Let consumers look at the code running their devices, says Federal Trade Commissioner

[IDemo]

Consumers should have the right to inspect the source code for connected devices they own, to ensure it doesn't contain bugs or backdoors, one U.S. Federal Trade Commissioner believes.

As we connect our homes, our vehicles and our clothing to the Internet of Things, "We need to be very mindful of consumer data security and be very careful of anything that undermines that data security," said Commissioner Terrell McSweeny.

McSweeny was speaking in a personal capacity at the State of the Net conference in Washington, D.C., on Monday, but her position as one of four Commissioners at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission could allow her to influence policy.

She doesn't plan on reverse-engineering her connected devices herself.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3026517/consumer-electronics/let-us-look-at-the-code-running-our-devices-says-federal-trade-commissioner.html

[tk2kewl]

1. big k&r

open source everything

http://p2pfoundation.net/Open-Source_Everything_Manifesto

[SheilaT]

2. Nice idea, but how many would actually be able to make sense of the code?

I certainly couldn't. Are even 10% of consumers capable of reading the code and recognizing bugs or backdoors? I doubt it's even that high a percentage.

So yeah, do make it possible to look at the code, but unless all those who can actually read and understand it go very public with whatever flaws they find, it won't make any difference in anything.

[IDemo]

10. Part of the attraction of open source

is that the casual user can be assured it contains no malicious code, simply because it must undergo testing and approval before being finalized for use, and because the outcry from the serious geeks over backdoor bits on subsequent updates would be instantaneous.

[bemildred]

11. Some of us can, and we don't like broken code and hacks.

The entire point of open source is to give us access so we can read it.

[PersonNumber503602]

15. But some will want to and will be able to.

And they will relay their the findings to the masses.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. If you can't work on it, you don't own it. n/t

[cloudbase]

4. Let's do the same for voting machines. n/t

[Mnemosyne]

5. Great minds and all.

[cloudbase]

6. Back at ya!

[Mnemosyne]

13. Unbelievable this is still an issue. 16 yrs... nt

[randome]

7. Making the code publicly available would make it EASIER to hack, not harder.

The fact that even today browsers and operating systems have to be continually patched shows that hacking will never go away.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[tk2kewl]

8. wrong

see linux

[Mika]

9. Agree 100%. Back to paper ballots and hand counting IN PUBLIC.

Just like Canada and several other good democracies.

[Massacure]

12. I'm a software developer, and I disagree with you.

When we write code, we have a peer review it, we have our tech lead review it, and then we send it through a QA team. Even after all that, it still goes into production with bugs in it sometimes. Unfortunately, sometimes those bugs lead to exploits. More eyeballs can only improve code. The likelihood of a someone with malicious intent being the first to find a vulnerability is higher when they are competing with a dozen people compared to when they are competing against thousands.

[Sanity Claws]

14. That thinking should apply to voting software