3 ms·

In a frictionless ethical vacuum, I think it's pretty clear that knowingly contributing to shipping any severe defect in any product people rely on (or can be r

In a frictionless ethical vacuum, I think it's pretty clear that knowingly contributing to shipping any severe defect in any product people rely on (or can be reasonably anticipated to rely on) is wrong. It's an engineer's responsibility to society to ensure that the products they work on function and do not cause harm. Software with vulnerabilities is defective and affords the opportunity for harm, in a not too dissimilar way to a faulty airbag (if you ignore the magnitude of the harm being done, obviously a malfunctioning airbag is generally more dangerous). Your boss's knowledge factors into it in that it is relevant to your forming a professional opinion about whether those conditions are met. Outside of frictionless ethical vacuums there can be many confounding factors, eg, if making an issue of it would put you at risk of being fired and not being able to fulfill responsibilities to your household, then I think it is okay to take that into consideration, especially if you've made your views known & thus given your boss the opportunity to course correct. ETA: Reminds me of this conversation a week ago about coming up with a professional code of ethics for software engineers. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33805884 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33805884

dysarray 4y ago
I think the engineer's responsibility to society should always come first. If your boss is knowingly shipping a severe defect and your efforts to communicate your views on the matter to them have been met with ignorance or refusal to take action, then it is your ethical duty to take whatever steps are necessary in order to prevent harm being caused to society from the defect. This might include, for example, going over their head and raising the issue with upper management, or taking the issue to external organisations.
- maxbond 4y ago
  I don't really disagree with anything you said, but I do think ethical principles have priority and that higher priority principles can override lower priority principles. Some people are simply not in a position to uphold their principles, and I don't think there's shame in that; if anyone is at fault, it's the people who put them in a position to make that choice. Our first duty is always to the survival of ourselves and those around us. Of course, if you're working on a system that can put lives in jeopardy - which may not be an artificial heart or something obviously critical to life like that, it may just mean a social networking app used in countries suffering from authoritarianism - then it's possible to come into a very sticky conflict.

dysarray 4y ago

I think the engineer's responsibility to society should always come first. If your boss is knowingly shipping a severe defect and your efforts to communicate your views on the matter to them have been met with ignorance or refusal to take action, then it is your ethical duty to take whatever steps are necessary in order to prevent harm being caused to society from the defect. This might include, for example, going over their head and raising the issue with upper management, or taking the issue to external organisations.

maxbond 4y ago
I don't really disagree with anything you said, but I do think ethical principles have priority and that higher priority principles can override lower priority principles. Some people are simply not in a position to uphold their principles, and I don't think there's shame in that; if anyone is at fault, it's the people who put them in a position to make that choice. Our first duty is always to the survival of ourselves and those around us. Of course, if you're working on a system that can put lives in jeopardy - which may not be an artificial heart or something obviously critical to life like that, it may just mean a social networking app used in countries suffering from authoritarianism - then it's possible to come into a very sticky conflict.