Originally published December 7 2005
Legal issues surrounding software programming are heating up
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Accountability has become a central issue in matters concerning bad software writing, as some experts believe it is a mistake to punish programmers instead of the company they work for.
To understand the difference, it's necessary to understand the basic economic incentives of companies, and how businesses are affected by liabilities.
They try to balance the costs of more-secure software -- extra developers, fewer features, longer time to market -- against the costs of insecure software: expense to patch, occasional bad press, potential loss of sales.
Companies find that it's cheaper to weather the occasional press storm, spend money on PR campaigns touting good security, and fix public problems after the fact than to design security right from the beginning.
In economics, this is known as an externality: an effect of a decision not borne by the decision maker.
Normally, you would expect users to respond by favoring secure products over insecure products -- after all, they're making their own buying decisions based on the same capitalist model.
The end result is that insecure software is common.
But because users, not software manufacturers, pay the price, nothing improves.
If end users can sue software manufacturers for product defects, then the cost of those defects to the software manufacturers rises.
To be sure, making software more secure will cost money, and manufacturers will have to pass those costs on to users in the form of higher prices.
But users are already paying extra costs for insecure software: costs of third-party security products, costs of consultants and security-services companies, direct and indirect costs of losses.
This will certainly give pissed-off users someone to sue, but it won't reduce the externality and it won't result in more-secure software.
Socialists might imagine that companies will improve software security out of the goodness of their hearts, but capitalists know that it needs to be in companies' economic best interest.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml