17 ms·

Code I’m Still Ashamed Of

514 points by mnmlsm 10y ago

CapitalistCartr 10y ago
The major side effect of making coding easier is more people will. Some will have fewer scruples about ethics. So as coding tools get easier to use, more such dishonest coding will show up. I think a solution, alongside our personal integrity, is watching for it. Whether we be Google, or a lone, random programmer, we could any of us chance to ferret out such a nasty site and shine the bright light of day on it.
- bbcbasic 10y ago
  I do a little to help by clicking ads to those fake news sites. Then clicking around and closing the site. Costing them ad money but no sale.
  - moonshinefe 10y ago
    Uhhh, they often make money simply by how many clicks they get though...
    - bbcbasic 10y ago
      The ads that take you TO the site. Usually there are no ads on the site, just a sales funnel for a questionable product
  - majortennis 10y ago
    rewarding fake news sites, not even on googles radar
    - bbcbasic 10y ago
      Not now but yesterday. Plus Google ain't the only ad network.
tf2manu994 10y ago
Expected this to be a "the code I never wrote" thing, from there blog name. Then thought it might be a "lol look at my bad code that I wrote 6 years ago" Pleasantly surprised. For more, I recommend"the gift of Fire" by Sara Baase.
moonshinefe 10y ago
I have code I'm ashamed of as well. I was very young, and told the app was for a fairly innocent cause. After the fact, it became apparent the company was also selling it to a fairly controversial foreign government entity. I think it's worth standing up to this sort of thing, but good luck getting that new job if you stipulate they inform you before hand who they're going to sell your code to. I'm not sure what the solution is if you don't have a ton of leverage (and if you choose to turn down the job, someone will gladly take your place in this economy). Interested in hearing other people's suggestions.
- EvilTerran 10y ago
  I note the BCS (a professional body of sorts for British technologists) has a "public interest" clause in its code of conduct for members, which arguably prohibits the sort of behaviour described by you & in the submission: http://www.bcs.org/category/6030#publicinterest http://www.bcs.org/category/6030#publicinterest That said, there's no real obligation to be a BCS member, and most people aren't, which somewhat defangs their CoC: like you say, if you refuse the work, someone else will do it. Still, it's a good symbolic gesture, and perhaps points the way to go.
lordnacho 10y ago
An awkward situation, for sure. However, after a lady in my community killed herself (she was on some prescribed drug), a friend of mine in the industry explained his view. Apparently, these drugs can cause some people to kill themselves. But they also cause some users to recover, meaning they're less likely to commit suicide. It wasn't clear how exactly this balance was measured, but the net effect can be positive. Still raises some hard questions along the lines of the trolley experiment. Who gets to live, and who gets to die? And what about the fact that we don't even know who it is that will get better or worse? Regarding coding, the coder is only really able to quit because the market is good. Plenty of people along the same economic chain that led to this are in more precarious job circumstances.
- nicky0 10y ago
  Similar thought: should you have a moral quandry about doing work for a car company, given that 1.25 million people per year are killed in road traffic incidents.
  - carlob 10y ago
    Yes
  - douche 10y ago
    This takes you down a never-ending and unproductive rabbit hole. We really aren't equipped to encompass the totality of the effects of any particular action we take, which will invariably, at some point in the chain of consequences, have adverse impacts on someone, somewhere.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - lmm 10y ago
    I'd focus on the difference you're making. Are you making drivers, passengers and bystanders more or less safe than they'd be if someone less skilled was doing your job? Given that new cars tend to be substantially safer all round than older cars, I'd say most of the industry is in the clear. OTOH anyone encouraging people to buy heavier cars than they need should probably think things through pretty carefully.
TheAceOfHearts 10y ago
This is something I've wondered about. What do you do if your boss asks you to do something which you believe to be legally questionable or unethical? For example, if you're asked to do something which you thought might be illegal, but you don't know for certain, would the best course of action be to hire a lawyer? Based on what I saw from the recent Volkswagen fiasco, it seems like the developer himself can be held liable. Is this correct?
- moonshinefe 10y ago
  I'm not sure about your last question, but regarding if they ask you to do something that may be unethical or illegal: I'd get advice. It doesn't mean you need to spend money on a lawyer necessarily, you can often write college/uni professors and get decent answers. If not, heck, I'd even ask the relevant Reddit sub-forum. At any rate, the idea is to go ask people who are more likely to objectively answer your concerns as opposed to the employers.
  - jpindar 10y ago
    There is also a stackexchange site for legal questions.
- PaulKeeble 10y ago
  I have been asked a couple of times to do things that were unethical, never illegal but certainly unethical. I resigned on the spot in both cases. I feel this is how professionals should act. When asked in my interviews why I left I stated clearly that I was asked to do something unethical and resigned as a result when "forced", it was taken positively.
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    The problem with that is people need to eat. Very, very few people are in a position where they can resign from a job on the spot.
    - 10y ago
sguav 10y ago
Thanks for the story. I feel this has been an issue for other types of jobs so far, but this example points out how easy is to be borderline with ethics...which may itself be a non-ethical choice IMHO
nstart 10y ago
This is tough to read. I've railed and yelled in meeting about ethics and have ultimately discovered that in nearly every case the money talks louder. I remember this company I worked with that had a sign up with a "add me to the newsletter" check box. When leading a ux review it was decided to switch it off by default. One day a friend of mine buzzed me to say she was annoyed at receiving mail even though she specifically made sure that that box was unchecked when signing up. I assumed it was a dev error and checked with the dev team and was told to go check with the CTO. When I did, the CTO said that it was exactly how he wanted it. I wasnt even manager level but I lost it and yelled at the CTO. I was simply told "we need our email signups and dont dare tell me how to do my job". I tried to look for support elsewhere in the company and all I discovered were at best some hushed mutterings in corners. Even laughs of me being on some kind of moral high horse. It hurt to know that the same people I know who did these things are now working on startups that scoop up massive amounts of people's location data. The same people who wrote tiny scripts to collate customer data to give to the sales teams who would give it to clients as part of a sales package even though the terms specifically said we don't share personal info. It bothers me that I don't even know how to fight it since all it takes is the next dev to come along and say yes to end months of protests against something unethical. I don't want regulation and lobbyists pushing their tech onto me as a solution. If anyone has advice, I think this is a great thread to share thoughts.
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  Name and shame them? Make very sure your anonymity is preserved lest they try to sue you, but exposing these practices on here might be a start to get the word out on it.
  - Lewton 10y ago
    Just a casual naming online stating that these practices are on purpose and not a bug, so when I search for the company and the issue on google, I'll know to not give them the benefit of the doubt.
  - justinclift 10y ago
    The sentiment is ok, but not sure how to make that work in a practical sense. It would need to avoid allowing the unscrupulous to (falsely) badmouth competitors.
throw2016 10y ago
There is a problem with software engineers. Narcissism. Its disturbing how many software discussion boards routinely refer to other people as dumb or ignorant. It's as if everyone should leave their area of expertise and become software engineers. This kind of hubris that allows some to think they are better than others only paves the way for people to dehumanize others and behave unethically. And we have seen after decades of posing as champions of freedom and liberty nearly the entire industry has been co-opted into the surveillance economy or state surveillance programs without so much as a murmur with Snowden left holding the baby of these pretensions.
markharris99 10y ago
