Hacker News Reader

Comment by danbruc | Hacker News Reader

We are not generally used to this in our field but just think about the amount of paperwork you have to go through in order to construct a bridge or an airplane. Browsers have become a critical component and it seem not really unexpected that there will eventually be legal requirements to help to ensure that browsers are safe given the amount of software that runs on top of browsers. And this is also not new, there have been legal requirements for all kinds of software for a long time, you will just not think about those unless you work in an affected area.

View on HN

>but just think about the amount of paperwork you have to go through in order to construct a bridge [...]

Yeah, I do. Guess which industry has seen negative productivity growth in the past 2 decades, even though the broader private sector grew by 50%?

https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250712_WBC...

Could it be fundamentals are different when you're building physical buildings vs software that's eating the private sector? (Among other factors.)

Are you seriously suggesting that becoming more regulated like bridge/building builders is GOOD for software?

You sure you are ready to freeze all innovation forever? Cause there is a well documented inverse relationship between regulation and innovation. (Small teams cannot afford compliance officers and other such dross. Big ones do move fast, and, without competition from the smells, do not need to)

For software used by regular people who do not know anything about software and shouldn't have to, used to manage their banking, do their taxes and other things that they need to be able to do online these days? Yes.

>For software used by regular people who do not know anything about software and shouldn't have to... Yes (aka kill the makers with regulations)"

That doesn't make sense. Even the big browser makers have beta-versions clearly marked as experimental. If someone is so dumb that they don't understand simple warnings and disclaimers, that's their problem and nobody else's.

"Don't use if dumb" is the only warning that regulators need to require. The regulator should pay to the maker for all other compliance measures, otherwise regulations become only a source of oppressive power and picking winners and losers. "Only" because they do not increase software security in any meaningful way.

How will regulations on browsers make us safer though?

By making their implementors responsible for implementation and safety errors, presumably. See every other engineering profession and business

Right. Define "safe."

Personally I consider Chrome to be one of the least-safe browsers available, because it sends my data to Google. Also it perpetuates a monoculture. However, others may define "safe" differently, excluding such considerations.

Curious then that this safety regulation should apply only to browsers on iOS and not every other type of app distributed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com