|
|
|
|
|
by sdegutis
2490 days ago
|
|
People have freedom and rights, but their freedoms are restricted by the rights of others. People have a right to use their knowledge toward a goal, which includes keeping it secret if need be, as long as it does not impose on the rights of others. Nobody has an absolute right to all knowledge. Therefore people are not required to give away knowledge. |
|
If I freely can choose not to run that code--for example, I can choose an open source program over a closed one--there is no ethical dilemma.
If I can't, then it is unethical. For example, Intel requires a closed-source binary blob to be run to initialize the CPU (the Firmware Support Package), even before the UEFI is initialized, otherwise the CPU won't run. Intel does not allow reverse engineering of this code. We have no idea what it's really doing. I can't use the CPU without this.
Now, what if this code does something other than initialize the CPU, such as allow remote access to this system, perhaps as part of an industrial espionage regime or other privacy invading scheme.
I have NO WAY of legally verifying the code does what it says it does if it's hidden.
I'm failing to see how hiding code is more ethical than not hiding it in situations like these.