Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Saturday April 25 2015, @04:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-can-trust-the-gubmint-for-encryption-and-security dept.

A study by European IT security experts suggests that the EU should also fund or participate in the development of open source software to ensure end-to-end encryption solutions. Using open source is not a universal remedy, they state, but it is an “important ingredient in an EU strategy for more security and technological independence.” The experts say support for open source will increase the EU’s technological independence.

A second study for this committee meeting argues that the use of open source computer operating systems and applications reduces the risk of privacy intrusion by mass surveillance.

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/ep-study-%E2%80%9Ceu-should-finance-key-open-source-tools%E2%80%9D

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday April 26 2015, @07:20AM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Sunday April 26 2015, @07:20AM (#175294) Journal

    What part of "better chance" did you not understand?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Sunday April 26 2015, @10:13PM

    by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday April 26 2015, @10:13PM (#175502) Journal

    Again you are simply using an "is ought" fallacy because you have absolutely ZERO PROOF that anybody other than the ones who wrote it have looked at it...none, zero, zipola, nada. You are saying because the code IS there it OUGHT to have been audited...perhaps Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] can help you understand why your argument makes as much sense as "because there IS books on vampires there OUGHT to be real vampires"...with "is ought" fallacies you take a single fact (there is source code) and jump to a conclusion with zero evidence to support it (it OUGHT to have gone through an extensive code audit) with no basis in fact....NOW do you understand friend?

    --
    ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday April 27 2015, @06:26PM

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday April 27 2015, @06:26PM (#175800) Journal

      You are saying because the code IS there it OUGHT to have been audited

      Could you please show me where I do claim that? Because I cannot find it.

      OTOH, you seem to imply that closed source code is always audited (and moreover, that it is always audited to not have a backdoor).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday April 27 2015, @07:40PM

        by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday April 27 2015, @07:40PM (#175831) Journal

        And then you go for the classic and you are lynching negroes [wikipedia.org] which is a tu quoque argument used to attempt tp change the subject, which was NOT about closed source software but about how having source does NOT in ANY way, shape, or form, provide you with ANY increased security, it just provides you with source. To claim otherwise is to claim an "is ought" with zero basis in proof nor evidence.

        Anymore fallacies or logic hoops you care to jump through chief?

        --
        ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
        • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by maxwell demon on Monday April 27 2015, @08:35PM

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday April 27 2015, @08:35PM (#175854) Journal

          I see, you are not able to answer my question. Not that I had expected that you are. EOD

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:33PM

            by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:33PM (#176270) Journal

            I don't follow games of moving the goalposts, nor will I jump for logic fallacies, especially when you provide ZERO proof or ZERO evidence to back up your cloaim. You say ":having source is better"...lets see the proof chief, because I can provide TONS of proof that having source means nothing more than....drumroll...you have the source! There is Shellshock (which just FYI attacked the most viewed piece of code on the planet which curb stomps the "many eyes" myth) and there is Heartbleed, and lets not forget that open source Linux has 4 times more vulnerabilites than close source Windows [betanews.com]. I've provided MY evidence...lets see something other than logic fallacies and moving the goalposts from you...but I bet you can't, because Linux is built on "is ought" fallacies and bullshit.

            --
            ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.