I was reading the comments of the article and I came across an interesting thought. Whilst we in first world countries may be able to protest against our employers or try and steer them away from non-ethical actions. What happens when the employer takes away the assignment in question and gives the work to an off-shore company, who's only obligation is to get paid? Where the developers of said off-shore company's obligation is to get paid so they can eat? Do you think off-shore developers are going to have the same moral stances of a first world developer? I don't think so. I know there are a couple of voices in this thread who think they can be that knight in shining armor, a bit like Don Quixote. However, you can't rail too much. Lest you find yourself outcast, side-lined or even fired? I thought it was an interesting situation to ponder.
- oakesm9 10y ago
  The same could be said if you refuse to do the work and it's given to any other person who doesn't morally object (off-shore or otherwise).
  - ff10 10y ago
    Unfortunately, the ethical chain here is only as good as it's most unethical link. Then again, most people really don't have a good feeling being the corrosive link.
    - danielam 10y ago
      I don't know what you mean by "ethical chain", but whether something is the right thing to do is independent of whether other people are acting morally or not. Just because others are morally corrupt does not justify one's own moral corruption.
- bengillies 10y ago
  Ultimately though, we can only speak for our own moral choices. If you're happy with doing something unethical or illegal, then go ahead. If you're not prepared to, then don't. If you refuse though, then what happens afterwards isn't up to you and doesn't impact on your morals and/or character. The best you can hope for is to know that you played no part in the wrongdoing.
kol 10y ago
Every single CS student should read this.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  I took a CS ethics class. We generally read better things, with a more interesting conclusion. The conclusion of this? If you said NO, someone in India would have made it, for likely less money. The only winning end game would be to e-mail the FDA and hope that the right political party and lobbyists are currently in control of the agency.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  Curious, why? It's an extremely poor "ethical case study" that jumps to the wrong conclusions.
Beltiras 10y ago
I'm the chairman of the board of a local society of computer scientists. We have bylaws that describe a code of conduct for members governing their work. 1. Let honesty govern your work 2. Heed professional responsibility 3. Do not accept gain from a third party, except with full knowledge of your employer/contract partner 4. Do not ever use confidential information from an employer of contract partner without informed consent 5. Increase your professional capabilities 6. Make sure your conduct is an exemplar of membership 7. Share your experience with other members We host meetings once or twice a month where members or guests hold lectures on varying IT topics. I don't know if tech in Iceland is such a small community that it tends to keep people honest or that transgressions like this happen all the time and are not spoken of. I like to think our members are ethical in their work.
- ysavir 10y ago
  I actually don't see any rule in there about being ethical towards your userbase. The integrity encouraged here is towards the employer, which will be the one to insist on screwing over the users.
  - Beltiras 10y ago
    Let honesty govern your work. It's a bit difficult to translate and still keep the language clear.
    - ysavir 10y ago
      What you really mean is that it's hard to be upfront about saying "Cause your employer trouble over client needs that screw over the user" and still keep a job. The message itself can be crystal clear; broadcasting it where it actually means something is the challenge.
      - Beltiras 10y ago
        No, I mean that going from a verb-based language to a noun-based language is tricky without either losing meaning or becoming "wordy".
golergka 10y ago
A lot of drugs have severe side effects. And of course, if a drug is popular enough, there always will be a couple of extremely severe cases. Does it mean that those drugs are bad? Does it mean that the recovery of millions of patients is outweighted by one where the doctor probably shouldn't have prescribed it in the first place because the patient was already predisposed to depression or depressed in the first place?
- gcp 10y ago
  Your argument sounds like a false dichotomy to me. We can have drugs with potentially bad side effects and make efforts to make sure they're not incorrectly prescribed.
  - cowsandmilk 10y ago
    I saw nothing in the article that indicated the drug discussed was incorrectly prescribed or promoted. Honestly, the article could be written about someone doing a marketing campaign for facebook and then hearing about a teenager committing suicide due to facebook. We would all find that absurd, but it is functionally equivalent here. Facebook has been sued for the suicide of teenagers, just like the drug company.
    - gcp 10y ago
      I saw nothing in the article that indicated the drug discussed was incorrectly prescribed or promoted. You don't think presenting a questionnaire and having every answer being the drug in question, regardless of the choices made, at the very least hints at it being incorrectly promoted? Seriously?
      - kamjam 10y ago
        The article also mentioned nothing about the drug being sold on the website either. I presume they must have had to go to a doctor to get a prescription which they would then take to a pharmacy to get the drug... so going to the doctor and saying "I took this questionnaire and it said I have X. I need drug Y" means there are problems elsewhere in the system.
Tharre 10y ago
I don't get it. I mean yes, sure, I realize the author blames himself for the death of that poor girl. But how could he possibly have known? It's neither his job nor his responsibility to know anything about the side effects of this drug. His job was to built a website, according to the wishes of his employer. And so he did. Hindsight is 20/20, it's easy to say afterwards that what he did was unethical. But to me this seems more like bad luck.
- somestag 10y ago
  On the one hand, it was clear that the website wasn't meant to be informative, since it always recommended the client's drug no matter what the questionnaire returned. Clearly that was a bit shady. On the other hand... as a general rule, I don't really want software developers deciding what to code based on their personal medical opinions. That can cut both ways. If the author felt it was unethical at the time (and he says it didn't really cross his mind), the best he could have done would have been to quit. Then, of course, someone else would have taken his place. Perhaps his conscience would have been cleaner, but I doubt any girls would have been saved. The stark reality is that ethical quandaries like this call for an all-or-nothing approach; either you're disturbed enough to report their actions to the authorities, or you don't do anything at all. You can quit, but that won't save anyone, so you're not really helping. (Unless you're irreplaceable, of course.) There's another important element to the author's story: the sketchy questionnaire and the drug's harmful side effects weren't really linked in any way. Marketing is marketing; as the author says, he knew the job of the site was to promote the drug. Shady questionnaire or not, that's not inherently problematic. If the pharma company misled its customers on the side effects or knew the drug wasn't safe, that's an entirely separate issue that the author simply could not have known of. Drugs are complicated business, and they can be helpful, dangerous, important, and abused all at the same time. The "last line of defense" statement was a powerful one, but not one I feel I can really agree with. It's often said that pharmacists are the last line of defense for prescription drugs, and that's how it should be; they actually have the training to know what they're doing. Software engineers might be a knowledgeable bunch, but they're not so knowledgeable they should be making calls outside their expertise.
  - 10y ago
aminok 10y ago
If he hadn't coded it, someone else would have. The most effective way to change the world, in my opinion, is to push for political and social changes that change incentives in a manner that reduces the number of unethical economic niches that exist. Sacrificing your own employment opportunities out of principle has next to no effect on the larger picture, and if anything, will reduce your own ability to shape things in a positive direction in the future.
- selckin 10y ago
  if he didn't murder the guy, someone else would have well you can all down vote me, but we could all decide to just be nice to each other, we have enough tech and resources to house and feed everyone in the world
  - aminok 10y ago
