6 ms·

What a strange comparison. Would you consider it equally unjustified to hold construction engineers and architects responsible for constructing a death trap? Ev

What a strange comparison. Would you consider it equally unjustified to hold construction engineers and architects responsible for constructing a death trap? Even if that is what the customer ordered? It's probably not a coincidence that engineers and doctors are professionals well known to place their own ethical standards above their customers. It is expected that a doctor refuse to carry out a procedure that puts innocent people at harm.

ForHackernews 7y ago
It's a perfectly apt comparison. Software "engineers" are not actually engineers. We are not professionals, we are wage labor. * No professional code of ethics. * No professional body that oversees the profession and sets standards. * No licensing or certification (except maybe in Canada). I'm sure I'll get a bunch of flack for this, but it's well past time developers stopped indulging in classist self-flattery pretending they're the peers of doctors, lawyers, or accountants.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  I don't follow your argument. Existence of the things you mention are not really the main distinguishing features of different socio-professional classes. A programmer is still more like a lawyer in almost every conceivable way than they are like a bricklayer: level of education, social circles, work environment, pay, cultural values, etc. (This has nothing to do with "self-flattery" unless you think I'm making some sort of value judgment about these different classes, as opposed to just describing them).
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    Lawyers will not commit malpractice because they would open themselves up to liability and damage their professional reputations. In contrast, most software devs will code up whatever evil garbage features their bosses tell them to. They don't even have a concept of malpractice. Very rarely, one might quit, but they have no standing to say "no" to their employers and remain employed.
    - wanderer2323 7y ago
      Why are you comparing coding up dark pattern feature to the malpractice? It's more comparable to, e.g. a patent troll's lawyer drafting a letter intended to bully a troll's victim into paying out of fear of litigation costs. Or reviewing a forcing arbitration agreement that a company intends to make all its employees to sign. Or other things that can be considered morally 'evil' but completely legal and wont get anyone sued for malpractice.
      - ForHackernews 7y ago
        Was writing the Volkswagen's emissions cheating software malpractice? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/vw-diesel-emissions-scandal-explained.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/internatio...
        wanderer2323 7y ago
        Was arguing the Government's position before SCOTUS in Korematsu legal malpractice?
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      Michael Cohen had a law degree, dude. Christopher Duntsch had a medical degree. It's just people. They're not gods because they have some degree. And that's only the named people. I don't know how many people you know in medicine or in law. If you're unfamiliar with things being upcoded or out of network doctors substituting in late and then having patients incur massive fees, then maybe it's best to familiarize oneself. And there are lawyers who specialize in getting the right rich guilty people out. The Razor didn't get the name by chance.
- ska 7y ago
  The situation in Canada is that you cannot legally call yourself an "Engineer" unless you have a P.Eng license. While you do not need an engineering degree to undertake this, if you don't have one you will have to ask the licensing body to adjudicate on "equivalent experience" - not sure what happens if they don't agree but I expect you'd have to take some courses. The licensing itself requires at least a professional practice exam (and possibly technical ones) and work experience overseen by a P.Eng. Software developers can take this certification but it is not particularly useful to their career except in narrow circumstances.
- mindfulgeek 7y ago
  I think this is a great point and perhaps if developers thoughts of it that way more they would take more initiative to create those things. If we don’t, they will and by they I mean people who will have limited understanding of the impact of those codes.
- fortran77 7y ago
  Amen! And as someone who is an actual licensed P.E., it still makes me a little angry when I see computer programmers who call themselves "engineers." This is technically illegal under some circumstances in many states, but rarely enforced.
  - umanwizard 7y ago
    The original meaning of engineer was: "A constructor of military engines; a person who designs and constructs military works for attack and defence." It is first found in English in 1380, when I doubt any professional certification bodies existed. Eventually it evolved to mean what you got your license in, and then evolved further to include things like "software engineers". Unless you build engines, the word engineer to describe what you do is etymologically inaccurate. So why is your particular stage on the path of organic evolution of this word more valid than anyone else's?
    - brewdad 7y ago
      Because PEs have a legal definition under the law.
      - learc83 7y ago
