6 ms·

> An engineer should be willing to tell his boss "No, because I would go to jail" I guess we just fundamentally don't agree on how power dynamics effect these

> An engineer should be willing to tell his boss "No, because I would go to jail" I guess we just fundamentally don't agree on how power dynamics effect these types of scenarios.

smichel17 6y ago
I agree with the GP, but I also think it is poorly phrased. It's not that the engineers should be willing to say they'd go to jail, it's that they should be able to. Right now, the conversation goes, management: "I want x". Engineer: "X is insecure, we should do y instead". M: "Y will cost us X more than x, and it's never going to matter for us, anyway." This puts the engineer in a position where they need to argue and justify the cost. Compared to "Sorry, I can't do that; it's illegal and I'd go to jail if I did that and was found out." Now the engineer doesn't have to justify anything. The law isn't a burden on the engineer here, it's a shield. Yes, there are still some scenarios in which management insists. In my limited experience, that's in gray scenarioa where it's arguable whether the law applies. But the point is, it's much easier for an engineer to argue whether the law applies, than whether it is worth the money. I think you can see these effects in the lengths companies go to protect healthcare data (hipaa) vs any other random personal data.
- alexbanks 6y ago
  I guess my point is not that engineers should be exempt from being held accountable for their work, but that engineers are frequently asked to do things incorrectly/poorly/negligently and then assessed by their employers for their willingness to comply. Sure, you can say "Just stand up to your employer", but that's an incredibly dismissive stance on a complicated issue. Yes, you should say no to requirements that are flat out illegal, but is it ever that cut and dry? I'd be surprised to find it was ever that simple.
  - slavik81 6y ago
    According to my engineering professional association, it is that simple. They'd have no qualms stripping me of my license to practice engineering for knowingly approving an unsafe design, regardless of what effect that decision would have had on my financial well-being. The big difference is that companies need professional engineers. Professional approval on certain things is required by law. I'm not sure that would be a good idea for software, but that is what makes the system work for professional engineers.
    - alexbanks 6y ago
      > They'd have no qualms stripping me of my license to practice engineering for knowingly approving an unsafe design Presumably there would be repercussions at the government level if a company repeatedly demanded engineers do things worthy of stripping their licenses though, no?
      - slavik81 6y ago
        This varies by jurisdiction, but perhaps I oversimplified. There is another reason that doesn't happen. The individual engineer doing the work needs a license, but the company itself also needs a permit to practice. The permit must be held by an engineer, who is personally responsible for the engineering that occurs under their permit. So, the permit holder needs to worry not just about their own ethical behaviour, but that of all engineers in the company. They are incentivized to ensure the company will hold the public safety paramount, or to walk away if they cannot (thereby leaving the company without a permit). If the company has a pattern of misbehaviour, it may be difficult to obtain a permit.
        alexbanks 6y ago
        _Exactly_. Tech companies regularly exist purely based off of illegal business models (they call them _Disruptions_). So, yes, we agree, if there are repercussions for a company regularly breaking the law, then engineers can and should refuse work that has negative legal or moral repercussions. But in the world of tech, that's not the case.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    Wait a minute, I thought software engineers were in high demand, with companies fighting over them and opportunities everywhere! At least that's what one out of every 10 HN articles tells me. Surely that demand gives them a little power and agency over their work. I think we are pretending here that these developers have only one option: "Sure, boss! Whatever you say, boss!" I personally believe that you, the software developer typing in the code, should hold yourself personally accountable for what you are typing in. You might also be designing what you type in, or even setting the requirements, but it might be other people. Regardless, you are making the software come into being--you're the one coding it and pushing it to the repo, so you should set the standard of what is acceptable. This "well, boss told me to do it!" rationalization and blame-shifting is how we get dangerous and unethical software. And, yes, I have quit software jobs where I was asked to write software I considered ethically questionable, and failed to change the boss's mind.
    - alexbanks 6y ago
      > I think we are pretending here that these developers have only one option: "Sure, boss! Whatever you say, boss!" No, I am suggesting that there is significantly more grey area between your moral highground and reality. > I personally believe that you, the software developer typing in the code, should hold yourself personally accountable for what you are typing in Yep. > This "well, boss told me to do it!" rationalization and blame-shifting is how we get dangerous and unethical software. It really is a strange world that, when corporations are attempting to turn profit on illegal behavior, it's the meaningless bodies-in-seats that we're trying to hold accountable. I am, and have been, repeatedly, suggesting that the lowest level cannot be held accountable without holding the rest of the levels accountable. Jailing engineers for doing things their companies demanded of them is ridiculous if you're not also jailing those doing the demanding. I'm kind of shocked this isn't painfully obvious. > And, yes, I have quit software jobs where I was asked to write software I considered ethically questionable, and failed to change the boss's mind. Congratulations, that's a level of privilege lots can't afford.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  So this is a reasonable argument, but before we get there, there should be real responsibility placed on the company. Currently, when use data is lost, the companies suffer absolutely no consequences. They have literally no incentive to make sure their system is secure. The equasion should be, for management: "Y will cost us X more than x, but if X is hacked we will get taken to the cleaners" For the actual engineer to be held responsible you would have to add a formalised approval process, so that its clear who signed what off. Inagine you signed off on something, and then changes were made without your knowledge - that much easier to do with software than a bridge.
quicksilver03 6y ago
The engineer should rather reply that the boss would go to jail.
- liability 6y ago
  Better if both would face repercussions, since if only the boss has skin in the game passive introverted engineers will silently follow orders, knowing that they're not personally risking much if they comply but risk losing their jobs if they don't.