    If we lived in a society where murder happened on a massive scale, that might not be an absurd statement. Imagine if we treated humans the way we treat farm animals for instance.. That being said, sometimes (more often than not?) acting on principle and making the strategically best decision for the world, align, so I'm not saying one should never act according to principle.
- MileyCyrax 10y ago
  >If he hadn't coded it, someone else would have. At his level at the time, sure. Anyone can write a web quiz. But I would think that a lot of the most significant ethical challenges developers face would be in much more specialized areas. Safety-critical systems often have real-time and embedded components, for example. The regulations for safety-critical software vary a lot between industries, too, which makes it even harder to find a replacement for someone who leaves for ethical reasons.
- fallingfrog 10y ago
  I disagree. Even if the boss found somebody else to do it, the fact that somebody had stood up and said no would make a difference. It still would provide an example to other employees. Behavior is contagious. You have more power than you think. If everyone sits back and says "I can't act ethical until we have big political and social changes", I can guarantee you that those changes will never occur. Somebody somewhere has to start the ball rolling, even at some personal cost, or nothing will ever change.
Kenji 10y ago
My take on this: If someone reads garbage advertisement information on a random website and takes this medication solely because of that, they fail to do the most basic thinking and scrutiny. The gene pool won't miss these people. I know, it's harsh and cynical, but it's the truth (oh boy, this opinion will be unpopular, I already feel it in my bones). If everyone had to take responsibility for such thoughtless behaviour of other people, we couldn't do anything anymore. However, I do see major moral implications of writing code for things like cars, rockets, robots, pacemakers, etc. This is where the true responsibility of software engineers lies.
bakhy 10y ago
good read. and kudos for coming out and opening the subject. i personally think this is not just a developer issue, but affects every person living in a society. the quality of the society we live in depends on all of us doing as much as we can to achieve it. unfortunately, the living today is too precarious, and too many people cannot afford to be too ethical. the sad thing about our industry to me is that sometimes it seems we give up before putting up any fight. we know how hard it is to control complex systems, how impossible it is to create a perfect system. so a lot of us decide, like that fox in Aesop's fable, that it's actually wrong to even try to do anything. if she can't reach the grapes, then the grapes must be sour. this happens everywhere, but it strikes me in IT particularly if you look at a simple example - most IT people find it obvious, and live with it, that everything we do online is recorded and that it's not that hard to spy on anyone. most regular people don't fully grasp this, and get occasionally outraged. how many of us (i count myself in here) will then just wave their concerns away, and explain that they simply have no choice but to accept this future?
nommm-nommm 10y ago
>I advised her to get off the drug ASAP. Thankfully, she listened. This bothers me, this isn't how medicine works. While there's very, very legitimate reasons to be critical of over prescribing and marketing, "I heard about an adverse outcome in someone else that may or may not be related to a drug she was taking" is not a good reason to recommending another person to stop treatment. All medical interventions are a cost-benefit analysis and all medical interventions have risk, some more than others. Forgoing medical interventions also has risks and benefits. For all we know the risks were very minimal and the drug helped the sister. This could have been very harmful advice if the drug required, say, tapering down and the sister went off of it without assistance of a medical provider. The author is themselves handing out incredibly rash and potentiality harmful advice.
- forlulz 10y ago
  True, the author is no doctor, but in this case this is not the only drug available. In the article: “The quiz doesn’t work,” she said. “Oh. What’s broken?” I asked. “Well, it seems that no matter what I do, the quiz recommends the client’s drug as the best possible treatment. The only exception is if I say I’m allergic. Or if I say I am already taking it.”
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    What does that have to do with anything at all? The morale of the story is he or she heard something on the six o'clock news and recommend the sister stop treatment based on that. That's extremely improper advice. The author is apparently upset about assisting in giving what they believe to be improper medical advice so they proceeded to give improper medical advice themselves. There's also a huge logical flaw to go from "this drug had a side effect that may have caused death in one person" to "this drug is inappropriate for my sister"
  - paulcole 10y ago
    Treatments != drugs. What if other options were therapy or surgery?
- losvedir 10y ago
flanbiscuit 10y ago
> “Yes. That’s what the requirements say to do. Everything leads to the client’s drug.” Working in Pharma Advertising I have seen other devs in my company do exactly that. I also found out recently that a company I made a website for bought a drug and raised the price 2,000%. I've already started my new job search.
- paulcole 10y ago
  What percentage would you have been OK with?
donatj 10y ago
What I've discovered over the years is simply if you refuse to build it they'll get someone else to do it, and someone else certainly will. That's not too say you should, just that you as a developer have very little power to actually stop it.
- eloisant 10y ago
  You have little power to stop it, but you can choose not to be part of it so you don't have it on your conscience.
johnydepp 10y ago
I have seen bad code in my life. Some cases developers don't care about the code ethics OR they are not intelligent/experienced enough to write a good code. But in many cases its the mistake of product managers or leads. When the product goals/specs are not clear, the design changes very often and you have to meet the tight deadlines. This leads to redundant and inefficient code which is very difficult to clean up and maintain.
b123400 10y ago
Here is mine. The company was going to pitch investors very soon but its product is not ready yet. The CTO copied our competitor's code (well, mangled javascript), replaced their name with ours, updated some public API to our company name. Then asked me to build upon that. I said this is not acceptable but they said it is ok because they are not releasing it publicly, it is just for demo for investors. I am sure we are either violating copyright or telling lie to investors, and am surprised no one in the company think it is a problem. After all I have to do it, because I was just an intern.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  If you can, refuse. Tell them that you believe that you get into a big trouble, if this comes out and you are not sure anyway that it does not. Based on your description they are looking for a scapegoat. If this comes out, they definitely point towards you while saying that they were not aware of this, must be interns initiative.
err4nt 10y ago
I have been asked to do unethical-but-not-illegal things in the past, and in response I (unwittingly) delivered something ethical under the guise of being the requested item. Still dubious ethics, but just between me and the client, not anybody outside. The most common request is to knock off another site. You can hit the save button, or copy code, but what I do is code up a better similar design from scratch. The result is a superior product so everybody is happy, but I would never take code that wasn't open source. I don't even peek at their code during this process!
3chelon 10y ago
As others have said, the biggest culprit here is the law that allows prescription drugs to be pushed in this way. Was the drug in question an SSRI by any chance? If so, that is terrifying.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
scraft 10y ago
I just wanted to say I hope the OP isn't beating themselves up about what happened. In terms of moral integrity I feel they did very well to, at a relatively young age, take the decision to quit. I understand the point of the article (we may be developers at the end of the chain, and there maybe lots of people legally and ethically responsible above us, but we can still stand up for what is right) but at the same time, until you read something like this, or are in the situation yourself, it is common for people not to appreciate the knock on of what we do. If the OP hadn't made the quiz, someone else would have, this isn't to say people can't take a stand, but it is more to say no matter what they did that person would still be dead. So my respect to the developer in question, I'm fairly sure I would have continued to work there. I would have just said to myself that these things happen, there are laws in place to protect people, if the laws aren't good enough we should campaign for change, I'm just a developer move data around a machine, etc. But I sort of assume by time I get to my death bed, I'll probably look back over my life and decide I made most decisions wrong, rather than work hard for success, fortune, etc. perhaps favouring compassion, helping others, charity work, etc. would have actually be a life better spent. So for the time being I'll give credit to those who take the moral high ground!
