Again, they don't have the ability to alter every example of running code. Just a copy they make and adjust. Actually getting this into another device should be a whole new ball game, especially once more hardware has initiatives that observe various facets of the system booting,and operating, and compare it to an average snapshot of the system booting, and operating as a layer to note adjustments, and prevents adjusted code from exectuting - which should simutainously stop unautherised modifications and virus/malware spread.

If the are able to adjust the running code in hardware, then it doesn't matter if it's open source or not, they'll know how datasheets work. They'll know how to dig the information out of the web that will allow them to seamlessly interact, or they'll work it out for themselves. The fact the Texas Instruments chips or code was not open source did not prevent the chips being repurposed as missile guidance systems - something significantly "less safe" than a speak and spell. The fact the code wasn't open source didn't prevent someone figuring out how to embed a signal into a DAB broadcast to take control of the infotainment system, and then leverage control over the ECU and from there the PLC's that are actually responsible for critical operations - like brakes, steering, seatbelt pretensioners, airbags, accelleator etc. It really hasn't made cars any safer, in fact completely the opposite - if you want to be alarmed about something to place trust in, it shouldn't be open source but the things put into place that are closed source, drastically flawed, and are unlikley to fixed any time soon. Which if you looked for with any regularity you'd notice a few.

You are right Jason

Not entirely "off-topic"....

There's a current trend in "government" at the moment in various countries to be going more open source, mostly in terms of software packages - I'm saying one step further, and run the .gov similar to an open source project. AKA Direct democracy. Thusly there's minimal requirement for "government employees" and even less to be paying for them.

It required detailed debunking of dangerous misconceptions of along the way. It required response or someone that doesn't know any better could read it and think these to be sane concerns.