4 ms·

Are you open to the possibility that you treated me overly harshly, and that I've never actually taken the position you seem to badly want me to have taken? Or

Are you open to the possibility that you treated me overly harshly, and that I've never actually taken the position you seem to badly want me to have taken? Or is that beyond the pale, and this is exclusively my fault? To try and contribute to this conversation a small amount, it makes the most sense to me to establish a Professional Engineer like system for the software industry. I don't know all of the details about how these systems work, but a friend of mine is a structural engineer and as he's described it to me it creates a personal ethical obligation that currently feels entirely absent from the software industry. This ties the regulation to the industry, lets the experts decide what is and isn't okay, while also involving personal ethics and keeping individuals accountable for their decisions. Keep getting called by a spam bot? A licensed engineer can be tied to that system, and can be punished. A self driving car had a bug that couldn't tell the difference between a plastic bag and a child, forcing the vehicle into a concrete barrier? Someone stamped that code, and is now accountable. Is a company using your tracking data to raise your medical bills based on your online food order history? That company's engineers are liable, you can sue them personally. Again, not sure of the details about how this works in the construction industry, but when you put professionals at personal risk, they tend to care more about the outcomes, and it doesn't end up forcing the US government (specifically legislators) to understand all the details.

autoexec 7y ago
I'm fully open to the possibility that I've misinterpreted some of what you've said. I wouldn't mind seeing that kind of system applied to some software companies. I'm not sure that fully solves the problem, but I really do like the idea of having someone willing to be held accountable for problems. I think one issue with this would be that companies who keep their activity opaque enough are highly unlikely to be caught by users. A major data leak or a hacked system might be detectable, but a backroom deal to share data with a medical or insurance company would likely go undetected without a whistleblower to expose what was happening. If a bridge collapses, or a fire starts, or a floor sinks, it's a little easier to see when building/fire codes weren't followed. I think a system like this would be best used when some rules are already in place for what a company can and cannot do. Then a company's certified security/privacy person would be responsible for making sure everything was done in full compliance with whatever guidelines were established. This would probably be needed anyway if you tried to sue the company's engineers later. If nothing they do with your data is actually illegal those lawsuits won't get very far. I do agree that compliance checking and having that level of accountability could help developers rein in marketing teams, greedy shareholders, and stupid managers who put pressure on them to add tracking and anti-consumer code to their products. I do worry about what it would mean for small startups, volunteer/personal projects, and single developers. It might be a more secure world if anyone who wants to write an app can't just slap a boilerplate notice that they aren't responsible for anything if you choose to use it, but my guess is that there might also be a lot fewer apps.
- diminoten 7y ago
  That's what regulation does, it restricts the players in a field to the ones who have the resources to follow those regulations. It is definitely a limiting factor on an industry, but I thought we were sort of assuming that the rampant "anyone can play" nature of software was the source of many of the industry's problems right now. My point is that if someone has to do it, I would A) want the industry to police itself (let me finish) and B) would want individuals to be unable to hide behind corporations, to the extent that is reasonably possible. These together could, I believe, make more of a dent in the problems in the software industry today than any one specific topic of legislation (e.g. privacy laws or digital advertising laws) could. Imagine if you could lose your software license for writing adware! Would it stop everyone/everything? No, definitely not. Would it give your average corporate software engineer a leg to stand on when they try to say no to their bosses when the business wants to start selling customer data unethically? Hell yes! "I could lose my license if I add that feature." <- huge impact.
paulmd 7y ago
I'm very open to the possibility that you are just sealioning and throwing around accusations of being "toxic" while in fact being very toxic and generally not open to discussion yourself. Professional engineers are generally not liable unless they have substantially neglected the standard of practice, so no, a company using tracking data would not result in personal liability for that engineer (unless they, say, got hacked due to personal negligence on his part). No professional engineer would ever agree to personal liability for all actions of a company. Only the things they themselves have signed off on. You will never be able to sue an engineer because a company used your personal data for tracking. Period. The professional engineer doesn't have to sign off that the visitor's lounge is hypoallergenic. Furthermore, who exactly do you imagine regulates this professional engineer system? Who makes sure that everybody on the internet is appropriately licensed before "a spam bot calls you"? Where exactly does that responsibility lay in this system? Does a phone company have to make sure that a client for each phone number they assign is engaging a professional engineer before placing a call? What if it's Google and everything is just SIP calls from various IPs? Does Google have to make sure that everyone assigned an IP has signoff from a professional engineer? What if I just pick up a phone and dial a person? Who has the liability if I then voice an unsolicited commercial solicitation? What happens if I send a packet that wasn't approved by the professional engineer that Google had sign off on my computer system? You've outlined a system that is hilariously unsustainable and ill-thought-out, where nobody is allowed to do anything without a Professional Nanny literally watching over their shoulder as they place a phone call or send packets over the internet. But you also think that Professional Nannies will definitely agree to personal liabilities for whatever their clients do. As if the Professional Nannies wouldn't be just as effective here as Credit Rating agencies were in 2007. Sure, nervously watch the phone all you want - if you don't sign off on it, we'll find someone who will. And yes, you'll be personally liable too, since individuals lack the negotiating power that firms (like Credit Rating agencies) do. Here's a maxim for you: the broader the need for these professional engineers, the less authority and independence they will have. Professional Engineers actually only work because they only have to sign off on complete negligence - life or death stuff, their buildings falling down. If they have to sign off that the visitor's lounge is hypoallergenic the system falls apart. But I understand your religion here, the Free Market will undoubtedly provide. Nothing bad can ever happen under a Free Market, because people would just buy from someone else. We just need to make sure that everybody has personal liability and the NAP will guarantee that no problems ever exist. I certainly don't think I was wrong to pin you as a Libertarian right from the first comment. Regardless of whether you claim to deny the label.

autoexec 7y ago

I'm fully open to the possibility that I've misinterpreted some of what you've said. I wouldn't mind seeing that kind of system applied to some software companies. I'm not sure that fully solves the problem, but I really do like the idea of having someone willing to be held accountable for problems. I think one issue with this would be that companies who keep their activity opaque enough are highly unlikely to be caught by users. A major data leak or a hacked system might be detectable, but a backroom deal to share data with a medical or insurance company would likely go undetected without a whistleblower to expose what was happening. If a bridge collapses, or a fire starts, or a floor sinks, it's a little easier to see when building/fire codes weren't followed. I think a system like this would be best used when some rules are already in place for what a company can and cannot do. Then a company's certified security/privacy person would be responsible for making sure everything was done in full compliance with whatever guidelines were established. This would probably be needed anyway if you tried to sue the company's engineers later. If nothing they do with your data is actually illegal those lawsuits won't get very far. I do agree that compliance checking and having that level of accountability could help developers rein in marketing teams, greedy shareholders, and stupid managers who put pressure on them to add tracking and anti-consumer code to their products. I do worry about what it would mean for small startups, volunteer/personal projects, and single developers. It might be a more secure world if anyone who wants to write an app can't just slap a boilerplate notice that they aren't responsible for anything if you choose to use it, but my guess is that there might also be a lot fewer apps.

diminoten 7y ago
That's what regulation does, it restricts the players in a field to the ones who have the resources to follow those regulations. It is definitely a limiting factor on an industry, but I thought we were sort of assuming that the rampant "anyone can play" nature of software was the source of many of the industry's problems right now. My point is that if someone has to do it, I would A) want the industry to police itself (let me finish) and B) would want individuals to be unable to hide behind corporations, to the extent that is reasonably possible. These together could, I believe, make more of a dent in the problems in the software industry today than any one specific topic of legislation (e.g. privacy laws or digital advertising laws) could. Imagine if you could lose your software license for writing adware! Would it stop everyone/everything? No, definitely not. Would it give your average corporate software engineer a leg to stand on when they try to say no to their bosses when the business wants to start selling customer data unethically? Hell yes! "I could lose my license if I add that feature." <- huge impact.

paulmd 7y ago

I'm very open to the possibility that you are just sealioning and throwing around accusations of being "toxic" while in fact being very toxic and generally not open to discussion yourself. Professional engineers are generally not liable unless they have substantially neglected the standard of practice, so no, a company using tracking data would not result in personal liability for that engineer (unless they, say, got hacked due to personal negligence on his part). No professional engineer would ever agree to personal liability for all actions of a company. Only the things they themselves have signed off on. You will never be able to sue an engineer because a company used your personal data for tracking. Period. The professional engineer doesn't have to sign off that the visitor's lounge is hypoallergenic. Furthermore, who exactly do you imagine regulates this professional engineer system? Who makes sure that everybody on the internet is appropriately licensed before "a spam bot calls you"? Where exactly does that responsibility lay in this system? Does a phone company have to make sure that a client for each phone number they assign is engaging a professional engineer before placing a call? What if it's Google and everything is just SIP calls from various IPs? Does Google have to make sure that everyone assigned an IP has signoff from a professional engineer? What if I just pick up a phone and dial a person? Who has the liability if I then voice an unsolicited commercial solicitation? What happens if I send a packet that wasn't approved by the professional engineer that Google had sign off on my computer system? You've outlined a system that is hilariously unsustainable and ill-thought-out, where nobody is allowed to do anything without a Professional Nanny literally watching over their shoulder as they place a phone call or send packets over the internet. But you also think that Professional Nannies will definitely agree to personal liabilities for whatever their clients do. As if the Professional Nannies wouldn't be just as effective here as Credit Rating agencies were in 2007. Sure, nervously watch the phone all you want - if you don't sign off on it, we'll find someone who will. And yes, you'll be personally liable too, since individuals lack the negotiating power that firms (like Credit Rating agencies) do. Here's a maxim for you: the broader the need for these professional engineers, the less authority and independence they will have. Professional Engineers actually only work because they only have to sign off on complete negligence - life or death stuff, their buildings falling down. If they have to sign off that the visitor's lounge is hypoallergenic the system falls apart. But I understand your religion here, the Free Market will undoubtedly provide. Nothing bad can ever happen under a Free Market, because people would just buy from someone else. We just need to make sure that everybody has personal liability and the NAP will guarantee that no problems ever exist. I certainly don't think I was wrong to pin you as a Libertarian right from the first comment. Regardless of whether you claim to deny the label.