4 ms·

> You will not find lawyers willing to perjure themselves, accountants to cook your books, or civil engineers happy to sign off on deadly designs. https://www.

> You will not find lawyers willing to perjure themselves, accountants to cook your books, or civil engineers happy to sign off on deadly designs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxe9g0el8epo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxe9g0el8epo https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/practice/general-practice/accountant-jailed-after-defrauding-firm-and-clients-out-of-ps250000 https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/practice/general-practice/ac... https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3406928,00.html https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3406928,00.html

ForHackernews 2y ago
These are noteworthy counterexamples, the exceptions that prove the rules. You will struggle to find any similar news stories for "software engineer jailed for implementing dark patterns"
- jodrellblank 2y ago
  they prove your claim "you won't find this" is wrong. And probably because that's not illegal.
  - ForHackernews 2y ago
    >that's not illegal Unintentionally revealing comment here. Software goons have no concept of professional ethics and will do any terrible thing you pay them to do.
    - jodrellblank 2y ago
      You made 3 claims, all of them easily disproven. When someone else pushed the claim further, immediately disproven. All you have left to your comment is namecalling.
      - ForHackernews 2y ago
        You're being intentionally obtuse and I suspect you understand full well the difference between professionals like accountants, doctors and lawyers (who, yes, on isolated occasions fail to uphold the standards of their profession) and software developers who are not professionals and operate as solo hired guns, absent any widely agreed ethical standards from a community of peers. It's not name-calling, it's a fact of life: If I refuse an instruction from my bosses, I get fired. I'm going to stop here because this is just an exercise in silly faux ignorance on your part.
      - egberts1 2y ago
        Mixing three claims together to assert your "perfection" does not touch the basic fact that "we are human".
OJFord 2y ago
None of these is an example of someone in one of those professions committing malpractice on their employer's instruction.
- jodrellblank 2y ago
  That wasn't part of the parent comment, but okay, here: Tesco finance chiefs accused of cooking the books and bullying the finance employees below them to misconduct themselves: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tesco-fraud-trial-bosses-accused-cooking-the-books-accounting-scandal-chris-bush-carl-rogberg-john-scouler-a7974056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tesco-fraud... “The three defendants who are on trial in this case are not the foot soldiers who misconducted themselves. The defendants in this case are the generals – those who are in positions of trust, and who were paid huge compensation packages in order to safeguard the financial health of Tesco. “These defendants encouraged the manipulation of profits and indeed pressurised others working under their control to misconduct themselves in such a way that the stock market was ultimately misled.”"
  - OJFord 2y ago
    It was at least implied, I thought it was the whole point, because obviously there are malpractising professionals full stop: > [...] ethical obligations above and beyond their obligation to their employer. You will not find lawyers willing [on behalf of their employer] to perjure themselves [...] but based on their response to your the examples, :shrug:.
    - ForHackernews 2y ago
      My point is that [ethical] professionals [who are not committing malpractice] have an obligation to their peers, as embodied in a professional code of ethics that is independent from and supersedes their obligation to their employers. [Many/most ethical] accountants [who are not committing malpractice] will tell their employer, "no, I can't sign off on those fraudulent financial statements," but software developers [as a community, I'm sure someone will pop up with one colorful example] will not tell their employer, "No, I won't run fake bots on the site to inflate our user numbers," or "No, I won't implement this browser fingerprinting to violate our users' privacy." The sibling commenter seems to be willfully misreading this as "all lawyers are ethical"

ForHackernews 2y ago

These are noteworthy counterexamples, the exceptions that prove the rules. You will struggle to find any similar news stories for "software engineer jailed for implementing dark patterns"

jodrellblank 2y ago
they prove your claim "you won't find this" is wrong. And probably because that's not illegal.
- ForHackernews 2y ago
  >that's not illegal Unintentionally revealing comment here. Software goons have no concept of professional ethics and will do any terrible thing you pay them to do.
  - jodrellblank 2y ago
    You made 3 claims, all of them easily disproven. When someone else pushed the claim further, immediately disproven. All you have left to your comment is namecalling.
    - ForHackernews 2y ago
      You're being intentionally obtuse and I suspect you understand full well the difference between professionals like accountants, doctors and lawyers (who, yes, on isolated occasions fail to uphold the standards of their profession) and software developers who are not professionals and operate as solo hired guns, absent any widely agreed ethical standards from a community of peers. It's not name-calling, it's a fact of life: If I refuse an instruction from my bosses, I get fired. I'm going to stop here because this is just an exercise in silly faux ignorance on your part.
    - egberts1 2y ago
      Mixing three claims together to assert your "perfection" does not touch the basic fact that "we are human".

OJFord 2y ago

None of these is an example of someone in one of those professions committing malpractice on their employer's instruction.

jodrellblank 2y ago
That wasn't part of the parent comment, but okay, here: Tesco finance chiefs accused of cooking the books and bullying the finance employees below them to misconduct themselves: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tesco-fraud-trial-bosses-accused-cooking-the-books-accounting-scandal-chris-bush-carl-rogberg-john-scouler-a7974056.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tesco-fraud... “The three defendants who are on trial in this case are not the foot soldiers who misconducted themselves. The defendants in this case are the generals – those who are in positions of trust, and who were paid huge compensation packages in order to safeguard the financial health of Tesco. “These defendants encouraged the manipulation of profits and indeed pressurised others working under their control to misconduct themselves in such a way that the stock market was ultimately misled.”"
- OJFord 2y ago
  It was at least implied, I thought it was the whole point, because obviously there are malpractising professionals full stop: > [...] ethical obligations above and beyond their obligation to their employer. You will not find lawyers willing [on behalf of their employer] to perjure themselves [...] but based on their response to your the examples, :shrug:.
  - ForHackernews 2y ago
    My point is that [ethical] professionals [who are not committing malpractice] have an obligation to their peers, as embodied in a professional code of ethics that is independent from and supersedes their obligation to their employers. [Many/most ethical] accountants [who are not committing malpractice] will tell their employer, "no, I can't sign off on those fraudulent financial statements," but software developers [as a community, I'm sure someone will pop up with one colorful example] will not tell their employer, "No, I won't run fake bots on the site to inflate our user numbers," or "No, I won't implement this browser fingerprinting to violate our users' privacy." The sibling commenter seems to be willfully misreading this as "all lawyers are ethical"