what is the feasibility of govornment agencies legaly finding

Only if said FOSS became very widely used, since most FOSS is barely used beyond the development group and their friends.

As it is, there's simply no reason to attempt to force it, but if they tried some blanket approach I'm willing to bet a lot of FOSS would simply jump ship to the darkweb or some other source not directly monitored by the government.

>>58874847
Here's the thing. You can find out with FOSS. You can't really with closed source. Sure you can Wireshark, but you can do that with FOSS too. FOSS can be code audited and wiresharked.

>>58875424
And what if they forced FOSS programs to have closed source libraries or whatnot that could potentially have the backdoors?

>>58877589
Someone who makes a program owns it, not the government. Your argument is dumb.
P.S. what are open source libraries?

The FBI already stated that backdoors are inherently flawed since it introduces potential for non-government agencies to find out about them. After the fiasco with the Apple case they decided it was better to just go directly to the organization to get what they want.

>>58877750
But they could just force the programs to have closed source sections. Whether it's a library or some other part. They wouldn't be taking away the ownership from the writer, quite contrarily, they'd be instructing the writers to clutch their intellectual property more tightly.

File: image.jpg (5KB, 300x57px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 300x57px

>>58874847
Stallman would strike them down with merciless vengance.

>>58877969
A programmer has the ability to choose what libraries to use, also 1st amendment is free expression and would allow open source libraries to exist.

File: rng.png (275KB, 1043x399px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1043x399px

>>58874847
honestly I would be pressuring bios makers and chipset makers if I was the TLAs.

things like OMCI and HPCMI exist. iDRAC exists. have your open source software while you run signed opaque firmware with full network capability and backdoors.

how much you want to get that "certain" orders of processors get "special AES-NI" instruction sets *wink wink*

>>58874847
hardware compatibility.

>>58878261
Damn, you just flat out keep refusing to get it! See, what's needed for the communal good and for economic order is simply for any one part of the program to be closed source, so they wouldn't be restricted from any particular part of the program to be an expression or something needing to be expressed, a particular library, or a specific open source type thing. It simply requires the programmer to own up for the program a fraction of the time, to just occasionally take responsibility!

File: 1450835884536.png (128KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 308x308px

>>58879163
Jesus christ, providing source code will prevent this bullshit. Also shill, but whatever.