8 ms·

> criminal prosecution Steady now. I don't think you want that.

by bjt2n3904 4y ago

dessant 4y ago
I think it's important to hold people responsible for negligence that causes harm to others, even in the tech industry.
- bjt2n3904 4y ago
  > It's unlikely that actual people weren't hurt because of these bugs. Do you want criminal prosecution for actual harm, or for potential harm? America has this habit of reaching for the biggest gun it has to solve problems, or make a statement. It always backfires.
  - dagmx 4y ago
    Criminal reports for negligence that can cause death are a thing around the world. Pray tell, how would it backfire to make sure emergency services are always available ?
    - freeone3000 4y ago
      They are scared that such standards would then be applied to their work.
      - dagmx 4y ago
        After reading their other comments I think they’re more of the mindset of “regulations mean higher cost and I don’t want to pay more to meet standards I don’t immediately care about“
  - chc 4y ago
    You're speaking in generalities that can hardly even be mapped to the situation at hand. What, specifically, are you saying is the correct recourse here? What are you saying would go wrong if Google were prosecuted for intentionally shipping a nonfunctional emergency feature?
  - hmfrh 4y ago
    > Do you want criminal prosecution for actual harm, or for potential harm? Do you only want DUI to be illegal if it results in an accident?
    - bjt2n3904 4y ago
      Then who do we crucify as a criminal for HeartBleed? Or Spectre? Gosh, the potential harm those could have done!
      - klabb3 4y ago
        Nobody. None of those have any such obvious signs of negligence.
desindol 4y ago
You mean it’s better to cover your devs ass instead of people in an emergency?
Vervious 4y ago
I want that. I think that refusing to fix a life-or-death bug for 8 months is criminally negligent. Especially when millions of Pixel 6s are out in the wild, as an essential utility for millions of people.
libria 4y ago
I don't know the specific law, but FCC does expect a phone to be able to reach 911 (e.g., 911 Act). There must already be a penalizing process or fines in place for manufacturers who fail to meet basic standards. I'm not sure what criminal liability would look like, though. Who do we put in jail? The dev? QA? People who CR'd the bug? The TPM who proposed the feature? The manager who allocated time? The skip who initiated the whole project? Should they share blame and multithread a 7 month sentence together and do 1 month together? I agree w/ you though. My company needs to alert me if any LOC I'm working on could land me in prison and I'll gladly switch projects. I definitely don't want that burden.
- BrianOnHN 4y ago
  Why else are Googlers paid so much? (rhetorical) They need to do their damn job. As a pixel 6 owner, I'm disgusted.
  - sieabahlpark 4y ago
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    I know it was rhetorical but Googlers aren't pad so much because the quality of the SW coming out of Google matches the pay, but because they work for the number one data scraping and advertising company in the world. Yo can have the best leetcoders in the world, but if QA is not part of the company culture, then ...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- bjt2n3904 4y ago
  It's abundantly clear from the replies in this thread that people are thinking emotionally, not rationally. They're pissed off at their phone, and reaching for the biggest stick they can find -- not to fix the problem, but to punish whoever caused it. Likely, they wouldn't even punish the right person, it would just be a scapegoat sacrificed to appease their wrath. Your comment is right on the nose when it comes to thinking rationally, and not emotionally. A smart phone is not like the flight computers on a 747. If you want guaranteed 911 access with the threat of criminal prosecution if it fails, I'll happily design you a device. It will cost $50k, and will have a monthly service fee of $1000 per user. It won't have any other features besides 911. But it will work! People just don't know what they're demanding.
IncandescentGas 4y ago
Why should software companies, developers, product managers and executives remain immune from consequences of willful negligence, when that negligence results in real harm? In college I took an Engineering Ethics class, where we studied engineering mistakes resulting in deaths, and learned about the investigation and prosecution of the engineers involved when there was negligence. The Hyatt Regency walkway collapse in particular will always stay with me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse.
- ok_dad 4y ago
  I especially like the Therac-25 [0] as a good example for software engineers. A literal concurrency bug between the UI and radiation emitter caused at least 6 people to get massive overdoses of radiation. Think about that next time you're using a multi-thread/multi-process library! [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
bdcravens 4y ago
As a developer, I worry about this. However, I also don't work on systems that could cause anyone a level of harm resulting in criminal damage. If I did, I'd like to think I'd increase the care I put into my craft 1000x. I realize that's not doable in many companies, and that's the problem. Too many companies taking the "move fast and break things" attitude towards people's lives and safety. This is how you invite the big foot of government regulation.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  It highly probable that you are incapable of increasing the care you put into your craft by 1000x as you no matter your intentions because there isn't 1000x more of you to give. In anything better processes and consistency beats try harder 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.
  - bdcravens 4y ago
    By care I'm thinking more disciplined approaches and moving very slowly with a significant increase in QA and verification. Most of us, regardless of the framework, time in the industry, or what letter we put in our xDD methodology of choice, are flying by the seat of our pants compared to most disciplines.
- 41b696ef1113 4y ago
  I am reminded of this article [0] on how NASA develops software. For things that absolutely must work, standard development practices do not apply. Real Engineers do not get to leave off testing for the big red emergency shut off button. [0] https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff
sophacles 4y ago
Why not? I like the laws that have been passed to ensure that people are able to contact emergency services. I think enforcing those laws is logical, given that they exist and imho they exist for good reason.