uiri 10y ago
This is why Software Engineering as a profession should be regulated and licensed just like other engineering fields - mechanical, civil, electrical, etc. Professional Engineers are bound by a code of ethics stressing first and foremost the welfare of the public. Engineers who behave unethically have their licenses revoked which can be a career-ending event. It is our responsibility as engineers to ensure that the code we ship does not negatively impact anyone's health or safety; especially as software becomes more and more pervasive in society. https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html http://peo.on.ca/index.php?ci_id=1815&la_id=1 http://peo.on.ca/index.php?ci_id=1815&la_id=1
- oconnor663 10y ago
  I worry that this moral gray area stuff is hard to solve with clear rules that people can agree on. Is a sketchy quiz advertising prescription drugs unethical? Probably. Is a sketchy quiz trying to get kids to eat their vegetables unethical? Probably not. It's going to be really hard to find a clear line between things like that, even without worrying about politics getting all over it. For comparison, the prescription drug market is extremely heavily regulated, but that doesn't seem to have helped in this story.
- geebee 10y ago
  "This is why Software Engineering as a profession should be regulated and licensed just like other engineering fields" I may agree, reluctantly, with the first half of this sentence, but I don't agree with the second half. Whatever happens with code and how we regulate it, we must start with the understanding that it is not like other engineering fields. It's so different that I believe it should be considered a separate field entirely. Actuaries and engineers both need to know a lot of math, but they are not the same fields, and there's no need to regulate them similarly. Engineers don't get to tell actuaries what to do. They shouldn't get to tell software developers what to do either. One reason I'm so resistant to this is that I was a math major (though I did get an MS in industrial engineering), and I've seen what are essentially mathematical innovations patented under a legal regime that considers mathematics unpatentable to the point where it specifically excludes mathematics from the academic background that qualifies a person to review patents. The quality of patent review reflects the deliberately self-inflicted absence of advanced mathematics degree holders. I guess our best hope is that some of the physics majors will handle this? This is exactly what you should expect from a cartel: expanding domain, limiting competition. I am positive that the governing bodies for the "other engineering" fields would be delighted to get control over software, but they shouldn't get it. This is also why I resist the term "software engineer". Some consider it an appropriation of the title "engineer", and sure, I agree, that's fine (I'm sure they'll get all up in arms about sound engineers in recording studios next, right?). But the appropriation that really concerns me here is the term "software". It ain't yours. Paws off.
UhUhUhUh 10y ago
In practice, liability is the yardstick of ethics. Anyone caught in the "unethical/not liable" zone is alone. Which for most of us results in shame. For a few others, it results in pride.
zekevermillion 10y ago
This reminds me of issues we face in the legal profession. Lawyers have convinced ourselves, through elaborate rationalization, that every person deserves legal representation. Yet lawyers clearly make decisions about what kind of work they want to do, and what kind of clients they are comfortable representing. For example, most divorce lawyers tend to specialize in representing husbands or wives (not both), and most employment and labor lawyers either represent the company or the employee consistently, etc. But on the other hand, many defense lawyers become prosecutors, and vice versa. The key is that whatever role we like to take, we make ethical decisions within that role. If I am a prosecutor, I work for the people and my job is to "do justice". If I defend accused criminals, my job is to advocate zealously for the accused b/c anyone may be falsely accused. This system relies on discretion -- that is, the individual professional is free to decide whether to pursue a matter or take on a client. Unfortunately discretion does not exist in most software development efforts. Unless you are contributing to free software on a voluntary basis, it is likely that you will be called upon from time to time to support businesses that you don't like. This is a hard problem and I don't think there is an easy answer. If anything, the answer may require that you forego many of the economic trappings of success if you wish to live an ethical life. I don't expect anyone to make that decision, although I admire those who do. Not so much the Richard Stallmans who can live on their celebrity, but the people who adhere to those ideals and do not have celebrity to fall back on when they can't make their rent.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
joesmo 10y ago
Amazing how much backlash there was at the idea of legally requiring software to explain its decisions, but this is one example out of many that makes it clear that we either require it or people will die from software with bad intentions. To me, the idea of trusting software authors or companies without the accompanying legal framework to ensure that it isn't blind trust is absolutely insane. I should hope VW (amongst many other companies) has proven that beyond any doubts.
OJFord 10y ago
> As developers, we are often one of the last lines of > defense [sic] against potentially dangerous and > unethical practices I think this article is a prime example of how professional institutions can be just as important in software engineering as other fields more typically associated with such bodies. Just because software isn't a physical entity like a bridge that can physically collapse on someone, it seems to be the view of many that a professional body with guidance on ethics, best practice, et al. has no relevance.
- Nition 10y ago
  That spelling of defense is correct in American English.
worik 10y ago
That page has the most blocks that I have seen uBlock Origin do - over 120.
mixmastamyk 10y ago
Earlier this year while looking for work, I received an offer to start on a project that would scan innocent travelers (through client's airports) and build dossiers on them looking for criminal connections. I'm proud to say I declined and included the fancy word "repugnant" in my reply.
rurban 10y ago
I was asked a couple of time to write illegal code or hand over log data to management which they are not allowed to see. In Europe we still have working privacy protection laws, you know. I always said no, and management always reacted professionally and accepted it. Maybe they just don't know software or privacy laws that well. Having a clean conscience trumps all, and in the end you will have troubles, not your management.
jcj52436999 10y ago
Applying the term engineer to software is a problem here, there is a lot of law attached to the term, and proper lines between being a Software "Developer" and being a Software "Engineer" have not been drawn yet. I have found that some corporate entities insist on calling an engineer anyone developing software, just so they can point the blame and liability at some employees, like VW tried. Liscensing as an engineer requires at least an ABET BS degree in Engineering, plus tests and years of junior time, but corporations throw this word about like confeti, conferring it on any employee they like. In the licensed world this title indeed means both criminal and civil financial liability in the case of errors. It is strongly advised to use the title Developer, and avoid the title Engineer, unless one wishes to work in harms way of prosecution from some error that harms someone.
jdefr89 10y ago
This is a very tough thing to address if you're a security researcher say for the government. The likes become blurry on what is ethical and what's needed for keeping weapons that can protect us..
yorksranter 10y ago
I was asked to scrape details of 50k+ people from LinkedIn and load them into essentially a spam cannon because, you guessed it, we needed the e-mail signups. And follow-up sales calls. So, probably illegal (because spam), generally horrible behaviour, and also a huge violation of LI's terms of service. I said no. Fortunately if I didn't program it in that company nobody was going to do it and all I had to put up with was snark.

