4 ms·

The laws you're talking about will never occur if the people making those laws are non-technical. As an industry we need to self-regulate, and have our self-reg

The laws you're talking about will never occur if the people making those laws are non-technical. As an industry we need to self-regulate, and have our self-regulation have the weight of law behind it. This system works fairly well, for example, in the medical profession, where you can lose your license to practice medicine based on principles set forth by other doctors.

s_q_b 10y ago
That's essentially an argument for a professional licensure system for software development. Setting aside that professional licensure requirements are anathema to the spirit of the hacker movement, they would likely have prevented the creation of a massive pool of technology companies, including Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook. Even that proposal would stifle innovation. However, what's being suggested by the OP is not even a professional licensure system. It's mob justice. The difference is that professional licensure organizations follow fixed sets of rules, procedures, and principles. These rules are established, agreed upon, and promulgated in advance of enforcement. Most importantly, the procedures generally allow for the basics of due process. Mob justice has no set of fixed procedure, and no assurance of due process. Its enforcement is governed by caprice, and subject to a set of arbitrary, inconsistent, and constantly shifting "rules." The OP is proposing an arbitrarily enforced "refusal to hire" policy people from an ill-defined set of "undesirable" companies. First, there are no rules for establishing which companies are undesirable. What fields of technology exactly are undesirable? And exactly how closely did an engineer have to be involved with such technology? Second, many companies develop "dual use" technology, which has both civilian and military uses. This includes manufacturers of everything from CPUs to jet engines. Is the designer of a gyroscope used on spacecraft and on missiles banished from our ranks? Third, many of these companies are also huge conglomerates. GE makes jet engines, as well as washers and dryers. Where do we draw the line? Should a GE employee be blacklisted under this "system"? One from Intel? How about Facebook for taking money from the CIA? Google for Boston Dynamics? Most importantly, who decides, and how? If it's determined by whim and popularity, as proposed by the OP, then I want absolutely no part of it.
- diyorgasms 10y ago
  I agree that these are all significant challenges. However I believe that in the absence of a licensing body, we as professionals can still reach consensus-based conclusions on minimum standards of professional ethics. And I suspect very strongly that the engineers on this particular project would have clearly violated any standards of professional ethics we could agree on.
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    How, where, and by what metric is this "consensus" established? What if you and I disagree? What if Microsoft and Apple disagree? Who decides? Civil war amongst software developers, with utter lack of due process, and ostracism as punishment are not as pleasant to the ear as "consensus," but that's the end result of what you're proposing. This, of course, misses the central flaw in the proposal: If "good" companies refuse to hire engineers with work history at "bad" companies, you'd be forcing the very engineers who now want to do work you consider "good" back into doing work you consider "bad." Setting aside the horrific personal implications this ham-fisted approach would have, by its very nature, a refusal to hire policy would have the exact opposite effect that you intend.
slavik81 10y ago
I don't think a professional organization would want to wade into politics like that. At least for engineers, the principles they enforce are limited in scope. They demand that missiles designed by engineers don't veer wildly off-course. They don't demand that engineers refrain from designing missiles. The former is a matter of engineering; the latter is a matter of public policy.

s_q_b 10y ago

That's essentially an argument for a professional licensure system for software development. Setting aside that professional licensure requirements are anathema to the spirit of the hacker movement, they would likely have prevented the creation of a massive pool of technology companies, including Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook. Even that proposal would stifle innovation. However, what's being suggested by the OP is not even a professional licensure system. It's mob justice. The difference is that professional licensure organizations follow fixed sets of rules, procedures, and principles. These rules are established, agreed upon, and promulgated in advance of enforcement. Most importantly, the procedures generally allow for the basics of due process. Mob justice has no set of fixed procedure, and no assurance of due process. Its enforcement is governed by caprice, and subject to a set of arbitrary, inconsistent, and constantly shifting "rules." The OP is proposing an arbitrarily enforced "refusal to hire" policy people from an ill-defined set of "undesirable" companies. First, there are no rules for establishing which companies are undesirable. What fields of technology exactly are undesirable? And exactly how closely did an engineer have to be involved with such technology? Second, many companies develop "dual use" technology, which has both civilian and military uses. This includes manufacturers of everything from CPUs to jet engines. Is the designer of a gyroscope used on spacecraft and on missiles banished from our ranks? Third, many of these companies are also huge conglomerates. GE makes jet engines, as well as washers and dryers. Where do we draw the line? Should a GE employee be blacklisted under this "system"? One from Intel? How about Facebook for taking money from the CIA? Google for Boston Dynamics? Most importantly, who decides, and how? If it's determined by whim and popularity, as proposed by the OP, then I want absolutely no part of it.

diyorgasms 10y ago
I agree that these are all significant challenges. However I believe that in the absence of a licensing body, we as professionals can still reach consensus-based conclusions on minimum standards of professional ethics. And I suspect very strongly that the engineers on this particular project would have clearly violated any standards of professional ethics we could agree on.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  How, where, and by what metric is this "consensus" established? What if you and I disagree? What if Microsoft and Apple disagree? Who decides? Civil war amongst software developers, with utter lack of due process, and ostracism as punishment are not as pleasant to the ear as "consensus," but that's the end result of what you're proposing. This, of course, misses the central flaw in the proposal: If "good" companies refuse to hire engineers with work history at "bad" companies, you'd be forcing the very engineers who now want to do work you consider "good" back into doing work you consider "bad." Setting aside the horrific personal implications this ham-fisted approach would have, by its very nature, a refusal to hire policy would have the exact opposite effect that you intend.

slavik81 10y ago

I don't think a professional organization would want to wade into politics like that. At least for engineers, the principles they enforce are limited in scope. They demand that missiles designed by engineers don't veer wildly off-course. They don't demand that engineers refrain from designing missiles. The former is a matter of engineering; the latter is a matter of public policy.