Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vehicles aren't the only things running software that might need verifying. Far from it. While I wholeheartedly agree that it would be an amazing step, I also fear the huge backlash from the car and IT industry. Doing this more gradual probably works better, perhaps requiring open source (I'm not talking freedom of modification or redistributing or anything yet, just viewing source code) for software older than x yea…
> Doing this more gradual probably works better, perhaps requiring open source (I'm not talking freedom of modification or redistributing or anything yet, just viewing source code) for software older than x years (like the patent model a bit, 20 years or so). In that case, the car software is still proprietary software so you've gained very little from making the source code public. If a vulnerability is found, you c…
Yes! Just like medical implants (and the server-side counterparts that control them), and my password manager, and actually any software that is in between me and my password manager (OS, drivers, perhaps a browser), and private stuff like my email client/server, and instant messaging client/server, and things that track my vitals like those smart watch-like wristbands, and any non-domestically developed software the government uses, etc.
Except few people aside from a few "open source radicals" will think like that. For every person I know who will fully support this motion, I know five who will object and another one or two who aren't really sure, and I already have a biased social circle because I do believe in this cause.
As it stands, we never get to peek under the hood. A system like this would at least make people aware that "gosh, if we implement this cheating now (or whatever), we have to make sure to cover it up before we have to go public with it. Better document extensively where it's implemented so we can remove it thoroughly". Which is a bigger step than just one manager going "do it". And we would be able to see trends over the past years and reflect necessary changes in new policy. Perhaps two decades too late by then, but as it stands, we have naught.
Then once people get used to the idea that in 20 years, when the software is commercially useless anyway, perhaps we can open source it sooner. Or more companies will go "look at us, we publish after 5 years for transparency without loosing our cutting edge!" A bit of wishful thinking perhaps, but I'm sure some will, and everyone would be forced after a certain time anyway.
But once again, this is just one way of doing it. There are almost certainly better ways I didn't think of yet. We should just be thinking about it in the first place.