514 points by mnmlsm 10y ago

The major side effect of making coding easier is more people will. Some will have fewer scruples about ethics. So as coding tools get easier to use, more such dishonest coding will show up. I think a solution, alongside our personal integrity, is watching for it. Whether we be Google, or a lone, random programmer, we could any of us chance to ferret out such a nasty site and shine the bright light of day on it.

bbcbasic 10y ago
I do a little to help by clicking ads to those fake news sites. Then clicking around and closing the site. Costing them ad money but no sale.
- moonshinefe 10y ago
  Uhhh, they often make money simply by how many clicks they get though...
  - bbcbasic 10y ago
    The ads that take you TO the site. Usually there are no ads on the site, just a sales funnel for a questionable product
- majortennis 10y ago
  rewarding fake news sites, not even on googles radar
  - bbcbasic 10y ago
    Not now but yesterday. Plus Google ain't the only ad network.

tf2manu994 10y ago

Expected this to be a "the code I never wrote" thing, from there blog name. Then thought it might be a "lol look at my bad code that I wrote 6 years ago" Pleasantly surprised. For more, I recommend"the gift of Fire" by Sara Baase.

moonshinefe 10y ago

I have code I'm ashamed of as well. I was very young, and told the app was for a fairly innocent cause. After the fact, it became apparent the company was also selling it to a fairly controversial foreign government entity. I think it's worth standing up to this sort of thing, but good luck getting that new job if you stipulate they inform you before hand who they're going to sell your code to. I'm not sure what the solution is if you don't have a ton of leverage (and if you choose to turn down the job, someone will gladly take your place in this economy). Interested in hearing other people's suggestions.

EvilTerran 10y ago
I note the BCS (a professional body of sorts for British technologists) has a "public interest" clause in its code of conduct for members, which arguably prohibits the sort of behaviour described by you & in the submission: http://www.bcs.org/category/6030#publicinterest http://www.bcs.org/category/6030#publicinterest That said, there's no real obligation to be a BCS member, and most people aren't, which somewhat defangs their CoC: like you say, if you refuse the work, someone else will do it. Still, it's a good symbolic gesture, and perhaps points the way to go.

lordnacho 10y ago

An awkward situation, for sure. However, after a lady in my community killed herself (she was on some prescribed drug), a friend of mine in the industry explained his view. Apparently, these drugs can cause some people to kill themselves. But they also cause some users to recover, meaning they're less likely to commit suicide. It wasn't clear how exactly this balance was measured, but the net effect can be positive. Still raises some hard questions along the lines of the trolley experiment. Who gets to live, and who gets to die? And what about the fact that we don't even know who it is that will get better or worse? Regarding coding, the coder is only really able to quit because the market is good. Plenty of people along the same economic chain that led to this are in more precarious job circumstances.

nicky0 10y ago
Similar thought: should you have a moral quandry about doing work for a car company, given that 1.25 million people per year are killed in road traffic incidents.
- carlob 10y ago
  Yes
- douche 10y ago
  This takes you down a never-ending and unproductive rabbit hole. We really aren't equipped to encompass the totality of the effects of any particular action we take, which will invariably, at some point in the chain of consequences, have adverse impacts on someone, somewhere.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- lmm 10y ago
  I'd focus on the difference you're making. Are you making drivers, passengers and bystanders more or less safe than they'd be if someone less skilled was doing your job? Given that new cars tend to be substantially safer all round than older cars, I'd say most of the industry is in the clear. OTOH anyone encouraging people to buy heavier cars than they need should probably think things through pretty carefully.

TheAceOfHearts 10y ago

This is something I've wondered about. What do you do if your boss asks you to do something which you believe to be legally questionable or unethical? For example, if you're asked to do something which you thought might be illegal, but you don't know for certain, would the best course of action be to hire a lawyer? Based on what I saw from the recent Volkswagen fiasco, it seems like the developer himself can be held liable. Is this correct?

moonshinefe 10y ago
I'm not sure about your last question, but regarding if they ask you to do something that may be unethical or illegal: I'd get advice. It doesn't mean you need to spend money on a lawyer necessarily, you can often write college/uni professors and get decent answers. If not, heck, I'd even ask the relevant Reddit sub-forum. At any rate, the idea is to go ask people who are more likely to objectively answer your concerns as opposed to the employers.
- jpindar 10y ago
  There is also a stackexchange site for legal questions.
PaulKeeble 10y ago
I have been asked a couple of times to do things that were unethical, never illegal but certainly unethical. I resigned on the spot in both cases. I feel this is how professionals should act. When asked in my interviews why I left I stated clearly that I was asked to do something unethical and resigned as a result when "forced", it was taken positively.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  The problem with that is people need to eat. Very, very few people are in a position where they can resign from a job on the spot.
  - 10y ago

sguav 10y ago

Thanks for the story. I feel this has been an issue for other types of jobs so far, but this example points out how easy is to be borderline with ethics...which may itself be a non-ethical choice IMHO

nstart 10y ago

This is tough to read. I've railed and yelled in meeting about ethics and have ultimately discovered that in nearly every case the money talks louder. I remember this company I worked with that had a sign up with a "add me to the newsletter" check box. When leading a ux review it was decided to switch it off by default. One day a friend of mine buzzed me to say she was annoyed at receiving mail even though she specifically made sure that that box was unchecked when signing up. I assumed it was a dev error and checked with the dev team and was told to go check with the CTO. When I did, the CTO said that it was exactly how he wanted it. I wasnt even manager level but I lost it and yelled at the CTO. I was simply told "we need our email signups and dont dare tell me how to do my job". I tried to look for support elsewhere in the company and all I discovered were at best some hushed mutterings in corners. Even laughs of me being on some kind of moral high horse. It hurt to know that the same people I know who did these things are now working on startups that scoop up massive amounts of people's location data. The same people who wrote tiny scripts to collate customer data to give to the sales teams who would give it to clients as part of a sales package even though the terms specifically said we don't share personal info. It bothers me that I don't even know how to fight it since all it takes is the next dev to come along and say yes to end months of protests against something unethical. I don't want regulation and lobbyists pushing their tech onto me as a solution. If anyone has advice, I think this is a great thread to share thoughts.

