Open Versus Closed Development

Open source software development relies on interested, knowledgeable users to update and fix a piece of software for free.  Closed source software is developed by paid programmers who do not share the source of their software with others.  When closed source software has problems or updates, the paid developers are the only ones who are allowed to change the source code.  This process can take a long time because the developers must diagnose the problems that need to be fixed and then fix them.  Updating closed source software can also take a long time because the developers of the software are usually not the ones who request the update, so they must first figure out exactly what the update should do.  Open source software can improve the process of updating and debugging software by allowing users to see the source code and attempt to fix the problems or add updates themselves.  This speeds up the process of putting out a new version of software which leads to better software faster than using closed source development.

Refusing Responsibility

    It can be extremely trying for an institution to accept additional responsibilities in difficult or adverse situations.  It seems logical that an organization would not want to take on the responsibility when the current climate seems bleak.  However, refusing to accept responsibility when things are not convenient can  have wide spread, detrimental effects because the situation that could have been resolved will continue to terrorize others. 
    An example of a difficult situation that is plaguing society is the problem of identity theft.  Since it is difficult for law enforcement agencies to find the portraiture of identity theft they often choose not to pursue the criminals that are terrorizing hard working people around the world.  The road to eliminating identity theft is expensive and time consuming, so it is understandable why cash strapped law enforcement agencies do not want to take on the responsibility.  However, until they start to take responsibility for solving the problem of identity theft, it will continue to plague society by destroying credit scores and ruining businesses.
    Taking responsibility for difficult situations is often arduous and usually not desirable.  The most important and influential actions require a herculean effort.  If law enforcement continues to refuse responsibility when it is inconvenient for them, society will never improve.  Today's society needs more institutions to step up to the plate to take responsibility even when it seems like the responsibility is too great.

NASDAQ Feels Stoll's Frustration

Just as Cliff Stoll spotted and followed a hacker who was looking for information by using his system at Lawrence Berkley Laboratory (LBL), NASDAQ recently had a hacker invade their system looking for information.  Just as the hacking began at LBL with a hole in the widely used GNUEmacs program, hackers first penetrated NASDAQ through a hole in a commonly used Microsoft's server system.  NASDAQ and Stoll both discovered the hackers through their normal means of monitoring of their computers.  Even though NASDAQ had the help of government agencies, they too had difficulties tracking down their hacker just as Stoll did.  Another similarity between the situations at NASDAQ and LBL is that even when the detected hole is patched, there are certainly other holes that the hackers will use, so a single patch will not fix everything.  With situations like these becoming too common, it is time to allow computer security systems to go on the offensive when a hacker strikes.  This type of solution to computer hackers could substantially decrease the number of situations like those that occured at NASDAQ and LBL.