Liability for bugs is part of the solution
Recently, Howard Schmidt suggested that coders be held personally liable for damage caused by bugs in code they write. The boldness of this suggestion is exceeded only by its foolhardiness, but its motivation touches an important truth -- alot of code stinks, and people are damaged by it.
The reason good programs (which means those with fewer bugs) do not drive poor programs from the market lies in the information asymmetry characterizing the software market. As discussed by Ross Anderson [PDF], the market for software is a "market for lemons": sellers know more about the quality of their product than do buyers, leading buyers to assume the worst, lest they (in their optimism) be taken to the cleaners. Higher-quality products are thus driven from the market, leaving a market of lemons.
Solutions to this suboptimality include the use of guarantees -- presumably, a car dealer willing to warranty a vehicle for many months has reason to believe it is not a lemon, and evaluation schemes: an automaker who can point to a "5-star rating" by an independent evaluator presumably can command a higher price.
Legal liability is also an appropriate remedy in that the possibility of getting hammered by a jury provides an incentive to be truthful about product quality, but my point is that it is only part of the mix.
In the case of software, guarantees are rare but not unheard of, and some evaluation schemes wind up being captured by vendors.
Independent researchers who identify SW vulnerabilities also act as evaluators of a sort -- if, that is, all SW is subject to the same amount of scrutiny. It isn't, of course, which is why rigorous research into methods of predicting software quality is critical. Andy Ozment is doing good stuff [PDF] on this.
Hopefully, continuing research and greater data availability will allow us to have a more compact and tractable for non-geeks version of this (from http://hissa.nist.gov/~black/softwareFacts.html) instead of a shrink-wrap license:
Software Facts |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Name InvadingAlienOS Version 1996.7.04 Expected number of users 15 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
When vendors know we know what they know, they won't act so much like used car salesmen, particularly if it'd get them hauled into court.
Edited at 2342 CST 10/20/2005 to add author ID at top, and missing paragraph tag
Bookmark this post:
TrackBacks
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Liability for bugs is part of the solution:
» Product Security Evolution from 1 Raindrop
The Emergent Chaos Jazz Combo has a post on vendor liability as part of the solution. I agree that liability may indeed be part of the solution, but what about the market? I know that software is likely to remain a market for lemons, but Oracle's recen... [Read More]
» What the heck is up with software facts labels? from Educated Guesswork
Chris Walsh points to in favor of Paul Black's Software Facts labels. The analogy here (explicitly made by Black) is to the "Nutrition Facts" labels found on food). But compare Black's sample label to a real nutrition label: --> Software... [Read More]
Comments
I should add that *personal* liability is foolish, and that *vendor* liability isn't.
Posted by: Chris Walsh | October 21, 2005 12:54 AM