MagnumOpus 10y ago
Name and shame them? Make very sure your anonymity is preserved lest they try to sue you, but exposing these practices on here might be a start to get the word out on it.
- Lewton 10y ago
  Just a casual naming online stating that these practices are on purpose and not a bug, so when I search for the company and the issue on google, I'll know to not give them the benefit of the doubt.
- justinclift 10y ago
  The sentiment is ok, but not sure how to make that work in a practical sense. It would need to avoid allowing the unscrupulous to (falsely) badmouth competitors.

throw2016 10y ago

There is a problem with software engineers. Narcissism. Its disturbing how many software discussion boards routinely refer to other people as dumb or ignorant. It's as if everyone should leave their area of expertise and become software engineers. This kind of hubris that allows some to think they are better than others only paves the way for people to dehumanize others and behave unethically. And we have seen after decades of posing as champions of freedom and liberty nearly the entire industry has been co-opted into the surveillance economy or state surveillance programs without so much as a murmur with Snowden left holding the baby of these pretensions.

markharris99 10y ago

I was reading the comments of the article and I came across an interesting thought. Whilst we in first world countries may be able to protest against our employers or try and steer them away from non-ethical actions. What happens when the employer takes away the assignment in question and gives the work to an off-shore company, who's only obligation is to get paid? Where the developers of said off-shore company's obligation is to get paid so they can eat? Do you think off-shore developers are going to have the same moral stances of a first world developer? I don't think so. I know there are a couple of voices in this thread who think they can be that knight in shining armor, a bit like Don Quixote. However, you can't rail too much. Lest you find yourself outcast, side-lined or even fired? I thought it was an interesting situation to ponder.

oakesm9 10y ago
The same could be said if you refuse to do the work and it's given to any other person who doesn't morally object (off-shore or otherwise).
- ff10 10y ago
  Unfortunately, the ethical chain here is only as good as it's most unethical link. Then again, most people really don't have a good feeling being the corrosive link.
  - danielam 10y ago
    I don't know what you mean by "ethical chain", but whether something is the right thing to do is independent of whether other people are acting morally or not. Just because others are morally corrupt does not justify one's own moral corruption.
bengillies 10y ago
Ultimately though, we can only speak for our own moral choices. If you're happy with doing something unethical or illegal, then go ahead. If you're not prepared to, then don't. If you refuse though, then what happens afterwards isn't up to you and doesn't impact on your morals and/or character. The best you can hope for is to know that you played no part in the wrongdoing.

kol 10y ago

Every single CS student should read this.

brianwawok 10y ago
I took a CS ethics class. We generally read better things, with a more interesting conclusion. The conclusion of this? If you said NO, someone in India would have made it, for likely less money. The only winning end game would be to e-mail the FDA and hope that the right political party and lobbyists are currently in control of the agency.
nommm-nommm 10y ago
Curious, why? It's an extremely poor "ethical case study" that jumps to the wrong conclusions.

Beltiras 10y ago

I'm the chairman of the board of a local society of computer scientists. We have bylaws that describe a code of conduct for members governing their work. 1. Let honesty govern your work 2. Heed professional responsibility 3. Do not accept gain from a third party, except with full knowledge of your employer/contract partner 4. Do not ever use confidential information from an employer of contract partner without informed consent 5. Increase your professional capabilities 6. Make sure your conduct is an exemplar of membership 7. Share your experience with other members We host meetings once or twice a month where members or guests hold lectures on varying IT topics. I don't know if tech in Iceland is such a small community that it tends to keep people honest or that transgressions like this happen all the time and are not spoken of. I like to think our members are ethical in their work.

ysavir 10y ago
I actually don't see any rule in there about being ethical towards your userbase. The integrity encouraged here is towards the employer, which will be the one to insist on screwing over the users.
- Beltiras 10y ago
  Let honesty govern your work. It's a bit difficult to translate and still keep the language clear.
  - ysavir 10y ago
    What you really mean is that it's hard to be upfront about saying "Cause your employer trouble over client needs that screw over the user" and still keep a job. The message itself can be crystal clear; broadcasting it where it actually means something is the challenge.
    - Beltiras 10y ago
      No, I mean that going from a verb-based language to a noun-based language is tricky without either losing meaning or becoming "wordy".

golergka 10y ago

A lot of drugs have severe side effects. And of course, if a drug is popular enough, there always will be a couple of extremely severe cases. Does it mean that those drugs are bad? Does it mean that the recovery of millions of patients is outweighted by one where the doctor probably shouldn't have prescribed it in the first place because the patient was already predisposed to depression or depressed in the first place?

gcp 10y ago
Your argument sounds like a false dichotomy to me. We can have drugs with potentially bad side effects and make efforts to make sure they're not incorrectly prescribed.
- cowsandmilk 10y ago
  I saw nothing in the article that indicated the drug discussed was incorrectly prescribed or promoted. Honestly, the article could be written about someone doing a marketing campaign for facebook and then hearing about a teenager committing suicide due to facebook. We would all find that absurd, but it is functionally equivalent here. Facebook has been sued for the suicide of teenagers, just like the drug company.
  - gcp 10y ago
    I saw nothing in the article that indicated the drug discussed was incorrectly prescribed or promoted. You don't think presenting a questionnaire and having every answer being the drug in question, regardless of the choices made, at the very least hints at it being incorrectly promoted? Seriously?
    - kamjam 10y ago
      The article also mentioned nothing about the drug being sold on the website either. I presume they must have had to go to a doctor to get a prescription which they would then take to a pharmacy to get the drug... so going to the doctor and saying "I took this questionnaire and it said I have X. I need drug Y" means there are problems elsewhere in the system.

Tharre 10y ago

I don't get it. I mean yes, sure, I realize the author blames himself for the death of that poor girl. But how could he possibly have known? It's neither his job nor his responsibility to know anything about the side effects of this drug. His job was to built a website, according to the wishes of his employer. And so he did. Hindsight is 20/20, it's easy to say afterwards that what he did was unethical. But to me this seems more like bad luck.

somestag 10y ago
On the one hand, it was clear that the website wasn't meant to be informative, since it always recommended the client's drug no matter what the questionnaire returned. Clearly that was a bit shady. On the other hand... as a general rule, I don't really want software developers deciding what to code based on their personal medical opinions. That can cut both ways. If the author felt it was unethical at the time (and he says it didn't really cross his mind), the best he could have done would have been to quit. Then, of course, someone else would have taken his place. Perhaps his conscience would have been cleaner, but I doubt any girls would have been saved. The stark reality is that ethical quandaries like this call for an all-or-nothing approach; either you're disturbed enough to report their actions to the authorities, or you don't do anything at all. You can quit, but that won't save anyone, so you're not really helping. (Unless you're irreplaceable, of course.) There's another important element to the author's story: the sketchy questionnaire and the drug's harmful side effects weren't really linked in any way. Marketing is marketing; as the author says, he knew the job of the site was to promote the drug. Shady questionnaire or not, that's not inherently problematic. If the pharma company misled its customers on the side effects or knew the drug wasn't safe, that's an entirely separate issue that the author simply could not have known of. Drugs are complicated business, and they can be helpful, dangerous, important, and abused all at the same time. The "last line of defense" statement was a powerful one, but not one I feel I can really agree with. It's often said that pharmacists are the last line of defense for prescription drugs, and that's how it should be; they actually have the training to know what they're doing. Software engineers might be a knowledgeable bunch, but they're not so knowledgeable they should be making calls outside their expertise.
- 10y ago

aminok 10y ago

If he hadn't coded it, someone else would have. The most effective way to change the world, in my opinion, is to push for political and social changes that change incentives in a manner that reduces the number of unethical economic niches that exist. Sacrificing your own employment opportunities out of principle has next to no effect on the larger picture, and if anything, will reduce your own ability to shape things in a positive direction in the future.

selckin 10y ago
if he didn't murder the guy, someone else would have well you can all down vote me, but we could all decide to just be nice to each other, we have enough tech and resources to house and feed everyone in the world
- aminok 10y ago
  If we lived in a society where murder happened on a massive scale, that might not be an absurd statement. Imagine if we treated humans the way we treat farm animals for instance.. That being said, sometimes (more often than not?) acting on principle and making the strategically best decision for the world, align, so I'm not saying one should never act according to principle.
MileyCyrax 10y ago
>If he hadn't coded it, someone else would have. At his level at the time, sure. Anyone can write a web quiz. But I would think that a lot of the most significant ethical challenges developers face would be in much more specialized areas. Safety-critical systems often have real-time and embedded components, for example. The regulations for safety-critical software vary a lot between industries, too, which makes it even harder to find a replacement for someone who leaves for ethical reasons.
fallingfrog 10y ago
I disagree. Even if the boss found somebody else to do it, the fact that somebody had stood up and said no would make a difference. It still would provide an example to other employees. Behavior is contagious. You have more power than you think. If everyone sits back and says "I can't act ethical until we have big political and social changes", I can guarantee you that those changes will never occur. Somebody somewhere has to start the ball rolling, even at some personal cost, or nothing will ever change.

Kenji 10y ago

My take on this: If someone reads garbage advertisement information on a random website and takes this medication solely because of that, they fail to do the most basic thinking and scrutiny. The gene pool won't miss these people. I know, it's harsh and cynical, but it's the truth (oh boy, this opinion will be unpopular, I already feel it in my bones). If everyone had to take responsibility for such thoughtless behaviour of other people, we couldn't do anything anymore. However, I do see major moral implications of writing code for things like cars, rockets, robots, pacemakers, etc. This is where the true responsibility of software engineers lies.

bakhy 10y ago

good read. and kudos for coming out and opening the subject. i personally think this is not just a developer issue, but affects every person living in a society. the quality of the society we live in depends on all of us doing as much as we can to achieve it. unfortunately, the living today is too precarious, and too many people cannot afford to be too ethical. the sad thing about our industry to me is that sometimes it seems we give up before putting up any fight. we know how hard it is to control complex systems, how impossible it is to create a perfect system. so a lot of us decide, like that fox in Aesop's fable, that it's actually wrong to even try to do anything. if she can't reach the grapes, then the grapes must be sour. this happens everywhere, but it strikes me in IT particularly if you look at a simple example - most IT people find it obvious, and live with it, that everything we do online is recorded and that it's not that hard to spy on anyone. most regular people don't fully grasp this, and get occasionally outraged. how many of us (i count myself in here) will then just wave their concerns away, and explain that they simply have no choice but to accept this future?

nommm-nommm 10y ago

>I advised her to get off the drug ASAP. Thankfully, she listened. This bothers me, this isn't how medicine works. While there's very, very legitimate reasons to be critical of over prescribing and marketing, "I heard about an adverse outcome in someone else that may or may not be related to a drug she was taking" is not a good reason to recommending another person to stop treatment. All medical interventions are a cost-benefit analysis and all medical interventions have risk, some more than others. Forgoing medical interventions also has risks and benefits. For all we know the risks were very minimal and the drug helped the sister. This could have been very harmful advice if the drug required, say, tapering down and the sister went off of it without assistance of a medical provider. The author is themselves handing out incredibly rash and potentiality harmful advice.

forlulz 10y ago
True, the author is no doctor, but in this case this is not the only drug available. In the article: “The quiz doesn’t work,” she said. “Oh. What’s broken?” I asked. “Well, it seems that no matter what I do, the quiz recommends the client’s drug as the best possible treatment. The only exception is if I say I’m allergic. Or if I say I am already taking it.”
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  What does that have to do with anything at all? The morale of the story is he or she heard something on the six o'clock news and recommend the sister stop treatment based on that. That's extremely improper advice. The author is apparently upset about assisting in giving what they believe to be improper medical advice so they proceeded to give improper medical advice themselves. There's also a huge logical flaw to go from "this drug had a side effect that may have caused death in one person" to "this drug is inappropriate for my sister"
- paulcole 10y ago
  Treatments != drugs. What if other options were therapy or surgery?
losvedir 10y ago

flanbiscuit 10y ago

> “Yes. That’s what the requirements say to do. Everything leads to the client’s drug.” Working in Pharma Advertising I have seen other devs in my company do exactly that. I also found out recently that a company I made a website for bought a drug and raised the price 2,000%. I've already started my new job search.

paulcole 10y ago
What percentage would you have been OK with?

donatj 10y ago

What I've discovered over the years is simply if you refuse to build it they'll get someone else to do it, and someone else certainly will. That's not too say you should, just that you as a developer have very little power to actually stop it.

eloisant 10y ago
You have little power to stop it, but you can choose not to be part of it so you don't have it on your conscience.

johnydepp 10y ago

I have seen bad code in my life. Some cases developers don't care about the code ethics OR they are not intelligent/experienced enough to write a good code. But in many cases its the mistake of product managers or leads. When the product goals/specs are not clear, the design changes very often and you have to meet the tight deadlines. This leads to redundant and inefficient code which is very difficult to clean up and maintain.

b123400 10y ago

Here is mine. The company was going to pitch investors very soon but its product is not ready yet. The CTO copied our competitor's code (well, mangled javascript), replaced their name with ours, updated some public API to our company name. Then asked me to build upon that. I said this is not acceptable but they said it is ok because they are not releasing it publicly, it is just for demo for investors. I am sure we are either violating copyright or telling lie to investors, and am surprised no one in the company think it is a problem. After all I have to do it, because I was just an intern.

eveningcoffee 10y ago
If you can, refuse. Tell them that you believe that you get into a big trouble, if this comes out and you are not sure anyway that it does not. Based on your description they are looking for a scapegoat. If this comes out, they definitely point towards you while saying that they were not aware of this, must be interns initiative.

err4nt 10y ago

I have been asked to do unethical-but-not-illegal things in the past, and in response I (unwittingly) delivered something ethical under the guise of being the requested item. Still dubious ethics, but just between me and the client, not anybody outside. The most common request is to knock off another site. You can hit the save button, or copy code, but what I do is code up a better similar design from scratch. The result is a superior product so everybody is happy, but I would never take code that wasn't open source. I don't even peek at their code during this process!

