Until it is the CEO..CTO..and vc that is standing under the bridge...nothing will change.
Executing Software Engineers for Bugs
21–30 of 89 posts
Re: Executing Software Engineers for Bugs
#22Those of you with a membership in ACM or IEEE, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on why you do. Those of you who don't, would you consider pledging yourself to a code of ethics if they met your requirements? What would those requirements be?
My ethics are my own. I see no reason to make a public spectacle out of it one way or another.
Re: Executing Software Engineers for Bugs
#23>But making the leap from that to "my code can't harm people" is a bridge too far.
Meh. My application is an internal app for a large company. It's basically scheduling software for a part of our business process. To even start to hack it you'd first have to break into the corporate network, and in the end you'd have data you didn't care about. Hell, I'm not even sure the people who use it care.
Worst case, a subtle bug (and it would have to be subtle for my users to miss it) might cost my employer a few thousand bucks.
Again, meh. There are a whole lot of internal applications that fall into this category.
Re: Executing Software Engineers for Bugs
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it meant having a job or not, sure I guess.
What if sticking to it meant that you'd have to resign? A code of ethics that you have to sign for work is one thing. A code of ethics that you hold above employment is quite another.
Programmers are well-paid and have excellent employment prospects. In the off chance I did encounter an unresolvable ethical issue, it would not be very hard to resign and find new employment elsewhere. Given how much better off I am than most other workers in this country, I think it's a small sacrifice.
To address the thread topic, I'm a P.Eng, ACM member, and IEEE member.
Re: Executing Software Engineers for Bugs
#25When people bring up a code of ethics, actuaries seem to come up a lot because they can potentially lose their license for mis-evaluating risks, but anecdotally what I've heard is that in reality if your boss asks you to sign off on something, and you refuse they'll find someone else to sign off on it and just label you as not a team player. At which point you've harmed your career and had no real impact. I bring thi…
A code of ethics is only one blade of the scissors. For it to cut anything, you need the other: a professional association that acts in unison to back up members who put their necks out like this and ensure they're taken care of, and that the unethical comapany's talent pool dries up.
Re: Executing Software Engineers for Bugs
#26When people bring up a code of ethics, actuaries seem to come up a lot because they can potentially lose their license for mis-evaluating risks, but anecdotally what I've heard is that in reality if your boss asks you to sign off on something, and you refuse they'll find someone else to sign off on it and just label you as not a team player. At which point you've harmed your career and had no real impact. I bring thi…
That's true. Is there a value to refusing to do work, even though it might not be able to stop something from being built in spite of it? If you know, a priori, refusing to work on something you consider to be unethical will have /zero/ effect on the overall project, but negatively affect you, is it then ethical to do the work, or are you required to fall on your sword?
You can draw parallels to the people who worked for the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. Was it unethical to follow orders to round up Jews and others for near certain death, if you knew you would be severely punished if you disobeyed? At the same time you know that if you refuse, the next guy won't. So why fall on your own sword?
I think a lot of people flippantly say they would refuse the order, but it's easy to say that when it's not your neck on the line.
Truly a deep moral dilemma.
Re: Executing Software Engineers for Bugs
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if sticking to it meant that you'd have to resign? A code of ethics that you have to sign for work is one thing. A code of ethics that you hold above employment is quite another.
Programmers are well-paid and have excellent employment prospects. In the off chance I did encounter an unresolvable ethical issue, it would not be very hard to resign and find new employment elsewhere. Given how much better off I am than most other workers in this country, I think it's a small sacrifice. To address the thread topic, I'm a P.Eng, ACM member, and IEEE member.
Are you a P.Eng in software, or something else? (I know there are only a few places in the United States where you can even challenge the PE exam as a software engineer).
Re: Executing Software Engineers for Bugs
#28We can write software like this. The reason why we don't has been explained many times: It's too expensive, by many orders of magnitude.
This is simply false. True systemic quality will lower costs, speed production, and increase value all at once. The reason is that, beyond a certain organizational complexity, we fail at creating the systems necessary to create the positive feedback loops necessary for quality, low cost, and fast execution to flourish naturally. Instead, we live in dysfunctional organizations where the tradeoffs prevail, and we choos…
You've stated that it's not more expensive. But everyone in the industry knows otherwise. Unless you can produce some evidence to the contrary, I'm going to insist it's you who is incorrect here.
Re: Executing Software Engineers for Bugs
#29We can write software like this. The reason why we don't has been explained many times: It's too expensive, by many orders of magnitude.
I don't mean to say that all code has to be bug free; certainly, I hope the life-safety critical code is. But I think we, as hackers and software engineers, need to consider the ramifications that bugs can have, and then making the decision based on that balance of risk. Take an anonymous currency system, for example. Handwave away whether or not that it's actually possible to build one -- let's say you have a way to…
I've thought about this one a lot: Yes. Definitely.
"What about child porn?" We have that already; not having anonymous cash won't stop it. "What about tax fraud?" Pressuring governments to re-think corrupt, unbalanced tax systems might be a very great good. And so on. I have no question that it would be ultimately better to have this than not, although governments (forever forgetting who is really in charge) don't like it.
Re: Executing Software Engineers for Bugs
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Programmers are well-paid and have excellent employment prospects. In the off chance I did encounter an unresolvable ethical issue, it would not be very hard to resign and find new employment elsewhere. Given how much better off I am than most other workers in this country, I think it's a small sacrifice. To address the thread topic, I'm a P.Eng, ACM member, and IEEE member.
Are you a P.Eng in software, or something else? (I know there are only a few places in the United States where you can even challenge the PE exam as a software engineer).
I'm a Canadian. My degree is electrical, but my field of practice is software engineering.