It might be an unpopular option, but I think the regulatory regimes that control medical and financial privacy as they interact with software are significantly lighter touch than e.g. the regimes that control material quality for bridges and tunnels, much less airplanes.

▲

seemaze 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not in tech, so does the authority granting license to proceed do code reviews?

Because when I submit building plans, they are manually reviewed and approved (or denied) by registered architects, engineers, and planners employed by the authority for just this purpose.

	▲	nsagent 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Gaming Commissions oversee gambling machines and will audit code to ensure the RNGs are accurate, return to player meets the expected requirements, and so forth. I'm sure other highly regulated industries also have their code audited.

▲

HeyLaughingBoy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not really. In those safety-critical areas, the code really is no different. What is significantly different is the surrounding process.

I had to make some software changes to an old medical device this year. The overwhelming majority of the effort was understanding what the customer wanted and giving them feedback into how that would change the existing system and the risks associated. Then, creating a plan to follow the necessary standard (IEC62304) and creating the associated documentation and getting it reviewed and approved.

The actual code that changed was probably only around 100 LOC but the project took several months. Heck, the code was simple enough that an intern could have done it.

	▲	woodruffw 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I left out the code on medical devices for a reason! And similarly for avionics software. (The distinction I’m making is between the code that operates the medical device and the code that operates the app I make doctors’ appointments in. The latter is subjected to a different - and lighter - regime than the former.)