Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 18th Jan 2007 23:42 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption Alan Cox, one of the leading Linux kernel developers, has told a House of Lords hearing that neither open- nor closed-source developers should be liable for the security of the code they write. Cox, who is permanently employed at Red Hat, told the Lords Science and Technology Committee inquiry into personal internet security that both open- and closed-source software developers, including Microsoft, have an ethical duty to make their code as secure as possible. "Microsoft people have a moral duty in making sure their operating system is fit-for-purpose," Cox said on Wednesday.
Permalink for comment 203397
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
On my dead body.
by capricorn_tm on Fri 19th Jan 2007 06:30 UTC
Member since:

Uk was the first nation to create a connection between the product, the producer and the user.

In fact it happened that a sweet lady ordered a guinnes and found a snail that rottened inside.

After her gastroenteritis she sued Guinnes and won, creating the first case in Europe of direct responsibility of the producer on its products

I see the vague idea behind but it is too stupid yo be true.

Making coders responsible for the security for their code is like saying that the maker of a door is responsible if someone forces it.

From a strictly legal point of view this is a Heresy.

A crime consists of three element a victim , a doer, an intention.

Now, focusing on intention, it can be direct or accidental ( like you hit someone, you kill him; you did not want to kill him, but you wabnted to harm him)

Direct intention bring people to try to force a door/ code to pass behind and get where they want.

So in fact you see that no matter how good I code, there will be always someon better than me that can open that door.

So summing up. I code, I do my best, someone cracks my code. I AM GUILTY!

I can imagine that someone would say "Hey, it like the Guinnes, door should have worked!" Nope mate, not in my life.

The difference is that it was an accident, a carelessness from Guinnes. it is not like the first stout producer of the world would say "Hey mates, let's put some snails randomly and try to nail some ladies' stomach!"

My old professor would take his law code book and give me one behind my ears if I proposed such idiocy ( and believe me , an italian law code book isn't something you want anywhere but on your desk ;) )

There is another matter that is accessory but has its importance.

Let's suppose I code sloppily, and in sloppily I mean like "Dude, I do not want to write a code genrator to create passwords, thus on the opening of the soft, right under the name, there will be the root password of your PC as a reminder."

We see the process this way: I code, he installs, the other cracks ( well cracks, actually reads what is written on screen ;) ) )and I AM GUILTY.

So I'm here responsible for the Crime of the cracker and the free decision of the user that used the program on HIS FREE WILL and installed it on HIS PC.

Sorry ladz, but that reminds me too close to all the obese McDonalds fan that after a life passed in stoning their arteries sue the Big M because they did not push them to move more.

Seems a thing that only USA would see, and what do I see? UK???

Tony, me and you must have a talk a day...

Reply Score: 3