3 ms·

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

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 10y 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 10y 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.

gregwtmtno 10y 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 10y 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.