5 ms·

Fined for practicing engineering without a liocense. Institutions will always protect themselves but this is absurd

tptacek 7y ago
Not really. I mean, fining this person was absurd. But licensing the title "engineer" isn't absurd; bad engineering gets people killed.
- masklinn 7y ago
  > fining this person was absurd. But licensing the title "engineer" isn't absurd You can't logically have one without the other. If he claimed to be an engineer (which he acknowledges) and the state claims the title for licensing (which it did) then you can't enforce that licensing without some sort of penalty.
  - detaro 7y ago
    You easily can, by being more strict about what constitutes the use of the title of engineer.
    - ncmncm 7y ago
      Exactly: sign off on civil works plans: licensed. Charge for advice related to:: licensed. Everything else: not.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Sure you can. You can make a legal requirement that somebody has to be licensed to sign off on things that require the license without fining for the use of the word. Imagine that you're an engineer in Germany, you go to Oregon and somebody asks you what you do for a living. You reply with "I'm an engineer" and get fined because you're not licensed in Oregon.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      In an oddly mirrored version, up until about 12 years ago it was illegal for someone with a PhD from outside the EU to use the title "Dr." in Germany, without going through specific paperwork to get permission to use that title. http://htor.inf.ethz.ch/blog/index.php/2008/11/06/you-can-also-call-me-dr-in-germany/ http://htor.inf.ethz.ch/blog/index.php/2008/11/06/you-can-al... quotes a Washington Post piece: > At least seven U.S. citizens working as researchers in Germany have faced criminal probes in recent months for using the title “Dr.” on their business cards, Web sites and resumes. They all hold doctoral degrees from elite universities back home A NZ PhD holder in Germany could get in legal trouble until at 2012 - http://www.stuff.co.nz/editors-picks/6783089/Germany-goes-for-the-doctor-on-our-PhDs http://www.stuff.co.nz/editors-picks/6783089/Germany-goes-fo... .
  - strictnein 7y ago
    I really don't understand this backing of the state here. There is a vast gulf between stating one is an engineer, which many people are, and that one is a PE. Reminds me of zero tolerance rules at schools, where adults claim that they can't understand the difference between two very different things.
    - masklinn 7y ago
      > I really don't understand this backing of the state here. You're just letting your pet peeves color your perceptions. I'm not backing anything here, I'm pointing out that if you're licensing the title of engineer then it makes sense to protect that license and therefore penalise people claiming the title without being licensed. > There is a vast gulf between stating one is an engineer […] and that one is a PE. In Oregon, before this lawsuit, there was not. > Reminds me of zero tolerance rules at schools, where adults claim that they can't understand the difference between two very different things. Yes, your comment also reminds me of people refusing to understand basic concepts.
      - strictnein 7y ago
        The simple point was that Oregon's position was foolish. You keep pointing to Oregon's position as if it makes any sense. When one sees a bad government policy used improperly you don't usually state "But the state says so, so I guess it's just the way it is". It's a bad position and this case is an example of why it's a bad position. You stated that "If he claimed to be an engineer (which he acknowledges) and the state claims the title for licensing (which it did) then you can't enforce that licensing without some sort of penalty." Of course you can. He didn't build bridges for pay, which is the type of engineering the law is clearly about. He just stated that he was an "engineer". But yes, I'm the simplistic thinker, for pointing out that shades of gray exist in your black and white definition of things.
- benibela 7y ago
  What about software engineers?
  - tptacek 7y ago
    The simplest way to resolve that dilemma is to acknowledge that almost nothing we do is "engineering".
    - ghaff 7y ago
      You can also overstate how much engineering generally is about rigorous processes and theoretical correctness as opposed to heuristics and empiricism. I don't actually disagree with your general point. But there are plenty of examples of civil engineering project failures because of defective materials and the like and there are established practices in many areas of software. I've worked in engineering outside of software--and was even on track to get a PE--and a lot of that was pretty ad hoc.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        I'm still kind of haunted by this very concise and blunt argument by 'jcranmer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22315607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22315607 (I hadn't read about the KC Hyatt disaster before).
        ghaff 7y ago
        The Hyatt accident was a pretty massive screwup. There are other examples. See, e.g. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_tower_design_flaw_that_could_have_wiped_out_the_skyscraper.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_t... OTOH, Heartbleed had as much to do with critical open source code being maintained by someone who was basically doing on a shoestring via donations as a lack of software engineering processes in general.
        tptacek 7y ago
- kodablah 7y ago
  Bad engineering shouldn't be related to use of the general English word, nor should it be used as justification over ownership of such a word. I admit I am unfamiliar with this specific case, but if he claimed he was an "engineer as certified by X" I'd be more sympathetic to X claiming he's lying.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
    It's the same as saying you're a lawyer.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      In the US, if I say I'm a lawyer, I'm at least implying that I passed the bar in some state (although possibly not in your state). If I just went to law school or if I just read a few books on constitutional law, it wouldn't be normal to describe yourself as a lawyer and you wouldn't be legally allowed to represent yourself as one. People who have even grad degrees in some branch of engineering and have been working in the field for decades. But simply have never had a reason to get a PE? Perfectly reasonable for them to describe themselves as engineers (but not, of course, as PEs).
    - kodablah 7y ago
      More like saying you're a teacher in this case. While using that title to get around regulations teaching others in certain settings could be a crime, use of the word colloquially while generally giving knowledge to others (especially if you were a teacher where you came from) should never be a crime.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        In this case, yes. But more generally --- the context of the top comment on this subthread --- no.

