undefined | Better HN

0 pointskube-system2y ago0 comments

All software is simple enough to regulate. You don't have to micromanage every single line someone writes to regulate something. The way most professional regulations work is that someone writes down the safety practices that should be done, and then the law requires people to do those things.

For example, one might require some software to undergo various degrees of planning, testing, analysis, support, documentation, etc.

Right now, the amount of planning, testing, analysis, support, and documentation required by law is generally zero. This might be fine for someone's hobby project, but it is not okay for software that human lives depend on.

0 comments

jocoda2y ago

> ...for software that human lives depend on.

who decides, and how?

kube-systemOP2y ago

For every other technology regulated this way, this is determined at the end application.

How does someone know that a particular application is something lives depend on? Either your lawyer, insurance company, or regulator explicitly tells you.

davorak2y ago

> How does someone know that a particular application is something lives depend on? Either your lawyer, insurance company, or regulator explicitly tells you.

To make an analogy to the physical world. We have a company, B, that makes bolts, they publishes the characteristics of that bolt but do not certify it for any particular use.

Company C makes cars and decides to use bolts form company B. It turns out that is not a good choice since company B bolts do not have the characteristics that are need to use in a car.

The CRA from the a simple reading used in the discussions here[1], holds company B responsible for company C using the bolts in a way where peoples lives depend on it.

This sort of reuse can be much more common in software than it is bolts for example and just like company B did not control how company C used their product after buying it open source developers do not control how others use there software but CRA might make them liable for it.

This does not make sense to me, company C should be liable for their choice of bolt, company B should be liable for any false or incorrect claims for the characteristics of their bolt. Company B should not be held liable for the misuse of their bolt by company C which is what the CRA seems to do.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38788919

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse