Hacker News Reader

Comment by azernik | Hacker News Reader

The number one way to prevent building the wrong thing is a professional code of ethics, which software engineers (at least in the US) do not yet have.

View on HN

May I point you to the ACM/IEEE-CS Software Engineering Code of Ethics https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/software-engineering-c... this was a major thing discussed in my professional ethics corse in college.

I've never seen this before, this is really interesting. Thank you for the link!

It's a nice gesture. Unfortunately, it is not required for software engineers to pass any test on this or subscribe to it or otherwise be held to the standard before they are allowed to write and publish software, so unless and until someone forfeits a lot of money and/or their liberty, it will likely not be widely adopted in any practical sense.

I am personally more concerned with software engineers and network engineers aiding and abetting the imprisonment, torture and execution of people by repressive regimes, by enabling surveillance technology and fucking with internet traffic analysis. Way more people are going to be hurt in the near term by that than by therac-25 type mistakes.

For example if you're a Chinese network engineer, and you can avoid it, don't take a job setting up tracking and database of Uyghur people. That is an ethical issue just as important as the therac-25 type problem.

You don't have to look that far. The ICE detaining children and violating them are already crimes against humanity. I bet there are IT people working for that agency.

They killed at least one child and are drugging them against their will, while they are forcibly taken from their parents and held in worse conditions than terrorists.

In addition to the ACM and IEEE, the National Society of Professional Engineers also has a code of ethics. However, relatively few engineers get licensed in the US--it's mostly needed for signing off on drawings for regulators and that sort of thing--and, in fact, the Software Engineering exam is being phased out.

(I took the Engineer-in-Training exam once upon a time but then stropped practicing engineering so I never got the PE.)

In Portugal we do have it, and while it is optional to join it if you don't legally sign off projects on the company's name, at least they certify that University degrees are actually teaching proper software engineering.

Do you say that to give poor software engineering legal consequences?

In Canada, that's the legal definition of engineering. You may not call yourself an engineer without accreditation and such accreditation will be rescinded if you make severe enough engineering mistakes.

I don't disagree with you, but there's a LOT of people in Canada calling themselves software engineers or network engineers who don't have a degree qualified to wear the iron ring.

That's about being a Professional Engineer, which legally entitles you to certain actions (e.g. sign off on design docs). Anyone can call themselves engineers of any kind as long as they don't pretend to be P.Engs. I am not sure though that being P.Engs in software means anything in practice, unlike in e.g. structural engineering.

Not the poster, but I think there are multiple paths of action encouraged by a code similar to other engineering disciplines[1].

More involvement of the legal and insurance industries are one of them. Another is to give software engineers something solid to brace themselves on when pushing back at management - completely aside from consequences for the company, if you're bonded or worry about a license, there are some things you won't let your manager sweet-talk you in to. Another is to provide a model of behavior for engineers, like it says on the tin. It doesn't mean everyone will, or even that the model is always absolutely correct. But giving folks a way to think about things when they feel something's off is a good thing.

Yet another is theoretically providing a baseline of competence. I think that depends more on improving informal culture than any formal mechanism, though.

[1] Note: not arguing in favor of one; I haven't made up my mind on what I think about the topic.

which software engineers (at least in the US) do not yet have

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair

Reply on news.ycombinator.com