        That's true, which is why you wouldn't put P.E. after your name or represent yourself as a Mechanical Engineer etc... No one who knows what a PE is going to be confused by someone calling themselves a software engineer, and audio engineer, or a sanitation engineer. I understand the other argument that the job title "Engineer" is being diluted, but that ship sailed a long time ago. There are way more people with engineer in their title than there are PEs so I doubt any widespread legislative attempt to change this would be successful. And it's not just software engineers. Plenty of people working as engineers with ABET accredited engineering degrees haven't passed the PE exam either.
    - fortran77 7y ago
      Because I have a state licence from a previous life as an EE.
- walshemj 7y ago
  Pretty much every countries engineering certifying body does have a track for it professionals. I do have to ask why all the self hate here why would a rational person what to degrade there profession do you want to be working in a blue collar job with worse working conditions?
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    For myself, I want software devs to recognize that they have more in common with blue collar workers than they do with their capitalist employers and act in solidarity. If it were up to me, there'd be a software guild akin to the Hollywood screenwriters guild, and it would set ethical standards and advocate for better pay and working conditions for people writing software.
    - walshemj 7y ago
      I think that developers would have more in common with other professions than blue collar workers. Whilst both types how workers have problems at work - they express themselves quite differently.
- alexanderdmitri 7y ago
  Lawyers are notorious for being mercenaries for hire. The most successful firms contract with corporations that take advantage of the law to their gain and society's detriment. Medical doctors work for an industry that bankrupts sick people for being sick and and a huge number (if not a majority) of practicing doctors can be implicated in the opioid epidemic that has killed thousands and ruined countless lives. Ethical contracts usually just lead to more politics imo. At the end of the day, we all bow to money in one way or another (some are just willing to bow lower than others). Maybe we should stop pretending a profession can somehow make a person better than someone else in some sort of meta/ethical way. Addendum: Personally I wish the law were more open to allowing people to defend themselves. A few years ago I went to court to defend myself in what I was sure was a simple misunderstanding in traffic court. Halfway through my second sentence (not in the legal sense), the judge interrupted me. Then the police officer tried to explain what he put in the ticket may not have been comprehensive. The judge cut him off too and decided it was in my best interest to "learn a lesson" and found me guilty of a violation I was not guilty of. The lesson I learned was if I had paid a lawyer $500 I would have gotten an honest hearing. I don't see the ethics or standards in that.
powvans 7y ago
A doctor can lose their license for malpractice. A lawyer can be disbarred. Architects and civil engineers will lose their license if they knowingly create an unsafe structure. These professions have codified standards, licensing, and membership requirements for practitioners. There is a real incentive to conform and maintain your license because otherwise you cannot work. In these professions you know the standard of ethical behavior and you can reasonable expect your fellow professionals to also refuse questionable requests. An unethical client is going to have a hard time going down the street to find someone else who is willing to do what you won't. I'm not trying to excuse the bad behavior of some software developers. My point is that the software industry and profession lacks much of what other professions have established in order to maintain high standards.
- adamiscool8 7y ago
  You're comparing situations where ethical violations put lives truly at risk with situations where someone is possibly induced into (but can fully opt-out of) a larger sales transaction?
  - arama471 7y ago
    Yes, and it seems to be a fair comparison to me. Both the unsafe situations and fraudulent situations can be avoided by the adherence to standards, which the software industry currently does not have. The other industries mentioned do, and they seem to work quite well.
    - icxa 7y ago
      Of course it seems like a fair comparison to you, it's your comparison. To everyone else, putting it as nicely as possible, it's very off. Software that has the potential to cause serious, directly attributable material harm to lives is already heavily regulated: The FDA regulates medical device software, the FAA regulates flight software, the FTC regulates communications software, etc. For everything else, there is court. If you buy a laptop with a lithium ion battery that explodes and causes you burns, you will probably be rewarded handsomely in a suit. If you want to sit here and try to argue in front of a judge that dark UI patterns are causing you some sort of material harm, by all means go for it in court. My advice to you is you probably won't get very far / laughed at.
learc83 7y ago
In the case of most front end dark patterns, management or a designer is the equivalent of the architect and there is no Engineering involved to implement the design--just skilled labor. In the case of something more complex, developers don't have the leverage of established regulatory bodies and guilds.

