I’ve been thinking about transparency and security in the public sector. Do you think all government software and platforms should be open source?

Some countries have already made progress in this area:

  • Estonia: digital government services with open and auditable APIs.
  • United Kingdom: several open source government projects and systems published on GitHub.
  • France and Canada: policies encouraging the use of free and open source software in public agencies.

Possible benefits:

  • Full transparency: anyone can audit the code, ensuring there is no corruption, hidden flaws, or unauthorized data collection.
  • Enhanced security: public reviews help identify vulnerabilities quickly.
  • Cost reduction: less dependency on private vendors and lower spending on proprietary licenses.
  • Flexibility and innovation: public agencies can adapt systems to their needs without relying on external solutions.

Possible challenges:

  • Maintenance and updating of complex systems.
  • Protecting sensitive data without compromising citizen privacy.
  • Political or bureaucratic resistance to opening the code.

Do you think this could be viable in the governments of your countries? How could we start making this a reality globally?

  • Nemoder@lemmy.ml
    11·
    6 days ago

    I think any software the government funds the creation and maintenance of should be open source, but not all software government workers use should have to be. Lots of niche applications out there that wouldn’t be worth the cost to rewrite or retrain a handful of users.

  • MrSulu@lemmy.mlEnglish
    6·
    6 days ago

    Yup. It also allows strictly public funding. There are specific use cases where Excel cannot be beaten by say Libre Office Calc. but only a tiny / miniscule proportion of use would ever even get close to that. In which case, we would probably already have some specific software for out BI

  • spongebue@lemmy.world
    4·
    7 days ago

    There’s a line to be drawn. For one thing, some stuff has obvious sensitivity that needs to be considered (national security and such). But aside from that… I’m a software developer who works as a contractor for the government. My product is used for and exclusively by the agency I work for, and they paid for it. Its contents would bore people to tears, but aside from that, should it be open sourced when complete? I can’t think of any reason why not.

    Now, let’s think about other software the government pays for. Stuff like Microsoft Office and other COTS (commercial off the shelf) products. The government pays for that too, should they be required to make all their source code public in order to have the government as a customer? How do you draw the line in a way that doesn’t leave a loophole for people like me, if I didn’t want my source to be opened?

    • fajre@lemmy.worldOP
      2·
      7 days ago

      I agree there are cases where sensitivity matters, like national security or systems tied to critical infrastructure. But when it comes to publicly funded software developed specifically for government use, the default should be open by principle. Exceptions can exist, but they must be justified — not the other way around. With COTS products like Microsoft Office, it’s different because the government is just a customer, not the owner of the development.

      • spongebue@lemmy.world
        3·
        7 days ago

        With COTS products like Microsoft Office, it’s different because the government is just a customer, not the owner of the development.

        That’s the point I’m trying to make though. I’m a contractor, and that’s super common in government because they don’t pay their own a whole lot. The government is my company’s customer. Why can’t we be the owner of the development and that would justify it being closed source? If we can, the same could apply to anyone else and the whole conversation is moot because of a contractor loophole (which you’d have to be careful in closing to avoid closing yourself off to COTS products)

        • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
          2·
          6 days ago

          absolutely. that’s why i think in the long run, we will see more of libreoffice and less of ms office. there’s always the possibility of microsoft shenanigans, though.

          public dealings should naturally have good reason to be closed or rely on private services outside democratic oversight. any citizen should be able to figure out how the public machine works and that includes the computers, whenever applicable. i can conceive of the exceptions of course.

        • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
          1·
          7 days ago

          on most workplaces i’ve been in, it’s a run of the mill office suite, with occasional duct tape database action.

          for these migrating to libreoffice will just replace the quirks, except its not in the hands of microsoft anymore.

          there is certainly more uses of course, but these gets ever more niche.

          • ikilledlaurapalmer@lemmy.world
            2·
            6 days ago

            That may be true, but in larger org, things like auditable documents are critical, and believe it or not sharepoint can handle this. Outlook is used in complex ways. Powerautomate flows do a ton, and they may sound goofy at first, but having them sit in the middle of all of the orgs office tools (including email, chat, doc management, etc) makes them actually powerful.

            I thought I’d be the last person singing the praises of M$ office, but it really does do a great job in a large org catering to a WIDE range of users and abilities.

            But yes, a small business can just use libreoffice for word processing and budgeting. That part is free, but then depending on the needs of the org you still have to handle things like email, document sharing, permissions, etc.

            • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
              11·
              6 days ago

              and my point is there are foss alternatives to every software you mention, with it’s own complexity and workflow.

              you seem convinced they are worse or not as powerful, when they are just different with their own quirks. even if they weren’t, the loss of productivity is worth not relying on us software in the long run, and making our own.

  • deathbird@mander.xyz
    2·
    6 days ago

    I think all government software should be GPLed. Of the binaries or interfaces don’t face the public then the code doesn’t need to be shared, but otherwise: public funded should mean it’s a publicly accessible good.

  • Tenderizer78@lemmy.mlEnglish
    1·
    7 days ago

    Closed-source code from a hostile foreign power should not be in government computers.

    Though even China allows Windows for government contractors. I guess either way the drivers will contain proprietary blobs.

  • kibiz0r@midwest.socialEnglish
    1·
    7 days ago

    I’d settle for just requiring interoperability. Seems like a reasonable requirement for a government to demand the ability to change vendors.

    We have that requirement when it comes to munitions. You’re not allowed to sell the military a gun for which you are the only ammo manufacturer.

    A side effect would probably be that more commercial software would be interoperable as a result, just because it’s easier for the vendors to maintain a single product rather than wildly different variants.