[Tfug] SQL database question

[Malcolm's Honey Co.]

Bexley Hall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> --- Glen Pfeiffer <glen at thepfeiffers.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> On 03/15/2008 03:13 AM, Jim March wrote:
>>     
>>> I filed a public records request for those data
>>>       
>> files.  The 
>>     
>>> county turned me down because Sequoia told them to
>>>       
>> - Sequoia 
>>     
>>> wrote a letter saying that they embedded "program
>>>       
>> code" within 
>>     
>>> the database, which in turn is proprietary trade
>>>       
>> secret of 
>>     
>>> Sequoia.
>>>
>>>       
>> They can perform an export of the data only with no
>> Stored 
>> Procedures, Views, User Defined Functions, Triggers,
>> etc. They 
>> don't even have to include any constraints in the
>> export 
>> including Primary and Foreign keys.
>>     
>
> I wouldn't accept any "black box dump" unless you
> know what else is "under the hood".  I.e., you
> need to know how data was committed to the database
> (was it "colored" by the procedures used to store
> it??) as well as how the "results" were officially
> reported vs. how the *dump* was created.
>
> Imagine a human agent acting as the DBMS.  You
> *tell* him you are voting "DEMOCRAT".  How do you
> *know* that this is what he is "recording"?
>
> Likewise, regardless of what he has recorded, when
> you ask him to tabulate the results, you are relying
> on him to faithfully reproduce the data that he
> has stored (assuming that data to accurately
> reflect the data *given* to him).  How do you 
> assure yourself that if someone *else* asks him
> for "results" (in a different form -- i.e., a dump)
> that those results agree with the "reported"
> results?
>
> Since there is no other way of auditing the accuracy
> of the *process* (from "data in" to "results out"),
> I would insist on complete transparency (i.e.,
> roll up your sleeves and *show* me there's no
> rabbit hiding up there...)
>   
I couldn't agree more. The whole system must be transparent. Sue the 
bastards!