ForHackernews 7y ago

It's a perfectly apt comparison. Software "engineers" are not actually engineers. We are not professionals, we are wage labor. * No professional code of ethics. * No professional body that oversees the profession and sets standards. * No licensing or certification (except maybe in Canada). I'm sure I'll get a bunch of flack for this, but it's well past time developers stopped indulging in classist self-flattery pretending they're the peers of doctors, lawyers, or accountants.

umanwizard 7y ago
I don't follow your argument. Existence of the things you mention are not really the main distinguishing features of different socio-professional classes. A programmer is still more like a lawyer in almost every conceivable way than they are like a bricklayer: level of education, social circles, work environment, pay, cultural values, etc. (This has nothing to do with "self-flattery" unless you think I'm making some sort of value judgment about these different classes, as opposed to just describing them).
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Lawyers will not commit malpractice because they would open themselves up to liability and damage their professional reputations. In contrast, most software devs will code up whatever evil garbage features their bosses tell them to. They don't even have a concept of malpractice. Very rarely, one might quit, but they have no standing to say "no" to their employers and remain employed.
  - wanderer2323 7y ago
    Why are you comparing coding up dark pattern feature to the malpractice? It's more comparable to, e.g. a patent troll's lawyer drafting a letter intended to bully a troll's victim into paying out of fear of litigation costs. Or reviewing a forcing arbitration agreement that a company intends to make all its employees to sign. Or other things that can be considered morally 'evil' but completely legal and wont get anyone sued for malpractice.
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      Was writing the Volkswagen's emissions cheating software malpractice? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/vw-diesel-emissions-scandal-explained.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/internatio...
      - wanderer2323 7y ago
        Was arguing the Government's position before SCOTUS in Korematsu legal malpractice?
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Michael Cohen had a law degree, dude. Christopher Duntsch had a medical degree. It's just people. They're not gods because they have some degree. And that's only the named people. I don't know how many people you know in medicine or in law. If you're unfamiliar with things being upcoded or out of network doctors substituting in late and then having patients incur massive fees, then maybe it's best to familiarize oneself. And there are lawyers who specialize in getting the right rich guilty people out. The Razor didn't get the name by chance.
ska 7y ago
The situation in Canada is that you cannot legally call yourself an "Engineer" unless you have a P.Eng license. While you do not need an engineering degree to undertake this, if you don't have one you will have to ask the licensing body to adjudicate on "equivalent experience" - not sure what happens if they don't agree but I expect you'd have to take some courses. The licensing itself requires at least a professional practice exam (and possibly technical ones) and work experience overseen by a P.Eng. Software developers can take this certification but it is not particularly useful to their career except in narrow circumstances.
mindfulgeek 7y ago
I think this is a great point and perhaps if developers thoughts of it that way more they would take more initiative to create those things. If we don’t, they will and by they I mean people who will have limited understanding of the impact of those codes.
fortran77 7y ago
Amen! And as someone who is an actual licensed P.E., it still makes me a little angry when I see computer programmers who call themselves "engineers." This is technically illegal under some circumstances in many states, but rarely enforced.
- umanwizard 7y ago
  The original meaning of engineer was: "A constructor of military engines; a person who designs and constructs military works for attack and defence." It is first found in English in 1380, when I doubt any professional certification bodies existed. Eventually it evolved to mean what you got your license in, and then evolved further to include things like "software engineers". Unless you build engines, the word engineer to describe what you do is etymologically inaccurate. So why is your particular stage on the path of organic evolution of this word more valid than anyone else's?
  - brewdad 7y ago
    Because PEs have a legal definition under the law.
    - learc83 7y ago
      That's true, which is why you wouldn't put P.E. after your name or represent yourself as a Mechanical Engineer etc... No one who knows what a PE is going to be confused by someone calling themselves a software engineer, and audio engineer, or a sanitation engineer. I understand the other argument that the job title "Engineer" is being diluted, but that ship sailed a long time ago. There are way more people with engineer in their title than there are PEs so I doubt any widespread legislative attempt to change this would be successful. And it's not just software engineers. Plenty of people working as engineers with ABET accredited engineering degrees haven't passed the PE exam either.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    Because I have a state licence from a previous life as an EE.
walshemj 7y ago
Pretty much every countries engineering certifying body does have a track for it professionals. I do have to ask why all the self hate here why would a rational person what to degrade there profession do you want to be working in a blue collar job with worse working conditions?
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  For myself, I want software devs to recognize that they have more in common with blue collar workers than they do with their capitalist employers and act in solidarity. If it were up to me, there'd be a software guild akin to the Hollywood screenwriters guild, and it would set ethical standards and advocate for better pay and working conditions for people writing software.
  - walshemj 7y ago
    I think that developers would have more in common with other professions than blue collar workers. Whilst both types how workers have problems at work - they express themselves quite differently.
alexanderdmitri 7y ago
Lawyers are notorious for being mercenaries for hire. The most successful firms contract with corporations that take advantage of the law to their gain and society's detriment. Medical doctors work for an industry that bankrupts sick people for being sick and and a huge number (if not a majority) of practicing doctors can be implicated in the opioid epidemic that has killed thousands and ruined countless lives. Ethical contracts usually just lead to more politics imo. At the end of the day, we all bow to money in one way or another (some are just willing to bow lower than others). Maybe we should stop pretending a profession can somehow make a person better than someone else in some sort of meta/ethical way. Addendum: Personally I wish the law were more open to allowing people to defend themselves. A few years ago I went to court to defend myself in what I was sure was a simple misunderstanding in traffic court. Halfway through my second sentence (not in the legal sense), the judge interrupted me. Then the police officer tried to explain what he put in the ticket may not have been comprehensive. The judge cut him off too and decided it was in my best interest to "learn a lesson" and found me guilty of a violation I was not guilty of. The lesson I learned was if I had paid a lawyer $500 I would have gotten an honest hearing. I don't see the ethics or standards in that.