Not really. I mean, fining this person was absurd. But licensing the title "engineer" isn't absurd; bad engineering gets people killed.

masklinn 7y ago
> fining this person was absurd. But licensing the title "engineer" isn't absurd You can't logically have one without the other. If he claimed to be an engineer (which he acknowledges) and the state claims the title for licensing (which it did) then you can't enforce that licensing without some sort of penalty.
- detaro 7y ago
  You easily can, by being more strict about what constitutes the use of the title of engineer.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    Exactly: sign off on civil works plans: licensed. Charge for advice related to:: licensed. Everything else: not.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Sure you can. You can make a legal requirement that somebody has to be licensed to sign off on things that require the license without fining for the use of the word. Imagine that you're an engineer in Germany, you go to Oregon and somebody asks you what you do for a living. You reply with "I'm an engineer" and get fined because you're not licensed in Oregon.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    In an oddly mirrored version, up until about 12 years ago it was illegal for someone with a PhD from outside the EU to use the title "Dr." in Germany, without going through specific paperwork to get permission to use that title. http://htor.inf.ethz.ch/blog/index.php/2008/11/06/you-can-also-call-me-dr-in-germany/ http://htor.inf.ethz.ch/blog/index.php/2008/11/06/you-can-al... quotes a Washington Post piece: > At least seven U.S. citizens working as researchers in Germany have faced criminal probes in recent months for using the title “Dr.” on their business cards, Web sites and resumes. They all hold doctoral degrees from elite universities back home A NZ PhD holder in Germany could get in legal trouble until at 2012 - http://www.stuff.co.nz/editors-picks/6783089/Germany-goes-for-the-doctor-on-our-PhDs http://www.stuff.co.nz/editors-picks/6783089/Germany-goes-fo... .
- strictnein 7y ago
  I really don't understand this backing of the state here. There is a vast gulf between stating one is an engineer, which many people are, and that one is a PE. Reminds me of zero tolerance rules at schools, where adults claim that they can't understand the difference between two very different things.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    > I really don't understand this backing of the state here. You're just letting your pet peeves color your perceptions. I'm not backing anything here, I'm pointing out that if you're licensing the title of engineer then it makes sense to protect that license and therefore penalise people claiming the title without being licensed. > There is a vast gulf between stating one is an engineer […] and that one is a PE. In Oregon, before this lawsuit, there was not. > Reminds me of zero tolerance rules at schools, where adults claim that they can't understand the difference between two very different things. Yes, your comment also reminds me of people refusing to understand basic concepts.
    - strictnein 7y ago
      The simple point was that Oregon's position was foolish. You keep pointing to Oregon's position as if it makes any sense. When one sees a bad government policy used improperly you don't usually state "But the state says so, so I guess it's just the way it is". It's a bad position and this case is an example of why it's a bad position. You stated that "If he claimed to be an engineer (which he acknowledges) and the state claims the title for licensing (which it did) then you can't enforce that licensing without some sort of penalty." Of course you can. He didn't build bridges for pay, which is the type of engineering the law is clearly about. He just stated that he was an "engineer". But yes, I'm the simplistic thinker, for pointing out that shades of gray exist in your black and white definition of things.
benibela 7y ago
What about software engineers?
- tptacek 7y ago
  The simplest way to resolve that dilemma is to acknowledge that almost nothing we do is "engineering".
  - ghaff 7y ago
    You can also overstate how much engineering generally is about rigorous processes and theoretical correctness as opposed to heuristics and empiricism. I don't actually disagree with your general point. But there are plenty of examples of civil engineering project failures because of defective materials and the like and there are established practices in many areas of software. I've worked in engineering outside of software--and was even on track to get a PE--and a lot of that was pretty ad hoc.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      I'm still kind of haunted by this very concise and blunt argument by 'jcranmer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22315607 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22315607 (I hadn't read about the KC Hyatt disaster before).
      - ghaff 7y ago
        The Hyatt accident was a pretty massive screwup. There are other examples. See, e.g. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_tower_design_flaw_that_could_have_wiped_out_the_skyscraper.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2014/04/17/the_citicorp_t... OTOH, Heartbleed had as much to do with critical open source code being maintained by someone who was basically doing on a shoestring via donations as a lack of software engineering processes in general.
        tptacek 7y ago
kodablah 7y ago
Bad engineering shouldn't be related to use of the general English word, nor should it be used as justification over ownership of such a word. I admit I am unfamiliar with this specific case, but if he claimed he was an "engineer as certified by X" I'd be more sympathetic to X claiming he's lying.
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
  It's the same as saying you're a lawyer.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    In the US, if I say I'm a lawyer, I'm at least implying that I passed the bar in some state (although possibly not in your state). If I just went to law school or if I just read a few books on constitutional law, it wouldn't be normal to describe yourself as a lawyer and you wouldn't be legally allowed to represent yourself as one. People who have even grad degrees in some branch of engineering and have been working in the field for decades. But simply have never had a reason to get a PE? Perfectly reasonable for them to describe themselves as engineers (but not, of course, as PEs).
  - kodablah 7y ago
    More like saying you're a teacher in this case. While using that title to get around regulations teaching others in certain settings could be a crime, use of the word colloquially while generally giving knowledge to others (especially if you were a teacher where you came from) should never be a crime.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      In this case, yes. But more generally --- the context of the top comment on this subthread --- no.