Software bugs, and the ultimate control over our devices...

In this article about Google Chrome, there are two main things that I take from it.

To begin with, that no software is perfect. As such, all software will have some issues that will affect users in some ways. There is no such thing as a perfect software, there are always issues from security flaws to take care of to quirks that make it do unexpected things from time to time.

Some of this bugs won't be a problem to most people, while they can be a deal breaker for other. Good software, will keep this to a minimum. Yet, there will be some for whom it just won't work. Trying to to frame those users as being the guilty ones is not fair, since it's not their fault that the software doesn't work for them.

On the other hand, the developers of the software can't be expected to make their product one that works perfectly for everyone who uses it.

I'm aware that browsers are a special kind of software that will cover the needs of a broader set of user. But, this doesn't mean that it will cover the needs and tastes of every user out there. As such, the odds that someone will find a deal breaker bug is to be expected.

The second point, is that Google can't take ultimate control from the user over what happens on her or his devices. There is no valid reason for any company to take such a move, though users should be warned of the risks of not updating their apps.

While Google, and other software companies, manage their updates in a way that most users don't notice those updates most of the time, the end user is the one who has to have the final say on what software she or he will run. That includes the version, even if it means not upgrading to the latest if the users doesn't want to do so every time a new version comes along.

At the end, the most important and disturbing issue here is that Google doesn't respect users control over the devices she or he owns. There needs to be an easy and clear path for the end user to make user that the only updates that are wanted, or required, are the ones pushed to the devices that need them. On the other hand, the users should be made aware in a clear way on what are the risk of not getting an update.

For me, the main issue is the fact that Google doesn't respect the user by forcing updates even if they are not wanted for any reason. That is a breach of trust, and one that stand behind.

Law enforcement agencies should use FLOSS...

As Richard Stallman in this article says, that the NSA uses GNU/Linux or any other FLOSS isn't bad at all. In a way it speaks well on how good the software is, since it can be used in such critical missions.

The problem with the NSA lies somewhere else, and not directly with the technology it uses to do its work.

To begin with, the NSA shouldn't be spying on everyone in the name of safety. That's a violation of basic human rights, since we all should have a reasonable level of confidence that we aren't being spied by any government at any given point of time without a good cause.

Law enforcement agencies shouldn't be able to get any data on anyone without having to give a good reason why an individual should be a target of their investigations. It's better for all, that the bar is high in order to get a warrant to get our data.

Also, if law enforcement agencies used FLOSS we the people would have a good reason to be sure that the tools they use do what they say they do. Outside parties would be able to fully audit those tools to make sure they do the job they are devised to do. It would be harder to hide bad behavior on their part, since it would be a lot easier to catch.

In all, we need to push for all the use of FLOSS in every public office, since it would make them more transparent and easier to audit by outside parties. The people has the right to do so.