7 ms·

You really want the engineer who was last on the line of decisions to go to jail? Because that’s how this will go.

• WinstonSmith84 2y ago
  Such decisions are way above the pay grade of random engineers
  • onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
    Never forget Kareem Serageldin - the one person who went to jail for the 2007 financial crisis. In fairness, he was an exec making $7M per year - so not a nobody, but he was only managing 70 people (Credit Suisse was a ~50k person company), and obviously not the only person who should've went to jail.
    • sgammon 2y ago
      A systemic failure doesn't necessarily mean that people should go to jail; Kareem lied about the price of bonds and deserved jail time.
      • underlipton 2y ago
        Everyone lied about the price of bonds, that's why our major investment banks still exist (though, I suppose CS doesn't at this point; that's another story).
        • sgammon 2y ago
          What is your point? (1) That others should have gone to jail too, or that (2) Kareem was only doing what everyone else was doing? For (1), were other people prosecuted? Maybe there was insufficient evidence or process issues that got in the way of additional convictions. For (2), how does that excuse a crime? Kareem's story is fascinating for many reasons and I don't find lying about bond prices to be a crime to hate someone over. But, a crime it is, nonetheless.
          • Dylan16807 2y ago
            The point that was made earlier in the thread is definitely 1. If there was insufficient evidence in every other case, then that's a massive systemic problem we need to fix. And I can't think of any "process issue" that would cause this particular outcome other than "massive corruption".
  • lupusreal 2y ago
    Whether to do something you know is morally wrong or refuse and quit is always your pay grade. And don't give me the Yuppie Nuremberg Defense. "I was just following orders... because I've got a mortgage!" That doesn't fly when lives are on the line.
    • tsunamifury 2y ago
      I think people seem to have a very romantic notion that there is some meeting where all the engineers get together and decide whether or not they are going to kill their users or not.
      • bumby 2y ago
        Not to "kill their users" but they realistically have meeting to vote on whether the system is "go/nogo". This is the basic structure of many aerospace designs. If you ever watch a rocket launch, they are literally checking in with every system owner for that decision. Prior to even getting to the launch date, there are meetings where they are checking with the designers for similar decisions. There are good documentaries/movies that show this dramatized in examples like the shuttle Challenger.
        • tsunamifury 2y ago
          Yea and with challenger only one engineer raised the alarm while a large group of well meaning engineers overrode him. This is reality. Decisions aren’t kill/not kill.
          • bumby 2y ago
            Yeah we both agree that the decision isn’t “kill/not kill”. It’s much more ambiguous and murky, especially when dealing with low probability events. That’s why it takes expertise, but it doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be accountability for those “expert” decisions. Other engineering domains already have this, there isnt anything that makes these decision inherently different.
  • phone8675309 2y ago
    No they are not! You are responsible for what you sign off on/seal. If you don't want that responsibility then join another profession.
    • bumby 2y ago
      Importantly here, Boeing doesn’t require licensed engineers because they operate under an industrial exemption.
      • phone8675309 2y ago
        Sounds like it's time for that to go away
  • bumby 2y ago
    They aren’t in these industries. Relatively low-level engineers have the capability (some would say duty) to stop work. Typically, they have a different chain of command for that very reason.
• cptaj 2y ago
  There's a code of ethics for a reason.
• vlan0 2y ago
  I'm sure they can try. But put yourself in the shoes of that engineer. Imagine what would go through your head. My entire MO would be CYA. Every 1on1 conversation, secretly recorded (thank you favorable NY state laws), and a paper trail a mile long. For just this reason.
  • harikb 2y ago
    I don't get what you are trying to say though. If companies can use 'a mile long paper trail', why can't the engineer do the same?. If it turns out they were forced to do X over their own objections (people do have mortgages and need medical coverage), then that manager gets the blame. Seems fair??
    • vlan0 2y ago
      A manager needs to do their own CYA. If they don't, well, that's on them. But you as an individual should only focus on what you can control.
  • creer 2y ago
    CYA emails are not exactly a new concept. Perfectly acceptable from rank and file engineers. And the more senior people you are sending that to - if they are not clueless which does happen - know exactly what this is about. Project documentation also not a new concept. Also acceptable.
