I’ve been thinking about transparency and security in the public sector. Do you think all government software and platforms should be open source?

Some countries have already made progress in this area:

  • Estonia: digital government services with open and auditable APIs.
  • United Kingdom: several open source government projects and systems published on GitHub.
  • France and Canada: policies encouraging the use of free and open source software in public agencies.

Possible benefits:

  • Full transparency: anyone can audit the code, ensuring there is no corruption, hidden flaws, or unauthorized data collection.
  • Enhanced security: public reviews help identify vulnerabilities quickly.
  • Cost reduction: less dependency on private vendors and lower spending on proprietary licenses.
  • Flexibility and innovation: public agencies can adapt systems to their needs without relying on external solutions.

Possible challenges:

  • Maintenance and updating of complex systems.
  • Protecting sensitive data without compromising citizen privacy.
  • Political or bureaucratic resistance to opening the code.

Do you think this could be viable in the governments of your countries? How could we start making this a reality globally?

  • arthur@lemmy.zipEnglish
    69·
    14 hours ago

    Software funded by public resources should be a benefit available for the public. Is not only transparency and security, it should be owned by the people who paid for it.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
      16·
      13 hours ago

      This should apply to everything, not only software. If it’s funded by taxes, it should be freely available to everyone (or provided at cost, depending on the thing in question).

        • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
          16·
          12 hours ago

          Okay, I wasn’t aware that I had to tailor my comment to be consumed by extreme pedants. Allow me to revise my statement:

          “This should apply to everything that’s created for public consumption, not only software.”

          I would have thought that would be implied, but I guess not. Should I explicitly state that it also doesn’t apply to military hardware, or can we just accept that a certain degree of reasonableness must be applied, given this is an internet forum, not a legal document?

          • dom@lemmy.ca
            8·
            12 hours ago

            How dare you not think of every single edge case and exception and explicitly call it out in an appendix?? I expect better of lemmy

          • Xaphanos@lemmy.worldEnglish
            42·
            12 hours ago

            I agree with you. I was giving you a chance to clarify your point so that you don’t seem like a radical if you didn’t want to. Chill - this is just an Internet forum where we share and discuss ideas in order to widen our own thoughts to include those of others. Here on Lemmy we’re more alike than not. This isn’t reddit. Try not to assume the worst from people.

          • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
            2·
            8 hours ago

            Well, off the top of my head, while it would be nice to live in a world without espionage that’s not this one. I don’t think you could do very good spying if everyone knew who your spies were.

            • compostgoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              2·
              12 hours ago

              Well, it’s not my area of expertise, so I’m not sure exactly. But I suppose a good place to start might be restricting or removing the ability of government agencies to classify or redact information, alongside increasing the power and scope of FOIA/sunshine laws.

              What do you think?

              • Xaphanos@lemmy.worldEnglish
                5·
                11 hours ago

                I don’t know. It seems like there are some things that need to be kept close. Trade and peace negotiating. Open prosecution and defense cases. Plans during international conflict.

              • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
                2·
                12 hours ago

                There’s problematic cases like information on active spies (for example) that would make it hard to remove it entirely, but I agree with you that it could / should be drastically reduced. Obviously this is coming from someone without top secret clearance so I really have no idea how damaging unredacting everything suddenly would be, but there have been many cases where things were redacted or classified purely because it would make the government look bad if it were released, and that, in my opinion, is bullshit. That should be public knowledge.

                • feannag@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  1·
                  4 hours ago

                  In the US, officially, material cannot be classified to save face or because it would make the government look bad (I’m sure this has happened, even if it’s something like: if it makes (official) look bad that will undermine our country’s strength and therefore cause serious damage to national security or whatever).

                  Secret material is defined as information that could cause serious damage and Top Secret is exceptionally grave damage. And I suspect a lot of classified information does need to be kept classified, either to protect sources or plans of actions or enemy intelligence or even friendly capabilities.