3 ms·
That first point could be a case for a code of ethics, not against one. Right now decision makers tell you to build the thing, and you speak up saying that see
by ianhorn 6y ago
That first point could be a case for a code of ethics, not against one.
Right now decision makers tell you to build the thing, and you speak up saying that seems sketchy, but you both don’t know what the people who don’t speak up think. You are told to conform or leave.
With a code of ethics, they tell you to build the thing and you say it’s against your industry’s code of ethics, and you both know that applies to everyone. They can’t tell you to change your profession’s code of ethics, so you have a stronger position.
- hprotagonist 6y ago>That first point could be a case for a code of ethics, not against one. It is most loudly a case for a union. But if you don't like that word, how about an AMA-like or state bar like association to which you pay dues, are subject to ethical review, and where sanction impacts your right to work? Doctors and lawyers self-regulate in this way to our great collective benefit.
- ThrowawayR2 6y agoWell, anyone who is a member of a professional society (ACM, IEEE, etc.) or has a professional certification (PMI's PMP certification) has already agreed to abide by their respective Codes of Ethics by virtue of being an accredited member. In theory, people can be stripped of their membership or certification if it's reported although I doubt that ever happens in practice.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 6y agoOne interesting thing that pops up though is the famous oracle vs google thing. Google copied the interfaces and the thing is ongoing. How can you make an oath when "copying might be fraud, but maybe not" it's a thing?