• cjbgkagh 2y ago
  Yes! Even as an engineer. I've quit jobs over ethics / safety concerns and I want that pushback to be the norm. When I need to convince other engineers I want to be able to point to such consequences as to why we shouldn't be dangerously cutting corners. And even if you only punish engineers it will decrease the pool of talent / cost effectiveness of workers available to the unscrupulous managers such that cutting corners could very well not be worth the cost. Money saved on cutting corners would be lost in trying to find competent engineers that were willing to cut those corners. Of course I want the entire chain of those involved criminally punished but punishing people anywhere on that chain, even those at the bottom is a start.
  • swozey 2y ago
    You had the privilege of being able to quit the job over ethics / concerns. I'm assuming you didn't wind up homeless with starving children. I have definitely not always had that in my career and many people don't.
    • cjbgkagh 2y ago
      I have ME/CFS which means for most of my life I've barely been able to make enough in the good times to cover the extended bad times. Running out of money for me is basically a death sentence as it would become increasingly impossible to dig my way out of such a hole. Normal people at their worst could probably stack shelves or wash dishes for a living but that option is not available to me. I'm better at managing my condition now but at the time I quit jobs for ethical reasons I did so knowing that if I didn't find something else quickly then I would eh. end up taking a long walk on a short pier. To make matters worse I'm highly noise intolerant and have to spend more money to live in quieter places otherwise my already precarious health would rapidly deteriorate. As engineers we are often responsible for the creation of assets more valuable than ourselves and I think it's an essential part of the job to put our lives on the line in much the same way an airplane passenger does. And as engineers we are often also airplane passengers ourselves and must trust that other engineers that they too have put our safety ahead of their personal wellbeing. As the middle class is crushed then sure, such ethical boundaries will fade out of necessity, and I see this as part of a descent into a low trust society and why I expect more planes to fall out of the sky, both metaphorically and literally. Once a culture tolerates such flexible ethics the boundaries will continue being pushed - there isn't a lower bound. This corruption inhibits the creation of valuable assets and will result in a massive erosion of our standard of living. An often touted solution is Universal basic income (UBI) that would create a safety-net for engineers and those with my type of disability - but having experienced constant gaslighting on ME/CFS from doctors informed by state funded research and given the expansion of Canadian MAID style solutions to people like myself I'm very fortunate that the capitalists opportunities existed such that I did not have to rely on state 'care'.
• mejutoco 2y ago
  > it would be great for people behind this to be directly tried for their criminal actions as well. How did you jump to engineering directly from this sentence?
• quasse 2y ago
  Yes. This might be unfamiliar to software engineers, but there's a reason mechanical engineering and architecture (there might be more, but these are the ones I'm familiar with) schools put students through at least a semester of ethics classes. We are literally the last line of defense in a lot of industries. From the first line of the ASME code of ethics: > Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties. If you can't do that, you should be in another field. Maybe software engineering at Meta would be a better fit.
  • tsunamifury 2y ago
    This is a noble goal but unrealistic and unfair at scale. Also it belays just a wildly unrealistic understanding of how risk distribution works in corporations. It’s as if in your mind one engineer makes the singular call and sees the entire picture of the project and its risks. Where as more likely a downstream worker who very likely had an incomplete picture will be blamed. Also the personal insult is not needed. It just makes you out to be an ass rather than someone making a point. Consider your romantic notions might not be realistic.
    • sho_hn 2y ago
      I didn't read it as a "personal insult". It's true that most software engineers never work on safety-critical systems. The nature of the products they work on, or the nature of their contributions to those products, limits the possible impact of flaws and mistakes. Once you work on a product with safety-critical features and/or become responsible for one, there really is a marked psychological change that takes place. I've lived through that change in my own career, and many comments (including some I've written, I'm sure) now strike me as callous and trivializing important matters to an extent that grates. It's important to hold engineers accountable for their work in proportion to their impact, which is typically very significant. If you build machines that can kill, stakes should exist for you as well.
    • FrojoS 2y ago
      To the contrary, there is usually _several_ engineers who see the ethical/safety problems and talk about them with colleagues. They just don't report it to the right authorities.
• sgammon 2y ago
  Yes. Absolutely.
• bumby 2y ago
  Professionally licensed engineers are required to take an oath to protect the public. What many don't realize is that manufacturers like Boeing operate under a licensing exemption, on the assumption that business and manufacturing processes are sufficient to protect the public. In cases like this, there is a case that is insufficient. There has been a movement in some states to remove the manufacturing exemption, in which case the cognizant engineer would bear the responsibility. The optimistic view is that this will help balance the power between the engineer and the C-suite. The cynical view is that this will allow the C-suite to push responsibility down to the engineer.