult to exploit OSS but is there something they can do with it that users won't know about and is easier to exploit?
  - brudgers 12y ago
    Subtle security leaks are not in the center of the all-bugs-are-shallow theory. Cryptographically insecure communications don't cause code to throw exceptions or systems to crash. The effects are social. Unless Eve tells Alice or Bob, neither will know she's read their communications.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  If there's one kind of entity that can finance attacks and the dissemination of defenses against those attacks without any kind of internal conflict, it's a government. That kind of logic holds for individuals, corporations, and single organizations inside a government. But modern governments are explicitly designed to be internally conflicting, and that's universally thought as a good thing.

brudgers 12y ago

When the same governments are funding signals intelligence gathering with one hand and open source software development with the other, there is potential conflict of interest, if not actual conflict. The NSA's role in weakening open source encryption standards was the result of the internal logic by which all intelligence organs typically operate irrespective of sponsoring state. The differences between the politics of some EU states and the politics of the US or Russia or the UK don't change that internal logic of intelligence organs. Their job remains to maintain data collection capability.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
And with OSS we can see when the create back doors or modify the code. We can see what the modifications do. And if they are doing anything wrong we can revert the changes and publicise it. Following on from your thinking, what is their angle here? On the surface it seems more difficult to exploit OSS but is there something they can do with it that users won't know about and is easier to exploit?
- brudgers 12y ago
  Subtle security leaks are not in the center of the all-bugs-are-shallow theory. Cryptographically insecure communications don't cause code to throw exceptions or systems to crash. The effects are social. Unless Eve tells Alice or Bob, neither will know she's read their communications.
marcosdumay 12y ago
If there's one kind of entity that can finance attacks and the dissemination of defenses against those attacks without any kind of internal conflict, it's a government. That kind of logic holds for individuals, corporations, and single organizations inside a government. But modern governments are explicitly designed to be internally conflicting, and that's universally thought as a good thing.