[SystemSafety] A Fire Code for Software?

[Steve Tockey]

As a FYI, Cem Caner has been doing some work along the lines of Consumer
Protection and software in the US. Basically, everything is supposed to be
governed by something called the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) that,
apparently, can supersede anything that the software vendors would like
you to think.

You might want to see: http://badsoftware.com/sepg.htm

It¹s 20 years old now so I can¹t say how up-to-date it is, but it did make
for some interesting reading.


Cheers,

‹ steve




-----Original Message-----
From: systemsafety <systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
on behalf of "paul_e.bennett at topmail.co.uk" <paul_e.bennett at topmail.co.uk>
Date: Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 4:13 AM
To: "systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de"
<systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] A Fire Code for Software?

On 18/03/2018 at 10:01 AM, "Peter Bernard Ladkin"
<ladkin at rvs.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>
[%X]

>Another move could be holding SW and SW-based-kit supply companies
>more accountable for deficits in
>their products. But the question of assigning responsibility for
>such a deficit is already
>fiendishly complicated, because of the complexity of the supply
>chain. It might just result in
>expanded legal departments everywhere, along with ensuing price
>rise to pay for them.

I am told that the Consumer Protection Act (in the UK) has the necessary
sharp teeth if the legal eagles would bare them. It would definitely make
the court cases and preceding investigations longer as they would have
to get a much more thoroughly detailed brief.

>I don't think the question of getting everyone to use more
>reliable development methods for SW is an
>easy one. Neither do I think it will be the solution to the "SW
>problem". Requirements engineering
>poses challenges that are at least as big, and to my mind less
>susceptible to pro forma solution.

Getting good requirements delivered to you demands developers to be
more questioning. I know I have expounded this here before but all
requirements should be Clear, Concise, Correct,  Coherent, Complete
and Confirmable (Testable). Developers should accept nothing less, no
matter what discipline they operate in.

Regards

Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET
Systems Engineer
Lunar Mission One Ambassador
-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1392-426688
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE