5 ms·

It seems like you disagree with me. Can you please state your argument without the sarcasm?

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Your proposed solution doesn't address the stated problem in the field you're discussing (law), why would it solve it in a different field (tech/software)? It just so transparently doesn't work in that field it's hard to even take the proposal as in good faith, since it has to ignore newsmaking and routine behavior. Rather, it comes across as a self-righteous comment: we have ethical standards (even if we routinely don't adhere to them and do terrible things as a matter of course) so clearly those engineers would be better if they were more like us! The sarcasm likely wasn't constructive, so I'll apologize for that.
- gregwtmtno 9y ago
  I'll certainly agree that the rules of professional conduct in the legal profession don't prevent all unethical conduct, but that doesn't mean that they are completely ineffective. Having enforceable rules may improve ethical standards in the field without solving the problem entirely. I'd also like to point out that I did not propose a solution. I think it should be considered, but I'm a long way from supporting the idea fully. There are a lot of negatives that come with license requirements that attorneys have.
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    They're so ineffective that they might as well not exist. The only rules I've seen applied to lawyers with any regularity are those governing decorum (eg, don't be an ass in court) or client obligations (ie, don't be a shitty contractor) or those that are also criminal (eg, if you commit fraud, we'll yank your license too). Technology could do better there. But to call out government surveillance or cyber warfare, which are both overseen by legal departments that work diligently to inventively authorize the acticity? Or dark patterns and data collection, where lawyers go through contortions to authorize it in "agreements"? I would say all four of your chosen examples are more failings of lawyers than engineers. (Though both bear some responsibility.) It just seems strange to suggest professional rules for engineers would've stopped something that clearly professional rules for lawyers did not.
skolsuper 9y ago
Their argument is pretty clear.
jaclaz 9y ago
Maybe I can help. Among the various professions that do have an ethical code of conduct, generally speaking lawyers/solicitors are not seen by a large amount of people as being particularly compliant with it. Now of course it is very possible that it is a wrong perception by the masses, but it is in my opinion quite unlikely that at the moment the argument "engineers lack a code of conduct, they should take lawyers as an example" will gain much popularity.
dsp1234 9y ago
implementing some kind of rules for professional conduct and an organization to enforce it like the lawyers have. The rules for professional conduct, and the organization to enforce it for lawyers, did not prevent the NSA/DOJ lawyers from determining that mass surveillance was legal, and could be implemented legally. In the face of that, what rules for professional conduct and an organization to enforce it like lawyers have, could engineers have implemented that would have prevented those engineers from building that system?
- tonyarkles 9y ago
  I'm not convinced that what the NSA/DOJ lawyers did here was unethical. One of a lawyer's roles is to answer the question: "Is what I'm about to do legal? On what grounds?" Here, they analyzed existing laws and determined an approach to doing mass surveillance that, they believed, would be legal. They didn't build the surveillance system, nor did they pass the laws in the first place that would allow for such a system to be legally built. Regarding the engineers here, it's not black and white. Looking at the ACM code of ethics, #1 is "Software engineers shall act consistently with the public interest." Is building a mass surveillance system "in the public interest?" That's grey. My personal opinion is "no", but I can see the point of view of "Protecting my country from terrorists is in the public interest." If we're going to look at the NSA surveillance systems, the first place to look is at the legislators. If we want to prevent the government from building such systems, step 0 is to make these systems illegal. That ripples down all the way through this: the lawyers' analysis would have come up negative instead of positive, and it's clearly not in the public interest to build systems that have been democratically-determined to be negative.
  - dsp1234 9y ago
    Yes, having legislators not make laws that are against the public interest should be step 0, but that isn't really relative to a professional code of conduct for software engineers. Note that I specifically mentioned mass surveillance because the original poster pointed it out as "field that enables mass government surveillance", then wonders about the implementation of a "rules of conduct". The natural implication being that those rules of conduct would have helped stop the enabling of mass government surveillance. I'm not convinced that what the NSA/DOJ lawyers did here was unethical. One of a lawyer's roles is to answer the question: "Is what I'm about to do legal? On what grounds?" The lawyer says, "This is legal, here are the grounds for believing it is so. I'll go into court and defend it". The engineer says, "This is technically possible, there are the grounds for believing it is so. I'll build it and maintain it". What is the reasoning for saying then that a lawyer has acted ethically (even though mass surveillance is not in the public interest), but the engineer has acted unethically (because mass surveillance is not in the public interest)? What is the quintessential concept that allows lawyers to ignore the public interest, but precludes the engineer from doing so? And if there is nothing that we can point to that differentiates lawyers and engineers in this manner, then how would a professional code of conduct (like lawyers have) prevent the actions that the original poster specifically highlights.
CrystalLangUser 9y ago
Maybe you ought to respond. Sarcasm or not their point was crystal clear, it seems like you're deliberately avoiding an answer.

