A bit of a nerdy sideline, but something that will hopefully yield positive results.
Before the change to web tax software, I was planning to reverse engineer the java tax software used to be able to automatically import share sale information. Had the software been open source, no reverse engineering effort would have been required.
That’s moronc in epic proportions, and suicidal. Imagine the source code is hackable, and we vote on some military stuff.
You’re virtually guaranteed to get hacked by whichever party when billions are at stake. Hacking and countermeasures are the core business of many a competitor.
The title is wrong. The EMBAG may have been implemented but it’s only about use of electronic means to perform official tasks.
The regulation for source code disclosure was left out!
" Keine Verordnung fĂĽr Quellcode-Offenlegung
Zu einigen Artikeln im Gesetz wurden allerdings keine Bestimmungen in der Verordnung geschaffen, so das EFD. Beispielsweise werde die Pflicht von Bundesbehörden, den Quellcode von Software offenzulegen, nicht in der Verordnung spezifiziert. Es würden jedoch “Hilfsmittel” geschaffen, die die Verwaltungseinheiten bei der Umsetzung unterstützen."
copied from Bundesrat verabschiedet das "Digitalisierungsgesetz", sorry all in German.
Only if the software is written by inexperienced or underpaid developers, or written in a rush generally, skipping proper development practice.
Hackable software is hackable, whether it’s distributed in binary form, as source code, or not distributed at all but exposed to the internet. Opensource projects have the advantage of getting more reviews by good guys.
The same applies to all software, that’s neither for nor against any approach.
Obviously.
But a loophole needs to be found first, and the source code gives an additional approach of analysis.
Seeing the fact that Phil is capable of reverse engineering Java to make it do his bidding bodes no well for open source software in government.
I am just trying to imagine the gasping hysterics the IT guys would have if our SW were to be open source.
In practice there are real holes and just too low fences. Of course you never want to have exploitable holes, but if jumping over a fence doesn’t impose catastrophic risk but is just getting the intruder closer, it’s acceptable to rely on fancy obfuscation. However many, if not most of them, low fences are clearly visible from the machine code, even though they are obfuscated in fancy way at high level so even the developers get lost eventually. However, it’s true, the process of breaking into software is tackled form many angles, exposing original software adds to them.
No, proprietary software is a trap for public money - the administration will sing for the initial price, then will be told you’ve invested so much but there were unforeseen circumstances so the price is higher now, and you’ll be paying forever for expensive maintenance and extensions that can be only done by our great corporation. And at each step the public buyer will face either loss of its investment or ever increasing cost. That’s how it usually works with closed source, proprietary software for government buyers, no matter how water tight the legalese of the contract looks on the onset.
Reminds me of the move to use only Swiss developed/built microchips… 
If that were such a clearcut case the attempt 20+ years ago to go OpenSource would have been implemented much more broadly.
You can make any irrealistic statements you want, that just doesn’t make them true. But as always the devil’s in the detail, something all proponents downplay and try to sweep under the rug.