powvans 7y ago

A doctor can lose their license for malpractice. A lawyer can be disbarred. Architects and civil engineers will lose their license if they knowingly create an unsafe structure. These professions have codified standards, licensing, and membership requirements for practitioners. There is a real incentive to conform and maintain your license because otherwise you cannot work. In these professions you know the standard of ethical behavior and you can reasonable expect your fellow professionals to also refuse questionable requests. An unethical client is going to have a hard time going down the street to find someone else who is willing to do what you won't. I'm not trying to excuse the bad behavior of some software developers. My point is that the software industry and profession lacks much of what other professions have established in order to maintain high standards.

adamiscool8 7y ago
You're comparing situations where ethical violations put lives truly at risk with situations where someone is possibly induced into (but can fully opt-out of) a larger sales transaction?
- arama471 7y ago
  Yes, and it seems to be a fair comparison to me. Both the unsafe situations and fraudulent situations can be avoided by the adherence to standards, which the software industry currently does not have. The other industries mentioned do, and they seem to work quite well.
  - icxa 7y ago
    Of course it seems like a fair comparison to you, it's your comparison. To everyone else, putting it as nicely as possible, it's very off. Software that has the potential to cause serious, directly attributable material harm to lives is already heavily regulated: The FDA regulates medical device software, the FAA regulates flight software, the FTC regulates communications software, etc. For everything else, there is court. If you buy a laptop with a lithium ion battery that explodes and causes you burns, you will probably be rewarded handsomely in a suit. If you want to sit here and try to argue in front of a judge that dark UI patterns are causing you some sort of material harm, by all means go for it in court. My advice to you is you probably won't get very far / laughed at.

learc83 7y ago

In the case of most front end dark patterns, management or a designer is the equivalent of the architect and there is no Engineering involved to implement the design--just skilled labor. In the case of something more complex, developers don't have the leverage of established regulatory bodies and guilds.