this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
120 points (92.9% liked)
Technology
59322 readers
4746 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The only way to know it is safe is 3rd parties auditing it. The manufacture saying "trust me bro" ain't it and a government audit that doesn't show their workins-out could be bullshit too. A single tech nerd or security specialist is in the same boat as the regular Joe - it's a group effort. Non-techies can contribute in other ways (e.g. reporting bugs).
That’s why government agencies should be transparent and better funded
To be so transparent that we can actually verify the government's findings means a 3rd party is doing the same job the government did. Anything less is the government saying "trust us". [Edit to clarify what I meant] It's cheaper for a bad company to pay for lobbyists or buyout a few politicians than to somehow buyout every 3rd parties.
The job of government is to take care of the people by providing trustworthy services that protect us. If they don’t function properly, it is a job of the people to make sure that they do. I do not accept the idea that this is impossible. I’m sorry that you cannot. But I will not accept the argument that this is impossible.
Your argument only convinces me that we must work harder to create government services that are better and more trustworthy. I will never ever accept that private industry is superior, because their interest will only ever be to serve the shareholder, and shareholders can never be trusted to serve anything other than profit. Therefore, your argument will always be flawed. Especially concerning the interest of the individual, as the shareholder and the profit holder will always want to violate that, and will never be responsible or accountable to the people or the public.
To that end, your argument is against corruption. To that out, the only real force to do that is the public, and a publicly accountable, democratic framework can be the only feasible means to that, never a privately-shrouded, corporate shareholder model.
Non-profits and charities also create software but it's like verifying a scientific experiment: doesn't matter who did it first if we can verify their results.
Sadly, bad incentives trend politicians to appeal to just select groups needed to win. Many countries use unrepresentative voting systems which trend to a 2 party system, permits jerrymandering, etc. What can I do about my government?
At least I can try to avoid proprietary software - if I needed a car I would look for one which comes with open source software, or buy a dumb while I still can.
You make the false argument that public systems can never be relied on therefore, we must only rely on private systems. In reality, private systems are always fascist, and public systems need only be purged of corruption. 
I’d rather fight possible corruption than certain fascism. And I certainly don’t trust an interlocutor that lies and tells me only fascism can be trusted, and that the public cannot be.
I don't think I said what you say I said, and I'm not sure you do either.