Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

oregonlive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 309 posts

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#281

Post by subway »

logifail wrote: post #278
daveFNbuck wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue here is probably more that software engineering isn't considered to be engineering in Canada. If a notable historian from a country where they call historians engineers came to the country to speak, people probably would get uptight about that.

>> The issue here is probably more that software engineering isn't considered to be engineering in Canada By whom? Canadian software engineers, other types of Canadian engineers, or by some professional engineering body that's trying to protect their profession?

By the legislative bodies in the provinces and territories. For instance in BC: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/9611...

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#282

Post by eigenvector »

Nimitz14 wrote: post #204
grecy wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I studied a degree called "Software Engineering" and am acredited by the Australian Institute of Engineers (the first, and AFAIK, only, Software degree that is certified). Working in Canada where my degree was not certified, all the PEng people would get seriously uptight if I even said "I studied Engineering" or "I have a bachelor of Engineering".

A PEng is waay more work and implies way more experience and knowledge that someone who's just done a Bachelor. I can understand their annoyance.

There are plenty of people with PEng licenses that have never done a day of fundamental engineering work in their life (e.g. people doing project management or technical sales). These people usually know what they don't know, and won't try to - for instance - sign off on the plans for a steam turbine, so they are largely harmless. If you work at a large technical company, getting your PEng can be mostly a form of credentialing that your employer pays for and may come with a small pay increase. Lots of companies that employ PEngs (and indeed demand the credential) don't actually do any engineering work - only management of engineering work by contractors - so there's no way for their employees to properly build their capabilities as engineers.

It would annoy me if someone without any engineering education or experience tried to pass themselves off as an engineer in a way that exaggerated their competence, but if a guy from Iran with 20 years solid experience as an engineer who hasn't yet jumped through the excessively many hoops to obtain a PEng in Canada wants to write "engineer" in his email signature, that's fine with me. It's the term that best represents his competencies. The only limitation is that he won't be able to take responsibility for plans or designs without an actual license.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#283

Post by alphakilo »

subway wrote: post #281
logifail wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The issue here is probably more that software engineering isn't considered to be engineering in Canada By whom? Canadian software engineers, other types of Canadian engineers, or by some professional engineering body that's trying to protect their profession?

By the legislative bodies in the provinces and territories. For instance in BC: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/9611...

I am actually a Software Engineering Undergraduate Student in Canada. We are real engineers! We get licenced the same way through graduating from an accredited program, getting the 4 years of experience and writing an ethics exam.

In Canada engineer is like lawyer. You can specialize in a certain part of law (e.g. patent, corporate, criminal). just like you specialize in certain fields (e.g. aerospace, mechanical, geomagnetic, biomed). What matters in both cases is being given a license.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#284

Post by eigenvector »

imgabe wrote: post #131
Gibbon1 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I had a discussion about this my put was that licensing is an archaic way of doing things. In short the idea is we trust the PE's signature that everything is copacetic. In more modern fields like automotive, aerospace and software engineering that idea is laughable. Everything is about process, audit and testing.

It all comes down to insurance. If your building collapses, the insurance company will want to know if you did every reasonable thing possible to prevent it before they pay out on your policy. One of those things is making sure that the person who designed the building knew what they were doing, i.e. were they a licensed engineer. I think most product companies are essentially self-insured. If Ford releases the Pinto…

Many places have an exemption for manufactured goods that are subject to testing. So for instance, a device doesn't have to be designed by a licensed engineer if it meets and is verified by testing to meet CSA standards.

But if you want to use something that's not CSA, then it does need to be reviewed and signed off by an engineer.

A home's electrical design doesn't have to be signed off by an engineer, but it has to meet code and be inspected.

If it doesn't meet code and you want an exemption (for instance because you are doing something that wasn't anticipated by the code), then you need an engineer to sign off confirming that what you're doing is safe and truly requires an exemption.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#285

Post by eigenvector »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #103
eigenvector wrote: post #32

As a licensed professional engineer, I find the effort exerted by various state and provincial licensing bodies to regulate the use of the term 'engineer' a bit tiresome. Yes, it's important to regulate the practice of engineering, but unlike some other types of professionals engineers rarely if ever offer their services to Joe Public. It's not like we have guys putting up billboards on the side of the highway advert…

Last time I had a discussion about this my put was that licensing is an archaic way of doing things. In short the idea is we trust the PE's signature that everything is copacetic. In more modern fields like automotive, aerospace and software engineering that idea is laughable. Everything is about process, audit and testing.

