The IRS Tax Filing Software TurboTax Is Trying to Kill Just Got Open Sourced
Technology
145
Beiträge
79
Kommentatoren
45
Aufrufe
-
We need better than that. We need a pinky promise.
That's impractical, because for a pinky promise, you need to actually lock pinkies. We need a surrogate, like maybe the Commander in Chief?
-
Bro why are people downvoting this when it is so clearly a joke
A lot of people are completely incapable of reading obvious sarcasm, which is too bad.
-
Sick "burn", but still a bit uncalled for, don't you think?
A funny joke is always called for.
-
A HUD is a HUD
sure but the HUD from the F-35 is very specifically designed to work in an F-35. It's very similar, and comes from the same family, as the software running on other planes. But it's not identical.
And yes, performance limits would be hard coded into the software because the HUD needs to alert the pilot when they are getting close.
Edit: and that's ignoring the fact that a lot of this stuff comes from private companies so you'll run into things like IP/patent laws
That's what config files are for. It would be a nightmare to hardcode weight and balance and have to recompile the HUD every time you change the loadout or refuel the plane.
Most code, algorithms, etc are not any more sensitive than the concept of desks and file cabinets. No, guidance programs for missiles probably shouldn't be put on GitHub, but there's a reason RSA and other encryption algorithms were open sourced. It's better to have more eyes looking for inefficiencies, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities than to just assume it's good because no-one on the team responsible is smart/engaged enough to find them.
-
“All code paid for by taxpayer dollars should be open source, available for comment, for feedback, for people to build on and for people in other agencies to replicate. It saves everyone money and it is our [taxpayers’] IP,” she said. “This is just good government and should absolutely be the standard that government technologists are held to.”"
Nice sentiment, but bad take. Open-sourcing the software that runs our military equipment would be a fantastic gift to the bad actors of the world.
So open sourcing Tor, which protects our foreign operatives, was a bad idea? Implementing secure sockets for the web (TLS) was a bad idea? Publishing security vulnerabilities publicly (CVE system) was a bad idea?
All of those help our adversaries, but our adversaries also have an incentive to improve the code so everyone benefits.
Sure, there are probably some things that shouldn't be released (i.e. something w/ a legitimate national security concern), but by and large, most things should. Tax software absolutely should, because there's zero reason for the software you use to file your taxes (which is a legal requirement) to not be publicly auditable, because you're on the hook for any mistakes it makes.
-
I am fairly confident that theNSA is aware of this kind of concern and they have an pretty cool repo.
Idk, they didn't appreciate Snowden open sourcing a lot of their documents.
-
Yeah, they get open sourced by publishing them over the usual channels during disputes on the War Thunder discord server.
Well yeah, when someone on the internet is wrong, you need to prove it!
-
I'm sure a lot of military software, in contrast, is acquired from private companies that retain IP rights. Likely legal exceptions aside.
Ideally, any software the government buys or any firmware that ships on hardware the government buys should be FOSS, but not necessarily released to the public right away (i.e. if there's a legitimate national security risk). That gives the government the option to fix issues they run into instead of being forced to wait for the vendor to fix them (if they ever do).
-
You know open-source doesn't mean publicly available. It means the person, or in this case the US government, that brought the software should have free access to the source code to edit and distribute it as they like.
So yes, the military should use something functional equivalent to open source to prevent vender lock in and to allow for external audits. They probably shouldn't give it to Russia or make it freely available online though.
At least not while it presents a national security risk. Once it's largely obsolete, everything should be made public.
-
Don't worry, that's all written by defense contractors anyways, so they'll sell it to the US, and to others the US allows, all closed source. The source won't even be open to the US government, either, as that'd harm the bottom line of the contractor (support & maintenance contracts for that closed-source software).
I really don't get why the government does this. The US government is a massive client, and they could probably force their suppliers to provide them an open source license so they can maintain it themselves. What else are military contractors going to do, not sell their guns? It's not like the US gov is going to let them sell to countries we don't like anyway, so it's in their interest to play ball.
-
Watch this thread from here on in carefully separate the idealists from those who know what defence is like.
- yes, open-source is the goal of everything that can be opened.
- no, defence code isn't on the list of what can be opened
- yes, obscurity isn't good as a sole effort
- yes, defence in depth
- no the funding to get it to where it's safe to open for randos to submit changes isn't there today
Anything I missed?
Yes, Virginia, it's better to open all the things right now, but there are risks you haven't taken into account because you're not aware of them. The pros are; it's their job and their work, so listen to their expertise no matter what the oppositional/defiant disorder suggests otherwise.
Defense code can absolutely be open source, even the very sensitive code that goes into guidance systems on rockets and whatnot. Open source != publicly available, it means those who receive the code get certain rights to use and modify the code. This is imperative for the US government to provide timely updates to their equipment if the vendor is doing a poor job at it.
Yes, it's ideal to open source everything, but not ideal to release it to the public. Once the code is no longer sensitive (i.e. the equipment is obsolete), it should be released publicly.
-
because this is the first pull request and something many people will see, I would like to say that I learned from a former project manager at the IRS that development on Direct File has stopped since January. the source code is only public because of federal law. it's not likely that this is going to be merged but it's possible that the components of Direct File might be used elsewhere
Don't get your hopes up too much.
-
It would be nice but I think it is not really possible. Too many difference in the laws I suppose.
Yeah, tax software is hyper-tailored to the tax law, which is why it needs to get an update every year.
-
really good article with a couple surprises in there.
"some people speculated that, because of the political pressure against it, its release must have been an act of resistance by someone within the IRS. But the open sourcing of the program was always part of the plan, and was required by a law called the SHARE IT Act. It happened “fully above board, which is honestly more of a feat!,” Given told 404 Media. “This has been in the works since last year.”
Vinton told 404 Media in a phone call that the open sourcing of Direct File “is just good government.”
“All code paid for by taxpayer dollars should be open source, available for comment, for feedback, for people to build on and for people in other agencies to replicate. It saves everyone money and it is our [taxpayers’] IP,” she said. “This is just good government and should absolutely be the standard that government technologists are held to.”"
All code paid for by taxpayer dollars should be open source, available for comment, for feedback, for people to build on and for people in other agencies to replicate.
as long as its not military stuff, I don't want to be able to download a simulator for nuclear bombs or something on my PC
-
Wouldn’t it be better to just give the code for free to a good corporate citizen who can be entrusted with its stewardship?
To be fair, since it's public domain, anyone can take it, modify it (and not release modifications), and try to screw you over w/ it.
No but im saying it shouldn't be public, it should be given to a good corporate citizen to maintain so we can rent it back when we need it.
-
No but im saying it shouldn't be public, it should be given to a good corporate citizen to maintain so we can rent it back when we need it.
Well, public domain gets you halfway there. You can still rent it later, provided the original is user-unfriendly enough that you'd be interested in alternatives.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's licensed under CC0 to anyone wondering.
BSD 0-Clause would probably be better but still fantastic. -
That's impractical, because for a pinky promise, you need to actually lock pinkies. We need a surrogate, like maybe the Commander in Chief?
I think we should ask Chuck Schumer. He's really good at getting things done.
-
Well, public domain gets you halfway there. You can still rent it later, provided the original is user-unfriendly enough that you'd be interested in alternatives.
Okay but 'public domain' is communist, and everyone within 20 miles of it should be killed
But its not physical so there is no precise location for it, and the only way to sidestep this existential problem is by not having a public domain, so maybe my headache goes away.
-
I think we should ask Chuck Schumer. He's really good at getting things done.
Perfect, and since he's in his 70s, he has all of that experience keeping promises to draw on.
