Reply to post: Re: The issue with 'free speech' is ...

Should open source sniff the geopolitical wind and ban itself in China and Russia?

Justthefacts Silver badge

Re: The issue with 'free speech' is ...

No, you don’t have to stop doing open-source because it could be used for nefarious purposes. But you *should*: consider whether what you are providing is a small generic cog, or a big machine with potential implications. Provide safeguards where possible. Think about the ethical implications of use *and misuse* yourself. For larger projects - involve colleagues, and people *not* in the industry for a wider perspective. As an industry, it clearly needs massively wider and informed regulation - support it, seek to drive it. And almost most importantly, stop sabotaging regulation and standards wherever they are mooted, just to promote a narrow, destructive, and super-political agenda of free speech without consequences. Doctors have ethics committees, clinical studies have ethics approvals boards, engineers get ethics lectures at Uni. Taxi-drivers get CRB checked, FFS. Why do you think you are exempt from normal ethical principles of regulation?

“ Ban cars because someone could intentionally run someone over?”

No. *As an automotive engineer*, please just stop actively fighting and sabotaging: NCAP Standards, breathalyser interlocks, ADAS such as anti-speeding monitoring, odometer anti-tamper (which would be banned by the FOSS license), automotive vehicle type approval (also banned by FOSS license). Some of these features you may personally approve of, some not, all have an ethical dimension, but you have to abide by the considered view of society and regulatory bodies. Not just go off on your own, and decide that “I should be able to make any car I like and let buyers decide for themselves”. That’s just dangerous insanity.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon