4 ms·
> it'll be sad to lose that People will still be able to learn how to program and actually program. But if they take money or deal with people's private inform
by rswail 2y ago
> it'll be sad to lose that
People will still be able to learn how to program and actually program. But if they take money or deal with people's private information, then they'll need to comply with the standards that will be regulated.
I think we need to start thinking of an individual's persona which includes all the information about them that is online or in government (non secret) files.
That needs to be considered when designing regarding regulations for software that interacts with someone's persona.
So anyone can set up the equivalent of an art stand in the park (serving cat pics), but if they start either selling cat pics or selling advertising that relies on collecting information about the personas on the site, then that needs to be regulated.
- RHSeeger 2y ago> People will still be able to learn how to program and actually program. But if they take money or deal with people's private information, then they'll need to comply with the standards that will be regulated. You can even have non-licensed people doing work, and a licensed individual signing off on the end result. They would need to review the designs and work to make sure they agree with how the work was done, because it's their license on the line if something goes wrong because of bad craftsmanship.
- oersted 2y agoIt doesn't need to be too dramatic. It's already a general rule never to write your own cryptographic or financial code from scratch, you reach out for established libraries or services written by experts. The law may require to use the ones that are certified if you are doing something sensitive. It doesn't need to be universal necessarily, but it should apply to public tenders for critical infrastructure at least.
- maxwell 2y agoYou want some government mandating your dependencies...?
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoYes. Legally mandated supply requirements have been an element in every other engineering sector for decades or centuries. If you're building an airplane you can't purchase from any random aluminum supplier, there's an authorized list.
- maxwell 2y agoThat would seem to result in industry consolidation and declining innovation. Software isn't made of physical materials anyway, it's speech. How about instead we impose open source requirements to enable public verification of critical systems?
- gorft 2y agoInnovation like calculating numbers incorrectly and getting people sent to jail? Or maybe just another hundred slow, rent-seeking React web apps that'll disappear when the series B money dries up, if we're lucky. We must have different ideas of what innovation is.
- gizmo686 2y agoSo, outsource the core government function of regulation to "the public". Who exactly do you imagine is going to actually do this public verification, and where is their paycheck going to come from. Some software is critical infrastructure and needs to be treated as such. We are not special. Every other engineering discipline has gone through this same process as and arrived at the inevitable conclusion that government regulation is essential, but only after causing unthinkable damage to the public first
- exe34 2y agosoftware "engineers" love the cachet but hate the idea that they might also have to uphold the values and responsibilities of engineering. I say we regulate the word engineer the same way it is in many countries for real engineering. if you don't want to progress beyond code monkey, you can be a software developer and innovate yet another react clone. if you want to be called an engineer, you learn and follow the regulations.
- agentultra 2y agoI think it needs to be on the individual-liability level. Blessing implementations from corporations is an environment for monopolies to grow and corruption to set in.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]