Hacker News Reader

Comment by viraptor | Hacker News Reader

I thought there was a clause making all technology available for national defence, regardless of patents... but can't find the source. Anyone?

View on HN

That may be true in the US but what about in other jurisdictions? I mean doctor's have the Hippocrates oath of do no harm to the patient but (and not to come over all tree-hugging peacenik like) why do chemists/bioengineers/physicists not have a similar oath with respect to the our species or other species in general or the planet in its entirety? But I guess the scientists do the theorizing and the engineers and coders build weaponize or apply the theoretical results in military applications so what good would it do ... Hmm, maybe the New Year is making me come over all compassionate and fuzzy :)

Other jurisdictions can certainly make similar exceptions for themselves.

In Canada, there is a Ritual Calling of the Engineer, which has an "Obligation" which is not exactly an oath. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ritual_of_the_Calling_of_an... I'll paste the text here if I can find it.

It's a beautiful tradition. On my graduation all soon-to-be engineer colleagues also made a solemn promise more or less like the ones other engineers take in other countries and schools.

I also like the idea of passing the iron rings down through generations of new engineers. In Brazil we don't. It reminds the ones new to the career that others came before them and that others will come after them and of the obligations we share. That's one thing many of us forget much too frequently.

In Canada, I've heard it's more "traditional" to let the newer engineers wear shinier rings, so the more experienced ones have tarnished rings. One of the older engineers lost his in some machinery and had to get a new one. He hated it, said it made him feel like a n00b :-)

I found it very interesting that joining any of the Australian Professional societies (Engineers Australia, Australian Computer Society) as a Software Engineer we have to agree to a set of bye-laws and a code of ethics with fairly harsh internal penalties.

Personally I think it's a brilliant idea and wish that more professions adopt a similar thinking (I don't know of any that do but then again I haven't looked very hard).

Would this be an oath to not implement technology in offensive ways?

> That may be true in the US but what about in other jurisdictions?

I think that could be "the rule of the bigger gun". It's hard to argue with the guy who drives a tank across your lawn.

And preventing military use is a bad idea. The military are not always in offensive roles. And they are not automatically wrong when they use the force.

I've heard this too. A quick search found a book briefly covering the topic. I couldn't find an official source.

As a matter of public policy - national defense trumps patents - http://bit.ly/faNGT3

Reply on news.ycombinator.com