> An engineer should be willing to tell his boss "No, because I would go to jail" I guess we just fundamentally don't agree on how power dynamics effect these types of scenarios.

smichel17 6y ago

I agree with the GP, but I also think it is poorly phrased. It's not that the engineers should be willing to say they'd go to jail, it's that they should be able to. Right now, the conversation goes, management: "I want x". Engineer: "X is insecure, we should do y instead". M: "Y will cost us X more than x, and it's never going to matter for us, anyway." This puts the engineer in a position where they need to argue and justify the cost. Compared to "Sorry, I can't do that; it's illegal and I'd go to jail if I did that and was found out." Now the engineer doesn't have to justify anything. The law isn't a burden on the engineer here, it's a shield. Yes, there are still some scenarios in which management insists. In my limited experience, that's in gray scenarioa where it's arguable whether the law applies. But the point is, it's much easier for an engineer to argue whether the law applies, than whether it is worth the money. I think you can see these effects in the lengths companies go to protect healthcare data (hipaa) vs any other random personal data.

alexbanks 6y ago
I guess my point is not that engineers should be exempt from being held accountable for their work, but that engineers are frequently asked to do things incorrectly/poorly/negligently and then assessed by their employers for their willingness to comply. Sure, you can say "Just stand up to your employer", but that's an incredibly dismissive stance on a complicated issue. Yes, you should say no to requirements that are flat out illegal, but is it ever that cut and dry? I'd be surprised to find it was ever that simple.
- slavik81 6y ago
  According to my engineering professional association, it is that simple. They'd have no qualms stripping me of my license to practice engineering for knowingly approving an unsafe design, regardless of what effect that decision would have had on my financial well-being. The big difference is that companies need professional engineers. Professional approval on certain things is required by law. I'm not sure that would be a good idea for software, but that is what makes the system work for professional engineers.
  - alexbanks 6y ago
    > They'd have no qualms stripping me of my license to practice engineering for knowingly approving an unsafe design Presumably there would be repercussions at the government level if a company repeatedly demanded engineers do things worthy of stripping their licenses though, no?
    - slavik81 6y ago
      This varies by jurisdiction, but perhaps I oversimplified. There is another reason that doesn't happen. The individual engineer doing the work needs a license, but the company itself also needs a permit to practice. The permit must be held by an engineer, who is personally responsible for the engineering that occurs under their permit. So, the permit holder needs to worry not just about their own ethical behaviour, but that of all engineers in the company. They are incentivized to ensure the company will hold the public safety paramount, or to walk away if they cannot (thereby leaving the company without a permit). If the company has a pattern of misbehaviour, it may be difficult to obtain a permit.
      - alexbanks 6y ago
        _Exactly_. Tech companies regularly exist purely based off of illegal business models (they call them _Disruptions_). So, yes, we agree, if there are repercussions for a company regularly breaking the law, then engineers can and should refuse work that has negative legal or moral repercussions. But in the world of tech, that's not the case.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  Wait a minute, I thought software engineers were in high demand, with companies fighting over them and opportunities everywhere! At least that's what one out of every 10 HN articles tells me. Surely that demand gives them a little power and agency over their work. I think we are pretending here that these developers have only one option: "Sure, boss! Whatever you say, boss!" I personally believe that you, the software developer typing in the code, should hold yourself personally accountable for what you are typing in. You might also be designing what you type in, or even setting the requirements, but it might be other people. Regardless, you are making the software come into being--you're the one coding it and pushing it to the repo, so you should set the standard of what is acceptable. This "well, boss told me to do it!" rationalization and blame-shifting is how we get dangerous and unethical software. And, yes, I have quit software jobs where I was asked to write software I considered ethically questionable, and failed to change the boss's mind.
  - alexbanks 6y ago
    > I think we are pretending here that these developers have only one option: "Sure, boss! Whatever you say, boss!" No, I am suggesting that there is significantly more grey area between your moral highground and reality. > I personally believe that you, the software developer typing in the code, should hold yourself personally accountable for what you are typing in Yep. > This "well, boss told me to do it!" rationalization and blame-shifting is how we get dangerous and unethical software. It really is a strange world that, when corporations are attempting to turn profit on illegal behavior, it's the meaningless bodies-in-seats that we're trying to hold accountable. I am, and have been, repeatedly, suggesting that the lowest level cannot be held accountable without holding the rest of the levels accountable. Jailing engineers for doing things their companies demanded of them is ridiculous if you're not also jailing those doing the demanding. I'm kind of shocked this isn't painfully obvious. > And, yes, I have quit software jobs where I was asked to write software I considered ethically questionable, and failed to change the boss's mind. Congratulations, that's a level of privilege lots can't afford.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
So this is a reasonable argument, but before we get there, there should be real responsibility placed on the company. Currently, when use data is lost, the companies suffer absolutely no consequences. They have literally no incentive to make sure their system is secure. The equasion should be, for management: "Y will cost us X more than x, but if X is hacked we will get taken to the cleaners" For the actual engineer to be held responsible you would have to add a formalised approval process, so that its clear who signed what off. Inagine you signed off on something, and then changes were made without your knowledge - that much easier to do with software than a bridge.

quicksilver03 6y ago

The engineer should rather reply that the boss would go to jail.

liability 6y ago
Better if both would face repercussions, since if only the boss has skin in the game passive introverted engineers will silently follow orders, knowing that they're not personally risking much if they comply but risk losing their jobs if they don't.