3chelon 10y ago

As others have said, the biggest culprit here is the law that allows prescription drugs to be pushed in this way. Was the drug in question an SSRI by any chance? If so, that is terrifying.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

scraft 10y ago

I just wanted to say I hope the OP isn't beating themselves up about what happened. In terms of moral integrity I feel they did very well to, at a relatively young age, take the decision to quit. I understand the point of the article (we may be developers at the end of the chain, and there maybe lots of people legally and ethically responsible above us, but we can still stand up for what is right) but at the same time, until you read something like this, or are in the situation yourself, it is common for people not to appreciate the knock on of what we do. If the OP hadn't made the quiz, someone else would have, this isn't to say people can't take a stand, but it is more to say no matter what they did that person would still be dead. So my respect to the developer in question, I'm fairly sure I would have continued to work there. I would have just said to myself that these things happen, there are laws in place to protect people, if the laws aren't good enough we should campaign for change, I'm just a developer move data around a machine, etc. But I sort of assume by time I get to my death bed, I'll probably look back over my life and decide I made most decisions wrong, rather than work hard for success, fortune, etc. perhaps favouring compassion, helping others, charity work, etc. would have actually be a life better spent. So for the time being I'll give credit to those who take the moral high ground!

uiri 10y ago

This is why Software Engineering as a profession should be regulated and licensed just like other engineering fields - mechanical, civil, electrical, etc. Professional Engineers are bound by a code of ethics stressing first and foremost the welfare of the public. Engineers who behave unethically have their licenses revoked which can be a career-ending event. It is our responsibility as engineers to ensure that the code we ship does not negatively impact anyone's health or safety; especially as software becomes more and more pervasive in society. https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html http://peo.on.ca/index.php?ci_id=1815&la_id=1 http://peo.on.ca/index.php?ci_id=1815&la_id=1

oconnor663 10y ago
I worry that this moral gray area stuff is hard to solve with clear rules that people can agree on. Is a sketchy quiz advertising prescription drugs unethical? Probably. Is a sketchy quiz trying to get kids to eat their vegetables unethical? Probably not. It's going to be really hard to find a clear line between things like that, even without worrying about politics getting all over it. For comparison, the prescription drug market is extremely heavily regulated, but that doesn't seem to have helped in this story.
geebee 10y ago
"This is why Software Engineering as a profession should be regulated and licensed just like other engineering fields" I may agree, reluctantly, with the first half of this sentence, but I don't agree with the second half. Whatever happens with code and how we regulate it, we must start with the understanding that it is not like other engineering fields. It's so different that I believe it should be considered a separate field entirely. Actuaries and engineers both need to know a lot of math, but they are not the same fields, and there's no need to regulate them similarly. Engineers don't get to tell actuaries what to do. They shouldn't get to tell software developers what to do either. One reason I'm so resistant to this is that I was a math major (though I did get an MS in industrial engineering), and I've seen what are essentially mathematical innovations patented under a legal regime that considers mathematics unpatentable to the point where it specifically excludes mathematics from the academic background that qualifies a person to review patents. The quality of patent review reflects the deliberately self-inflicted absence of advanced mathematics degree holders. I guess our best hope is that some of the physics majors will handle this? This is exactly what you should expect from a cartel: expanding domain, limiting competition. I am positive that the governing bodies for the "other engineering" fields would be delighted to get control over software, but they shouldn't get it. This is also why I resist the term "software engineer". Some consider it an appropriation of the title "engineer", and sure, I agree, that's fine (I'm sure they'll get all up in arms about sound engineers in recording studios next, right?). But the appropriation that really concerns me here is the term "software". It ain't yours. Paws off.

UhUhUhUh 10y ago

In practice, liability is the yardstick of ethics. Anyone caught in the "unethical/not liable" zone is alone. Which for most of us results in shame. For a few others, it results in pride.

zekevermillion 10y ago

This reminds me of issues we face in the legal profession. Lawyers have convinced ourselves, through elaborate rationalization, that every person deserves legal representation. Yet lawyers clearly make decisions about what kind of work they want to do, and what kind of clients they are comfortable representing. For example, most divorce lawyers tend to specialize in representing husbands or wives (not both), and most employment and labor lawyers either represent the company or the employee consistently, etc. But on the other hand, many defense lawyers become prosecutors, and vice versa. The key is that whatever role we like to take, we make ethical decisions within that role. If I am a prosecutor, I work for the people and my job is to "do justice". If I defend accused criminals, my job is to advocate zealously for the accused b/c anyone may be falsely accused. This system relies on discretion -- that is, the individual professional is free to decide whether to pursue a matter or take on a client. Unfortunately discretion does not exist in most software development efforts. Unless you are contributing to free software on a voluntary basis, it is likely that you will be called upon from time to time to support businesses that you don't like. This is a hard problem and I don't think there is an easy answer. If anything, the answer may require that you forego many of the economic trappings of success if you wish to live an ethical life. I don't expect anyone to make that decision, although I admire those who do. Not so much the Richard Stallmans who can live on their celebrity, but the people who adhere to those ideals and do not have celebrity to fall back on when they can't make their rent.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

joesmo 10y ago

Amazing how much backlash there was at the idea of legally requiring software to explain its decisions, but this is one example out of many that makes it clear that we either require it or people will die from software with bad intentions. To me, the idea of trusting software authors or companies without the accompanying legal framework to ensure that it isn't blind trust is absolutely insane. I should hope VW (amongst many other companies) has proven that beyond any doubts.

OJFord 10y ago

> As developers, we are often one of the last lines of > defense [sic] against potentially dangerous and > unethical practices I think this article is a prime example of how professional institutions can be just as important in software engineering as other fields more typically associated with such bodies. Just because software isn't a physical entity like a bridge that can physically collapse on someone, it seems to be the view of many that a professional body with guidance on ethics, best practice, et al. has no relevance.

Nition 10y ago
That spelling of defense is correct in American English.

worik 10y ago

That page has the most blocks that I have seen uBlock Origin do - over 120.

mixmastamyk 10y ago

Earlier this year while looking for work, I received an offer to start on a project that would scan innocent travelers (through client's airports) and build dossiers on them looking for criminal connections. I'm proud to say I declined and included the fancy word "repugnant" in my reply.

rurban 10y ago

I was asked a couple of time to write illegal code or hand over log data to management which they are not allowed to see. In Europe we still have working privacy protection laws, you know. I always said no, and management always reacted professionally and accepted it. Maybe they just don't know software or privacy laws that well. Having a clean conscience trumps all, and in the end you will have troubles, not your management.

jcj52436999 10y ago

Applying the term engineer to software is a problem here, there is a lot of law attached to the term, and proper lines between being a Software "Developer" and being a Software "Engineer" have not been drawn yet. I have found that some corporate entities insist on calling an engineer anyone developing software, just so they can point the blame and liability at some employees, like VW tried. Liscensing as an engineer requires at least an ABET BS degree in Engineering, plus tests and years of junior time, but corporations throw this word about like confeti, conferring it on any employee they like. In the licensed world this title indeed means both criminal and civil financial liability in the case of errors. It is strongly advised to use the title Developer, and avoid the title Engineer, unless one wishes to work in harms way of prosecution from some error that harms someone.

jdefr89 10y ago

This is a very tough thing to address if you're a security researcher say for the government. The likes become blurry on what is ethical and what's needed for keeping weapons that can protect us..

yorksranter 10y ago

I was asked to scrape details of 50k+ people from LinkedIn and load them into essentially a spam cannon because, you guessed it, we needed the e-mail signups. And follow-up sales calls. So, probably illegal (because spam), generally horrible behaviour, and also a huge violation of LI's terms of service. I said no. Fortunately if I didn't program it in that company nobody was going to do it and all I had to put up with was snark.