3 ms·

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37536361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37536361 That would be a wild ride!

• hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Wow, that was a really sad read. I can only believe that this occurred because software "engineering" doesn't actually have standards and licensing to ensure a minimum level of competence. I'd be willing to bet a civil engineer would be a hell of a lot less likely to forward a clearly falsified report if they knew their license was on the line and that they were exposing themselves to legal jeopardy.
  • ryandrake 3y ago
    HN is often very hostile when you bring up certification or even applying a bare minimum standard for proficiency and ethics to the profession. That stackoverflow question is one of the reasons why we need these standards and training. If the SO-OP had the ethical training and foundation that came with licensing, and faced the risk of license revocation, he would have easily made the right decision to not lie. Honestly I couldn't believe what I was reading. How did OP even remotely rationalize his decision?
    • hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      > How did OP even remotely rationalize his decision? That's not hard for me to understand, because they basically explained it in their SO post. They thought that since they clearly explained to their director that the statement "we ran a pen test" was false, in writing, that they essentially "transferred" any liability to their director. To clarify, that line of thinking is wrong, but I can understand where it came from. That's why ethical training for software engineers is important, so that it's unambiguous that people were at least taught where the clear line exists, and if they go over that line it's because they chose to, not because they didn't understand where the line was.