On 5/9/21 12:57 PM, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Sun, 9 May 2021 09:18:47 +0200, Dr. wrote in message
> <202105090918.47488.office@???>:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Anno domini 2021 Sun, 9 May 08:33:05 +0200
>> tito via Dng scripsit:
>>> Hi to all,
>>> today while reading online my selection of international newspapers
>>> on the german www. faz.net I've found this little article which
>>> made my antennas vibrate, link is:
>>>
>>> https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/reform-der-produkthaftung-verbraucher-sollen-vor-schaeden-durch-softwarefehler-geschuetzt-werden-17330921.html
>>
>> Thats just bullshit bingo.
>
> ..so was The Donald and der Adolf. The good news here is, today's
> Germans have the experience and therefore much more wisdom to deal
> with such bullshit bingo to keep it from repeating itself, and to
> aim it somewhere useful and to fire up the French etc on it.
> Keep your eyes open.

My guess would be that the bullshit bingo is an attempt to reframe the
software liability question for the general public in a way that is more
favorable to proprietary software. I would guess that all the current,
and not so current, discussion has so far centered around the ideas
floated by Dan Geer and Poul-Hennning Kamp.

Dan Geer had this to say at Black Hat 2014:

    "Today the relevant legal concept is "product liability"
    and the fundamental formula is "If you make money
    selling something, then you better do it well, or you
    will be held responsible for the trouble it causes."
    For better or poorer, the only two products not covered
    by product liability today are religion and software,
    and software should not escape for much longer.  Poul-
    Henning Kamp and I have a strawman proposal for how
    software liability regulation could be structured."

    - http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt

He continued onward to enumerate and clarify the reasoning behind each
of three points towards a possible solution in regards to applying
liability to software:

    "0. Consult criminal code to see if damage caused was due
    to intent or willfulness."
  ...
    "1. If you deliver your software with complete and
    buildable source code and a license that allows
    disabling any functionality or code the licensee
    decides, your liability is limited to a refund."
  ...
    "2. In any other case, you are liable for whatever
    damage your software causes when it is used normally."

    - http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt

Notably and intentionally there is a carve out in those points to not
just protect Free and Open Source Software, but to actually promote it
as it is a strong way to improve quality and thus safety. However, he
accurately notes that the proprietary software houses will howl about
it. I would guess that the bullshit bingo linked to in the original
message is just that and small attempt at revisionism to restart the
debate for the benefit of proprietary software by ignoring the past
progress on the topic.

/Lars


--

Here is the full quote from that part of his transcript:

"
3. Source code liability -- CHOICE

Nat Howard said that "Security will always be exactly as bad as it
can possibly be while allowing everything to still function,"[NH]
but with each passing day, that "and still function" clause requires
a higher standard. As Ken Thompson told us in his Turing Award
lecture, there is no technical escape;[KT] in strict mathematical
terms you neither trust a program nor a house unless you created
it 100% yourself, but in reality most of us will trust a house built
by a suitably skilled professional, usually we will trust it more
than one we had built ourselves, and this even if we have never met
the builder, or even if he is long since dead.

The reason for this trust is that shoddy building work has had that
crucial "or else ..." clause for more than 3700 years:

    If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct
    it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills
    its owner, then the builder shall be put to death.
    -- Code of Hammurabi, approx 1750 B.C.

Today the relevant legal concept is "product liability" and the
fundamental formula is "If you make money selling something, then
you better do it well, or you will be held responsible for the
trouble it causes." For better or poorer, the only two products
not covered by product liability today are religion and software,
and software should not escape for much longer. Poul-Henning Kamp
and I have a strawman proposal for how software liability regulation
could be structured.

.......................
0. Consult criminal code to see if damage caused was due to intent
or willfulness.
.......................

We are only trying to assign liability for unintentionally caused
damage, whether that's sloppy coding, insufficient testing, cost
cutting, incomplete documentation, or just plain incompetence.
Clause zero moves any kind of intentionally inflicted damage out
of scope. That is for your criminal code to deal with, and most
already do.

.......................
1. If you deliver your software with complete and buildable source
code and a license that allows disabling any functionality or
code the licensee decides, your liability is limited to a refund.
.......................

Clause one is how to avoid liability: Make it possible for your
users to inspect and chop out any and all bits of your software
they do not trust or want to run. That includes a bill of materials
("Library ABC comes from XYZ") so that trust has some basis,
paralleling why there are ingredient lists on processed foods.

The word "disabling" is chosen very carefully: You do not need to
give permission to change or modify how the program works, only to
disable the parts of it that the licensee does not want or trust.
Liability is limited even if the licensee never actually looks at
the source code; as long has he has received it, you (as maker) are
off the hook. All your other copyrights are still yours to control,
and your license can contain any language and restriction you care
for, leaving the situation unchanged with respect to hardware-locking,
confidentiality, secrets, software piracy, magic numbers, etc.

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is obviously covered by this
clause which leaves its situation unchanged.

.......................
2. In any other case, you are liable for whatever damage your
software causes when it is used normally.
.......................

If you do not want to accept the information sharing in Clause 1,
you fall under Clause 2, and must live with normal product liability,
just like manufactures of cars, blenders, chain-saws and hot coffee.

How dire the consequences, and what constitutes "used normally" is
for your legislature and courts to decide, but let us put up a
strawman example:

    A sales-person from one of your long time vendors visits and
    delivers new product documentation on a USB key, you plug the
    USB key into your computer and copy the files onto the computer.

This is "used normally" and it should never cause your computer to
become part of a botnet, transmit your credit card number to Elbonia,
or copy all your design documents to the vendor. If it does, your
computer's operating system is defective.

The majority of today's commercial software would fall under Clause
2 and software houses need a reasonable chance to clean up their
act or to move under Clause 1, so a sunrise period is required.
But no longer than five years -- we are trying to solve a dire
computer security problem here.

And that is it really: Either software houses deliver quality and
back it up with product liability, or they will have to let their
users protect themselves. The current situation -- users can't see
whether they need to protect themselves and have no recourse to
being unprotected -- cannot go on. We prefer self-protection (and
fast recovery), but other's mileage may differ.

Would it work? In the long run, absolutely yes. In the short run,
it is pretty certain that there will be some nasty surprises as
badly constructed source code gets a wider airing. The FOSS community
will, in parallel, have to be clear about the level of care they
have taken, and their build environments as well as their source
code will have to be kept available indefinitely.

The software houses will yell bloody murder the minute legislation
like this is introduced, and any pundit and lobbyist they can afford
will spew their dire predictions that "This law will mean the end
of computing as we know it!"

To which our considered answer will be:

    Yes, please!  That was exactly the idea.
"

- from http://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt