For UK users: Will gnucash get ready for Making Tax Digital ?

[Tommy Trussell]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd) <
drkirkby at kirkbymicrowave.co.uk> wrote:

> On 25 July 2017 at 17:54, David Goodenough <
> david.goodenough at linkchoose.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > There is a problem.  They want to assign a secret ID to each piece of
> > software
> > and so if you say it is open source they then refuse to allocate an ID as
> > it
> > will not be secret.  I have raised this with the cabinet office digital
> > dept,
> > and they acknowledge that this effectively bans open source which is
> > against
> > official government policy.  They are trying to get this changed.
> >
> > David
> >
>
> I must admit I can't quite think how, but I'm sure some cryptology expert
> could find a solution. Although I don't do it now, I was a regular
> developer of the sagemath open-source maths program, started by Prof.
> William Stein at the University of Washington.
>
> http://www.sagemath.org/
>
> Prof Stein is an expert in number theory, and many of the users of that
> package are too. I will drop a few of them an email, and see if any of them
> can come up with a solution.
>
> Dave
>

It seems to me that the ONLY way such a validation scheme could work would
be to have a "canonical" version approved by the government, which they
could implement by having a designated maintainer for each open source
package, who is basically responsible for managing the keys necessary for
validation.

If anyone can build it themselves, then ANYONE can build it themselves,
even people you don't trust. SO you have to implement a way to establish
trustworthiness.

Linux distributions do this already, independently of government entities.
The real issue is whether it is possible to implement this on a
governmental level.

SO (in my opinion, not a UK citizen, other disclaimers applicable, etc.)
it's not a mathematical problem, it's a political one.



> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>