4 ms·

I generally like the idea— it's probably a sign of maturity. I'd add that it would be nice to be able to operate outside of certain fields and certain types of

I generally like the idea— it's probably a sign of maturity. I'd add that it would be nice to be able to operate outside of certain fields and certain types of operations without that level of certification. For instance, freelance web devs, small business software employees, etc who aren't dealing in things like personal or trivial data could continue operation. For example: you don't need to be a doctor to be certified in first aid, or even administer first aid—but you likely wouldn't attempt an invasive, life-threatening surgery. I'd also like to see—if that kind of regulation were to pass—the inclusion of some kind of grandfather clause that would include the ability to test without formal education. The reason being there are very many highly capable developers/engineers in the field who don't possess the exact formal background—and in many cases came from other formal backgrounds. I'd definitely hear arguments for not requiring education at any time, but to keep it on par with the other professions you listed I'll leave it as is. This might not be the thread for a larger discussion on this—because it seems like it would be a larger discussion. An interesting one, though... Implementation seems like it would be a challenge, but then again I don't know the stories behind who more modern professions like electricians were regulated. I imagine that field grew much more slowly.

sizzle 8y ago
I agree, what do you think about some enforceable "do good" prior consent laws, in the same vein as scientists trying to do research on humans and requiring prior consent, where if you are caught being unethical towards the people on the other end of your work product, then there will be sanctions and steep penalties equal to how severe the work is judged against harming human rights etc. How do you modify the above idea if you think it has merit? "I'd also like to see—if that kind of regulation were to pass—the inclusion of some kind of grandfather clause that would include the ability to test without formal education." Why not have some sort of certification process you can do while working that holds the individual accounts to the values of being unethical and will have consequences for not adhering to, at all levels like on the scale of GDPR violations. Also there should be steeper penalities against companies acting in bad faith, similar to GDPR for human rights. Thoughts?
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  > Why not have some sort of certification process you can do while working that holds the individual accounts to the values of being unethical and will have consequences for not adhering to, at all levels like on the scale of GDPR violations. Oh with regard to this one, I don't think my wording was clear. I meant with regard to testing or challenging to be certified without having a formal CS/related background. As: a doctor would have to have an MD to practice as a doctor amongst other certifications— I was contending that an explicit CS degree may not be an optimal equal designation for practicing software engineering/research, as it were. As a background— there are many talented and influential researchers who would be cut out of practicing if the line were drawn at a reputed CS degree. Aligning "software practice" (for lack of better wording) hard with a CS degree might be poor bounds for the field. But I definitely think I agree, at least on a high level with what you're proposing. I hadn't considered it. Good things have come out of research using the large amounts of data available, so it should continue. But there definitely should be some sort of bounds and method for accountability. Also would include a special permissions and appeal process. There's I'm sure a lot of cost/benefit judgement as there is in many scientific experiments (there's seemingly a great deal of that in biological testing). And you also might restrict certain entities from performing the research and instead be compensated for their collected data by a reputable research group. Said group can produce the hard/applied research, patents, and license them to groups to use them.
  - sizzle 8y ago
    Yeah we are in agreement, background in CS doesn't matter for practicing or entry to field, only your work product would be held to some sort of ethical standard. Maybe this would also undo some of the effects of outsourcing/offshoring US coding practices due to the need for ethical compliance (at the very least in mission critical systems e.g. vehicle software, hospital software, etc)

sizzle 8y ago

I agree, what do you think about some enforceable "do good" prior consent laws, in the same vein as scientists trying to do research on humans and requiring prior consent, where if you are caught being unethical towards the people on the other end of your work product, then there will be sanctions and steep penalties equal to how severe the work is judged against harming human rights etc. How do you modify the above idea if you think it has merit? "I'd also like to see—if that kind of regulation were to pass—the inclusion of some kind of grandfather clause that would include the ability to test without formal education." Why not have some sort of certification process you can do while working that holds the individual accounts to the values of being unethical and will have consequences for not adhering to, at all levels like on the scale of GDPR violations. Also there should be steeper penalities against companies acting in bad faith, similar to GDPR for human rights. Thoughts?

52-6F-62 8y ago
> Why not have some sort of certification process you can do while working that holds the individual accounts to the values of being unethical and will have consequences for not adhering to, at all levels like on the scale of GDPR violations. Oh with regard to this one, I don't think my wording was clear. I meant with regard to testing or challenging to be certified without having a formal CS/related background. As: a doctor would have to have an MD to practice as a doctor amongst other certifications— I was contending that an explicit CS degree may not be an optimal equal designation for practicing software engineering/research, as it were. As a background— there are many talented and influential researchers who would be cut out of practicing if the line were drawn at a reputed CS degree. Aligning "software practice" (for lack of better wording) hard with a CS degree might be poor bounds for the field. But I definitely think I agree, at least on a high level with what you're proposing. I hadn't considered it. Good things have come out of research using the large amounts of data available, so it should continue. But there definitely should be some sort of bounds and method for accountability. Also would include a special permissions and appeal process. There's I'm sure a lot of cost/benefit judgement as there is in many scientific experiments (there's seemingly a great deal of that in biological testing). And you also might restrict certain entities from performing the research and instead be compensated for their collected data by a reputable research group. Said group can produce the hard/applied research, patents, and license them to groups to use them.
- sizzle 8y ago
  Yeah we are in agreement, background in CS doesn't matter for practicing or entry to field, only your work product would be held to some sort of ethical standard. Maybe this would also undo some of the effects of outsourcing/offshoring US coding practices due to the need for ethical compliance (at the very least in mission critical systems e.g. vehicle software, hospital software, etc)