Software Ownership and Government

I've written about copyrighted content a bit, but what about the battle for the software we use to create and view this content? With the advent of p2p technologies software developers have become more and more sophisticated at protecting their software from illegal use. And so have the software "krackers." In fact, software piracy among consumers has become so widespread that many companies are focusing on either free software with ads (Google), or selling to businesses and government.

Government is an interesting market to try to corner. The bidding process traditionally used simply asks who can do the job for the least amount of money? However, these days it often comes down to who you know (Cheney-Haliburton?), and who's got the best lobbyists.

Right now most of the government uses Microsoft software. Anyone who's familiar with the Open Source Software (OSS) movement knows there are free alternatives to paying Microsoft $500 per computer you run. Well, chair of the House Committee on Audit & Performance
Rep. Ed Horman thought maybe looking into OSS was a good way to save money. That is his job, after all. Well no more than three days after he suggested merely researching OSS into SB 1974, was he confronted by three Microsoft lobbyists. According to an anonymous legislative staff employee, "By the time those lobbyists were done talking, it sounded like ODF (Open Document Format, the free and open format used by OpenOffice.org and other free software) was proprietary and the Microsoft format was the open and free one."

The danger here is if Microsoft can bully around our government, then they're essentially stealing our tax dollars. The hope is that transparency upon the situation as given in the above article will keep the support behind Rep. Horman to stand by his beliefs. But this isn't only about who gets the money. It's about keeping our government secure.

Just yesterday the State Department was hacked using a Microsoft bug. This addresses a misconception people often have about OSS. That proprietary software is safer. Take the classic example, Diebold. Either Diebold has sub-acceptable security programming skills, deliberately covered up a bug to protect their reputation, or is in malicious communion with the Republican Party. In any case, open sourcing the voting machines may solve the problem. When the source code is open, if there is a hackable vulnerability, anyone who can read code can see it. In fact, California has suggested the intention to move towards OSS for its voting machines.

Hiring a crook to check your security system is an old idea, and now the Philippine Government is experimenting with this principle in regards to its proposed online voting system. By opening the system to public scrutiny, the Philippine Government is hoping to discover any fatal flaws in their system before they implement it in a major election.

We just have to make sure our lawmakers are encouraged with our votes to seek more democratic computer systems for organizing the government. We just might be able to fix our democracy yet.