> criminal prosecution Steady now. I don't think you want that.

dessant 4y ago

I think it's important to hold people responsible for negligence that causes harm to others, even in the tech industry.

bjt2n3904 4y ago
> It's unlikely that actual people weren't hurt because of these bugs. Do you want criminal prosecution for actual harm, or for potential harm? America has this habit of reaching for the biggest gun it has to solve problems, or make a statement. It always backfires.
- dagmx 4y ago
  Criminal reports for negligence that can cause death are a thing around the world. Pray tell, how would it backfire to make sure emergency services are always available ?
  - freeone3000 4y ago
    They are scared that such standards would then be applied to their work.
    - dagmx 4y ago
      After reading their other comments I think they’re more of the mindset of “regulations mean higher cost and I don’t want to pay more to meet standards I don’t immediately care about“
- chc 4y ago
  You're speaking in generalities that can hardly even be mapped to the situation at hand. What, specifically, are you saying is the correct recourse here? What are you saying would go wrong if Google were prosecuted for intentionally shipping a nonfunctional emergency feature?
- hmfrh 4y ago
  > Do you want criminal prosecution for actual harm, or for potential harm? Do you only want DUI to be illegal if it results in an accident?
  - bjt2n3904 4y ago
    Then who do we crucify as a criminal for HeartBleed? Or Spectre? Gosh, the potential harm those could have done!
    - klabb3 4y ago
      Nobody. None of those have any such obvious signs of negligence.

desindol 4y ago

You mean it’s better to cover your devs ass instead of people in an emergency?

Vervious 4y ago

I want that. I think that refusing to fix a life-or-death bug for 8 months is criminally negligent. Especially when millions of Pixel 6s are out in the wild, as an essential utility for millions of people.

libria 4y ago

I don't know the specific law, but FCC does expect a phone to be able to reach 911 (e.g., 911 Act). There must already be a penalizing process or fines in place for manufacturers who fail to meet basic standards. I'm not sure what criminal liability would look like, though. Who do we put in jail? The dev? QA? People who CR'd the bug? The TPM who proposed the feature? The manager who allocated time? The skip who initiated the whole project? Should they share blame and multithread a 7 month sentence together and do 1 month together? I agree w/ you though. My company needs to alert me if any LOC I'm working on could land me in prison and I'll gladly switch projects. I definitely don't want that burden.

BrianOnHN 4y ago
Why else are Googlers paid so much? (rhetorical) They need to do their damn job. As a pixel 6 owner, I'm disgusted.
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  I know it was rhetorical but Googlers aren't pad so much because the quality of the SW coming out of Google matches the pay, but because they work for the number one data scraping and advertising company in the world. Yo can have the best leetcoders in the world, but if QA is not part of the company culture, then ...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
bjt2n3904 4y ago
It's abundantly clear from the replies in this thread that people are thinking emotionally, not rationally. They're pissed off at their phone, and reaching for the biggest stick they can find -- not to fix the problem, but to punish whoever caused it. Likely, they wouldn't even punish the right person, it would just be a scapegoat sacrificed to appease their wrath. Your comment is right on the nose when it comes to thinking rationally, and not emotionally. A smart phone is not like the flight computers on a 747. If you want guaranteed 911 access with the threat of criminal prosecution if it fails, I'll happily design you a device. It will cost $50k, and will have a monthly service fee of $1000 per user. It won't have any other features besides 911. But it will work! People just don't know what they're demanding.

IncandescentGas 4y ago

Why should software companies, developers, product managers and executives remain immune from consequences of willful negligence, when that negligence results in real harm? In college I took an Engineering Ethics class, where we studied engineering mistakes resulting in deaths, and learned about the investigation and prosecution of the engineers involved when there was negligence. The Hyatt Regency walkway collapse in particular will always stay with me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse.

ok_dad 4y ago
I especially like the Therac-25 [0] as a good example for software engineers. A literal concurrency bug between the UI and radiation emitter caused at least 6 people to get massive overdoses of radiation. Think about that next time you're using a multi-thread/multi-process library! [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

bdcravens 4y ago

As a developer, I worry about this. However, I also don't work on systems that could cause anyone a level of harm resulting in criminal damage. If I did, I'd like to think I'd increase the care I put into my craft 1000x. I realize that's not doable in many companies, and that's the problem. Too many companies taking the "move fast and break things" attitude towards people's lives and safety. This is how you invite the big foot of government regulation.

michaelmrose 4y ago
It highly probable that you are incapable of increasing the care you put into your craft by 1000x as you no matter your intentions because there isn't 1000x more of you to give. In anything better processes and consistency beats try harder 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.
- bdcravens 4y ago
  By care I'm thinking more disciplined approaches and moving very slowly with a significant increase in QA and verification. Most of us, regardless of the framework, time in the industry, or what letter we put in our xDD methodology of choice, are flying by the seat of our pants compared to most disciplines.
41b696ef1113 4y ago
I am reminded of this article [0] on how NASA develops software. For things that absolutely must work, standard development practices do not apply. Real Engineers do not get to leave off testing for the big red emergency shut off button. [0] https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff

sophacles 4y ago

Why not? I like the laws that have been passed to ensure that people are able to contact emergency services. I think enforcing those laws is logical, given that they exist and imho they exist for good reason.