Your proposed solution doesn't address the stated problem in the field you're discussing (law), why would it solve it in a different field (tech/software)? It just so transparently doesn't work in that field it's hard to even take the proposal as in good faith, since it has to ignore newsmaking and routine behavior. Rather, it comes across as a self-righteous comment: we have ethical standards (even if we routinely don't adhere to them and do terrible things as a matter of course) so clearly those engineers would be better if they were more like us! The sarcasm likely wasn't constructive, so I'll apologize for that.

gregwtmtno 9y ago
I'll certainly agree that the rules of professional conduct in the legal profession don't prevent all unethical conduct, but that doesn't mean that they are completely ineffective. Having enforceable rules may improve ethical standards in the field without solving the problem entirely. I'd also like to point out that I did not propose a solution. I think it should be considered, but I'm a long way from supporting the idea fully. There are a lot of negatives that come with license requirements that attorneys have.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  They're so ineffective that they might as well not exist. The only rules I've seen applied to lawyers with any regularity are those governing decorum (eg, don't be an ass in court) or client obligations (ie, don't be a shitty contractor) or those that are also criminal (eg, if you commit fraud, we'll yank your license too). Technology could do better there. But to call out government surveillance or cyber warfare, which are both overseen by legal departments that work diligently to inventively authorize the acticity? Or dark patterns and data collection, where lawyers go through contortions to authorize it in "agreements"? I would say all four of your chosen examples are more failings of lawyers than engineers. (Though both bear some responsibility.) It just seems strange to suggest professional rules for engineers would've stopped something that clearly professional rules for lawyers did not.

skolsuper 9y ago

Their argument is pretty clear.

jaclaz 9y ago

Maybe I can help. Among the various professions that do have an ethical code of conduct, generally speaking lawyers/solicitors are not seen by a large amount of people as being particularly compliant with it. Now of course it is very possible that it is a wrong perception by the masses, but it is in my opinion quite unlikely that at the moment the argument "engineers lack a code of conduct, they should take lawyers as an example" will gain much popularity.

dsp1234 9y ago

implementing some kind of rules for professional conduct and an organization to enforce it like the lawyers have. The rules for professional conduct, and the organization to enforce it for lawyers, did not prevent the NSA/DOJ lawyers from determining that mass surveillance was legal, and could be implemented legally. In the face of that, what rules for professional conduct and an organization to enforce it like lawyers have, could engineers have implemented that would have prevented those engineers from building that system?

tonyarkles 9y ago
I'm not convinced that what the NSA/DOJ lawyers did here was unethical. One of a lawyer's roles is to answer the question: "Is what I'm about to do legal? On what grounds?" Here, they analyzed existing laws and determined an approach to doing mass surveillance that, they believed, would be legal. They didn't build the surveillance system, nor did they pass the laws in the first place that would allow for such a system to be legally built. Regarding the engineers here, it's not black and white. Looking at the ACM code of ethics, #1 is "Software engineers shall act consistently with the public interest." Is building a mass surveillance system "in the public interest?" That's grey. My personal opinion is "no", but I can see the point of view of "Protecting my country from terrorists is in the public interest." If we're going to look at the NSA surveillance systems, the first place to look is at the legislators. If we want to prevent the government from building such systems, step 0 is to make these systems illegal. That ripples down all the way through this: the lawyers' analysis would have come up negative instead of positive, and it's clearly not in the public interest to build systems that have been democratically-determined to be negative.
- dsp1234 9y ago
  Yes, having legislators not make laws that are against the public interest should be step 0, but that isn't really relative to a professional code of conduct for software engineers. Note that I specifically mentioned mass surveillance because the original poster pointed it out as "field that enables mass government surveillance", then wonders about the implementation of a "rules of conduct". The natural implication being that those rules of conduct would have helped stop the enabling of mass government surveillance. I'm not convinced that what the NSA/DOJ lawyers did here was unethical. One of a lawyer's roles is to answer the question: "Is what I'm about to do legal? On what grounds?" The lawyer says, "This is legal, here are the grounds for believing it is so. I'll go into court and defend it". The engineer says, "This is technically possible, there are the grounds for believing it is so. I'll build it and maintain it". What is the reasoning for saying then that a lawyer has acted ethically (even though mass surveillance is not in the public interest), but the engineer has acted unethically (because mass surveillance is not in the public interest)? What is the quintessential concept that allows lawyers to ignore the public interest, but precludes the engineer from doing so? And if there is nothing that we can point to that differentiates lawyers and engineers in this manner, then how would a professional code of conduct (like lawyers have) prevent the actions that the original poster specifically highlights.

CrystalLangUser 9y ago

Maybe you ought to respond. Sarcasm or not their point was crystal clear, it seems like you're deliberately avoiding an answer.