I get it, free software take, nothing new.

But this is a pretty extremist take. Just because a company doesn't push source code and you can't deterministically have 100% certainty, doesn't mean you can't make any assertions about the software.

To refuse to make any claims about software without source is as principled as it is lazy.

Imagine an engineer brought to a worksite, and they don't have blueprints, can he do no work at all? Ok, good for you, but there's engineers that can.

Yes, I think all devices packed with sensors that live in our homes should be transparent in what they do, that is their code should be available for everyone to see. And yes, it is extremist take, given where we ended up today.

It’s even dumber than that because the people that do assurance work don’t rely solely on source even when it’s available.

Reversing the software is table stakes for assurance work already so suggesting source is a requirement just doesn’t match reality.