4 ms·

The code of ethics would need to be absolute, enforceable, unambiguous (without lawyers to interpret), and universal to really eliminate these activities.

baobun 1y ago
If you are to be found in violation by DAO jury vote, you will be blocked from all private torrent trackers and usenet groups (we just have to make sure all of them mods are onboard mkay), with threat of ban for repeat offenders. You may also find your support tickets everywhere languishing and x months of CAPTCHA-hell on every website.
pjc50 1y ago
You can never make these kinds of things unambiguous. People are really creative about inventing interpretations to make things ambiguous in their favor, and rule systems are really complex. More to the point is trying to be an ethical island in an unethical society, You'd have to deal with constant attacks from the "anti-woke" crowd.
criddell 1y ago
Software engineering could become a real profession with licensing like mechanical, electrical, chemical, civil, and other engineering professions. If you do something unethical, you could be sued for malpractice and lose your license to practice. The code of ethics for Professional Engineers works even though it isn’t any of the things you say are necessary.
- thyristan 1y ago
  Professional Engineers signed off on on broken dams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brumadinho_dam_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brumadinho_dam_disaster ), leaking chemical plants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster ), exploding reactors and how (not) to operate them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster ) and "high enough" sea walls (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident ). There are a ton more examples. All highly unethical, most of the responsible engineers got away scot-free. Licensed professions only serve to increase the scarcity of licensed professionals, drive up the price and thereby form an economic cartel. Neither does it prevent any of the aforementioned disasters, nor are the responsible professionals held liable. "Licensed professionals" is one of those myths in software engineering cycles that won't die. A license won't make anyone competent. It will, however, provide them with an excuse to charge more, do less and ascribe any fuckups to "must be something else wrong, I did everything to board standards"...
  - criddell 1y ago
    In the Brumadinho case, five engineers were arrested and charged and jailed. They are out of jail and a criminal case is ongoing. In the Bhopal disaster, seven engineers and executives were convicted of causing death by negligence and give the maximum penalty (which was pretty weak). The Chernobyl incident led to Anatoly Dyatlov to be jailed and getting a 10-year sentence. For Fukushima, some people were charged with professional negligence causing death but they beat the charges in court. Licensing will not make anybody competent. But it can help keep incompetent people out of our field. When Engineers screw up, their malpractice insurance may get too expensive for them to continue to work in the field. When management asks for something unethical, it gives a pretty good reason for pushing back.
  - WorldMaker 1y ago
    That's a weird set of anecdotes you've chosen. The first half of those incidents are in fact the opposite of what you seem to be complaining about: finding the Professional Engineers that signed off on the mistakes in the project is hard to do because they happened in countries that failed to regulate Professional Engineering licenses. The Chernobyl disaster is an operation mistake, which a Professional Engineer may have signed the process for operation, but an operational failure to follow process is not the Professional Engineer's fault. Sure, a professional will try to narrow processes to be as fool-proof as possible, but you can't entirely blame a professional that the planet is capable of generating far more fools than you can plan for. The Fukushima disaster actually shows Professional Engineering consequences with multiple engineering groups doing analysis and investigations of what went wrong and whether or not to indict Professional Engineers involved in the construction. None of those moved to such indictments, but it was investigated at length. Three of the executives of the company were indicted as a part of those investigations (and then were judged "not guilty" in a Japanese court of law). "Licensed professionals" is not a myth. A license isn't about making anyone competent, it is about applying consequence when they aren't. It's also about having your back when you are worried about possible consequences. "I can't do that because I would lose my license" is a threat companies have to take seriously. If your company wants to force you to pursue it anyway, you can take the issue to the Ethics Committee at your licensing board/professional organization and they can help you examine the legal, ethical, and moral implications in a way that could result in consequences to your company. If all of that is documented and the company still does it anyway it is easier to get legal consequences applied to company executives, such as real, deserved jail time.
array_key_first 1y ago
I don't think it needs to be (it isn't for anything else), and I also don't think it needs to eliminate all activies (it doesn't for anything else). But right now we have nothing. Surely, something is better than nothing. We can't have nothing and already be out of ideas.
Spivak 1y ago
Which is why I think the ACM's code of ethics is good for someone looking to be introspective about right and wrong but would be terrible as the basis for a legal code of ethics. The scope would necessarily be narrower and "permit" more unethical behavior but for violations to be enforced by peers it has to survive the eventual "oh you're making a big fuss over nothing, you won't lose your license" problem.

baobun 1y ago

If you are to be found in violation by DAO jury vote, you will be blocked from all private torrent trackers and usenet groups (we just have to make sure all of them mods are onboard mkay), with threat of ban for repeat offenders. You may also find your support tickets everywhere languishing and x months of CAPTCHA-hell on every website.

pjc50 1y ago

You can never make these kinds of things unambiguous. People are really creative about inventing interpretations to make things ambiguous in their favor, and rule systems are really complex. More to the point is trying to be an ethical island in an unethical society, You'd have to deal with constant attacks from the "anti-woke" crowd.

criddell 1y ago

Software engineering could become a real profession with licensing like mechanical, electrical, chemical, civil, and other engineering professions. If you do something unethical, you could be sued for malpractice and lose your license to practice. The code of ethics for Professional Engineers works even though it isn’t any of the things you say are necessary.

thyristan 1y ago
Professional Engineers signed off on on broken dams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brumadinho_dam_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brumadinho_dam_disaster ), leaking chemical plants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster ), exploding reactors and how (not) to operate them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster ) and "high enough" sea walls (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident ). There are a ton more examples. All highly unethical, most of the responsible engineers got away scot-free. Licensed professions only serve to increase the scarcity of licensed professionals, drive up the price and thereby form an economic cartel. Neither does it prevent any of the aforementioned disasters, nor are the responsible professionals held liable. "Licensed professionals" is one of those myths in software engineering cycles that won't die. A license won't make anyone competent. It will, however, provide them with an excuse to charge more, do less and ascribe any fuckups to "must be something else wrong, I did everything to board standards"...
- criddell 1y ago
  In the Brumadinho case, five engineers were arrested and charged and jailed. They are out of jail and a criminal case is ongoing. In the Bhopal disaster, seven engineers and executives were convicted of causing death by negligence and give the maximum penalty (which was pretty weak). The Chernobyl incident led to Anatoly Dyatlov to be jailed and getting a 10-year sentence. For Fukushima, some people were charged with professional negligence causing death but they beat the charges in court. Licensing will not make anybody competent. But it can help keep incompetent people out of our field. When Engineers screw up, their malpractice insurance may get too expensive for them to continue to work in the field. When management asks for something unethical, it gives a pretty good reason for pushing back.
- WorldMaker 1y ago
  That's a weird set of anecdotes you've chosen. The first half of those incidents are in fact the opposite of what you seem to be complaining about: finding the Professional Engineers that signed off on the mistakes in the project is hard to do because they happened in countries that failed to regulate Professional Engineering licenses. The Chernobyl disaster is an operation mistake, which a Professional Engineer may have signed the process for operation, but an operational failure to follow process is not the Professional Engineer's fault. Sure, a professional will try to narrow processes to be as fool-proof as possible, but you can't entirely blame a professional that the planet is capable of generating far more fools than you can plan for. The Fukushima disaster actually shows Professional Engineering consequences with multiple engineering groups doing analysis and investigations of what went wrong and whether or not to indict Professional Engineers involved in the construction. None of those moved to such indictments, but it was investigated at length. Three of the executives of the company were indicted as a part of those investigations (and then were judged "not guilty" in a Japanese court of law). "Licensed professionals" is not a myth. A license isn't about making anyone competent, it is about applying consequence when they aren't. It's also about having your back when you are worried about possible consequences. "I can't do that because I would lose my license" is a threat companies have to take seriously. If your company wants to force you to pursue it anyway, you can take the issue to the Ethics Committee at your licensing board/professional organization and they can help you examine the legal, ethical, and moral implications in a way that could result in consequences to your company. If all of that is documented and the company still does it anyway it is easier to get legal consequences applied to company executives, such as real, deserved jail time.

array_key_first 1y ago

I don't think it needs to be (it isn't for anything else), and I also don't think it needs to eliminate all activies (it doesn't for anything else). But right now we have nothing. Surely, something is better than nothing. We can't have nothing and already be out of ideas.

Spivak 1y ago

Which is why I think the ACM's code of ethics is good for someone looking to be introspective about right and wrong but would be terrible as the basis for a legal code of ethics. The scope would necessarily be narrower and "permit" more unethical behavior but for violations to be enforced by peers it has to survive the eventual "oh you're making a big fuss over nothing, you won't lose your license" problem.