6 ms·
Insufficient liability, one would guess. Cars, airplanes, industrial plant, all these have software in them but the liability is wholly different, should an ac
by HarryHirsch 11y ago
Insufficient liability, one would guess. Cars, airplanes, industrial plant, all these have software in them but the liability is wholly different, should an accident happen due to a software bug.
- hrbrtglm 11y agoI don't think that's a relevant comparison. You can be sure that when cars, airplanes and industrial plant have available access through internet, they will be powned as well and there will be accidents.
- HarryHirsch 11y agoThis argument was implied. If they will own your data when you put your HR database on the internet, maybe you shouldn't put your HR database on the internet to begin with. I can't be the only one who feels that computer security is a field that is insufficiently mature, yet people put confidential data on the internet all the time even though the technology isn't ripe yet to do so safely. Compare this attitude with the extremely conservative approach in rocketry. The technology is positively from the stone age, but everyone agrees that it is well understood. You can't take any other approach when space missions are multi-decade projects and the price tag has nine figures.
- dllthomas 11y agoCareful, though. If I put up a new Tetris clone on GitHub, and you decide to use it to control your power plant... Liability should first rest with the entities deploying the software, since those are the only ones with a picture of what can go wrong in the context where it's being deployed. Those entities should then be demanding warranty/indemnity as appropriate from their suppliers (or possibly third parties, for F/OSS).