What is want from your software, is there some transparency?

Threre where the LinuxCon meeting in New Orleans, were Linus Torvalds was asked if he had ever been approached by the US government (NSA) to insert a backdoor into the Linux kernel. Here's his characteristic answer:
Torvalds responded "no" while shaking his head "yes," as the audience broke into spontaneous laughter (his personality is no longer just the same old).
But, like encryption, it is probably one of the best defenses we have - whether or not Torvalds was asked to add a backdoor to Linux (a backdoor is term used to describe a hidden vulnerability in a program that could conceivably allow an entity to access information on Linux computers without users' knowledge.)
They did not even asked.

Oh, Christ. It was obviously a joke, no government agency has ever asked me for a backdoor in Linux.

Strangely, I think this is not a joking matter - and will not to be it.

Obviously, it's hard to tell from that whether he really meant "yes" or "no". But the question does touch on an important issue: whether open source might be less vulnerable than traditional applications to tampering by the NSA or other intelligence organizations. That's plausible, because by definition free software's code is always available for inspection; the idea is that even if backdoors are somehow introduced, they will be spotted by people looking over the code.

it's not obvious in advance that any particular open source project can avoid backdoors.

Of course, there are some problems with that, writes Techdirt. The first of those is that just because the code is available does not mean anyone will look at it. Secondly, even if the source code is examined and looks fine, that doesn't imply that the compiled version you run on your machine will be - a well known, and deep problem.
It does not mean that we should give up on the hope that open source might be better than traditional closed source when it comes to backdoors. Oh-no.

Not necessarily. Here, for example, is the security expert Bruce Schneier writing in the Guardian a couple of weeks ago on the best ways to stay secure in the light of the revelations about the NSA's activities. closed-source software is easier for the NSA to backdoor than open-source software.
Thanks to the recent NSA leaks, people are more worried than ever that their software might have backdoors.
Many open source projects are fully transparent: not only is the source code public, but the project also makes public the issue tracker that is used to manage known defects and the internal email discussions of the development team. All of these are useful in deterring backdoor attempts.
That's from Ed Felten, Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs, Princeton University, says to Techdirt:

Transparency does not guarantee that holes will be found, because there might not be enough eyeballs on the code. For open source projects, finding backdoors, or security vulnerabilities in general, is a public good.
in otherwise in som economists' sense that effort spent on it benefits everyone, including those who don't contribute any effort themselves.

In other words, open source is not a panacea: it is not guaranteed to protect you from backdoors. Despite Felten upbeat assessment of the value of open source in providing software transparency, the rest of his post urges caution.