4 ms·

The move towards increased regulation of software engineering, especially with regards to security, makes me wonder if we will see state/provincial/national eng

by ggcdn 7y ago

The move towards increased regulation of software engineering, especially with regards to security, makes me wonder if we will see state/provincial/national engineering regulatory authorities move in on the field. You can't, for instance, call yourself a structural engineer unless you are registered with the regulatory authority as such. Nor can you offer engineering services to the public without registration. And you are bound by a code of ethics, subject to a formal complaint process, undergo somewhat regular practice reviews, and can face disciplinary actions when you fail to comply. Right now, it seems like software engineering is the wild west, complete with tales of fortune to be had attracting code-slingin' cowboys without regard for the public's safety. I predict the lawman is coming for you.

Nasrudith 7y ago
I worry that said lawmen are going to be more bueracratic and even less safety. Moving slowly isn't going to cut it unlike structural engineering. The metaphor breaks down because the architect isn't responsible if people use sound dampered sledge hammers and saws in the middle of the night on vital support beams. The software engineer is. Especially given the origin cultures of regulators think that just banning Cryptography is a remotely reasonable idea instead of barking mad. Standards may make some sense but they should be deliberately open ended like "encrypt customer data sufficiently or don't gather it" not "use single DES to encrypt - if you use large key RSA you will be in deep shit in spite of it being better".
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  yeah, it's going to be an interesting argument between the bits of government that want to read your mail, and the bits of government that want to ensure that you protect your customers' mail from being read.
  - noobiemcfoob 7y ago
    One of those seems a lot more powerful than the other...
scarejunba 7y ago
The last time we listened to the lawman he was an idiot who compromised user safety. I can just imagine a world where I have to use Dual EC DPRG or follow requirements to rotate passwords. Obviously I, and most software engineers, were smart enough to not do these things but when you’ll send us to jail for not doing the mandated thing, people will do the mandated thing even if they know better.

by ggcdn 7y ago

Nasrudith 7y ago

I worry that said lawmen are going to be more bueracratic and even less safety. Moving slowly isn't going to cut it unlike structural engineering. The metaphor breaks down because the architect isn't responsible if people use sound dampered sledge hammers and saws in the middle of the night on vital support beams. The software engineer is. Especially given the origin cultures of regulators think that just banning Cryptography is a remotely reasonable idea instead of barking mad. Standards may make some sense but they should be deliberately open ended like "encrypt customer data sufficiently or don't gather it" not "use single DES to encrypt - if you use large key RSA you will be in deep shit in spite of it being better".

marcus_holmes 7y ago
yeah, it's going to be an interesting argument between the bits of government that want to read your mail, and the bits of government that want to ensure that you protect your customers' mail from being read.
- noobiemcfoob 7y ago
  One of those seems a lot more powerful than the other...

scarejunba 7y ago

The last time we listened to the lawman he was an idiot who compromised user safety. I can just imagine a world where I have to use Dual EC DPRG or follow requirements to rotate passwords. Obviously I, and most software engineers, were smart enough to not do these things but when you’ll send us to jail for not doing the mandated thing, people will do the mandated thing even if they know better.