There is a clear and obvious, legitimate conflict between the government's (if we stay in the theoretical and assume the government represents the people) need to have access to our otherwise private information (including the record of our thoughts and actions) and OUR need (not just right, I said "need") to maintain that privacy.
A shorter version of the question asked might have been, " who will trust open source security [ 'from the government' omitted ]? "
There is a clean set of motivations in play here that could be treated honestly and successfully. I propose that the balancing moves needed in the seeming deadlock are:
1) The government CAN access anything if and when the case is made and a court or some arguably neutral and logical oversight body approves or at least genuinely audits the uses and justifications therefor. These requests and justifications must be recorded real time and indellible records must be put beyond arms reach from enforcement authorities or other potential abusers.
2) SEVERE unpardonable consequences are put in place AND enforced for those who willingly and knowingly abuse the access.
3) SIGNIFICANT rewards and protections are put in place for whistleblowers.
4) AND MOST IMPORTANTLY we the people have access to all logs of who accesses our data,the justifications given/used, the approval rationale/basis.
Add these REQUIREMENTS to the project plan and insure they are implemented and we will have a system that simultaneously meets the needs of the authorities to protect us and our needs not to be stifled or abused by those authorities. With this core set of requirements included I believe that Open Source would be the PERFECT development and maintenance model for providing the needed facilities and mechanism.
Discussion on:
Message 8 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
