• Joe Bidet@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can anyone point to the source code please? They claim it is “privacy friendly”, so it cannot be proprietary, right? right? right?

    • memphis@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Your comment got me curious so I had a look.

      From their FAQ:

      Will Magic Earth be Open Source?

      No; since it is also used commercially (we have a paid Magic Earth SDK for business partners), we cannot make the code public.

      • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh ok so there is no way to independently verify its privacy or security. Doesn’t belong in this community then IMO.

        • calm.like.a.bomb@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think you have a wrong understanding of software auditing. Software can be closed source and 3rd party auditors can assess if it has good privacy and security implementations.

          Being closed source doesn’t necesarily mean it’s bad (for privacy/security).

          • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            But then you have to trust, 1, the auditors (I assume by your comment you mean the people given closed door access to the code, reviews it, then publishes a statement saying their claims are valid, that kind of third party auditing?); 2, the code they disclosed to the auditors is the actual complete codebase; 3, that between the current version and the next they did not add anything fishy; and last but not least, 4, the binaries they give you is actually built from that codebase and nothing else, since you can’t build it yourself if you’re really that worried.

            I don’t fully disagree that you can have a private and secure proprietary app, sure you can, but I argue that there are some really big hurdles and you can never have 100% trust in it. Whether these things is a dealbreaker depends on your own values, opinions, and threat model, of course. If you’re choosing between this and Google Maps, then this is almost certainly better in terms of privacy and security.

            I suppose you can also decompile it and analyze it that way, but that’s very difficult and compared to reviewing an open source app, pretty much no one is going to do it. You also don’t have the same level of community attention and contribution on the code itself as an open source project would where people are forking it, implementing features they want and sending pull requests, and going through the codebase to learn how it’s implemented in order to develop their own projects. All of which gives many opportunities for other developers, usually ones very concerned about privacy and security themselves, to notice and sound the alarm on unethical or insecure code in the app, basically getting tons of community driven audits all the time.

            • OminousOrange@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              How many people are actually auditing an open source app themselves though? And if they don’t, they again need to trust others’ opinion.