I can only speak for the area where I am licensed - British Columbia - but the presence of a professional engineer's seal on something should mean more than "this person thinks it's OK". It is supposed to mean:

1. This person has performed the work that went into this plan/design/report or, if someone else performed it, the signing person carefully verified every important aspect of the work

2. If they used software to perform calculations, they have designed a reasonable method to check and verify the output of that software, either by using selected hand-calculations or comparing to another, independent, software system

3. They have employed a quality assurance process that is suitable for the type of work being done, which may include peer review, non destructive testing, testing to failure of a sample, etc.

4. If field work is being sealed, the PEng has personally verified the field work, or provided detailed specifications for another qualified person to do quality assurance on the field work

Now whether most PEngs really follow these "best practices" is an entirely different story. And yes, for fields that often involve very complex systems, the idea of any one single person meeting the quality management guidelines to place a professional seal on, say, an entire 787 aircraft, doesn't make sense. And when those systems also have life safety implications, it makes sense to test rigorously wherever possible.

In many fields, professional engineers are effectively delegated the authority of government under a system known as "professional reliance". Rather than the city government hiring hundreds of people to review the plans of every building, they simply require developers to have a professional engineer certify that the plans meet the building code. This strikes a balance between the city having to review everything (and the associated increase in costs), and the developer being able to tick the box saying everything is fine with no real accountability beyond their numbered company that is owned by another numbered company in the Cayman Islands.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#286

Post by erikpukinskis »

logifail wrote: post #279
erikpukinskis wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the things you listed would seem to indicate anything about your ability to employ a rigorous approach to software development equivalent to what a credentialed civil engineer does with roads. A civil engineer is not credentialed because they took physics and DiffEq. They are that because their field has defined a body of knowledge and rigor that has been shown to adequately protect the public within a narrow…

>> ability to employ a rigorous approach to software development equivalent to what a credentialed civil engineer does with roads Q: Are there many software engineers who build poor-quality roads in their spare time?

Sure, yes. What relevance is that?

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#287

Post by eigenvector »

rapind wrote: post #149
eigenvector wrote: post #32

As a licensed professional engineer, I find the effort exerted by various state and provincial licensing bodies to regulate the use of the term 'engineer' a bit tiresome. Yes, it's important to regulate the practice of engineering, but unlike some other types of professionals engineers rarely if ever offer their services to Joe Public. It's not like we have guys putting up billboards on the side of the highway advert…

Aren't you forgetting liability? It's not exactly in the PEs interest to sign off on shoddy work as they can be found liable if it does hit the fan. And the consequences could be pretty severe.

At least where I am, for an engineer to be held liable their conduct needs to meet the standard of negligence. And realistically, enforcement action only commences when the consequences are catastrophic: someone loses their life or severe property damage occurs.

The work merely being of poor quality is almost never going to give rise to enforcement action. If you design a crappy drainage system for a road and it double the owner's maintenance expenses because it keeps washing out, you aren't going to get sued.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#288

Post by loeg »

hodgesrm wrote: post #128
loeg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure — but I think the original argument — that the pilot's union has artificially kept pay relatively high — is valid. Truck drivers have a very similar job but worse compensation (especially comparing senior workers).

With all due respect to the folks who drive 18-wheelers, flying a passenger aircraft and operating a truck require very different levels of training. Relatively small mistakes in operating an aircraft can have very serious consequences for large numbers of passengers. Example: crew reacted incorrectly to autopilot problems following pitot tube obstruction by ice on AF 447 and stalled the aircraft, leading to death of…

Many pilots fly freight — passenger aircraft pilots are a subset of all pilots. And passenger aircraft incidents are exceedingly rare, although I agree individual pilots can have outsized impacts on lives in passenger applications.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#289

Post by TheCoelacanth »

Ice_cream_suit wrote: post #171

Surely laws regarding who can call themselves A Federal Judge violate free speech too...

No, because the ruling didn't say that they can't have any regulation of the term "engineer", just that their regulations were too broad. They are allowed to regulate "professional engineer" or regulate using "engineer" in specific commercial contexts, but they can't just prevent someone from calling themself an engineer regardless of context.

A law saying that you can't refer to yourself as a "judge" would almost certainly also be unconstitutional, but a law saying that you can't present yourself as a Federal judge is probably specific enough to pass muster.

Re: Federal judge finds state law governing who is an engineer violates free speech

#290

Post by eesmith »

anjbe wrote: post #185
eesmith wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Flag code is a law but it is not enforced by violence. It is purely voluntary law.

Yes, but only because the Supreme Court ruled that there’s no way to enforce the Flag Code without violating the First Amendment, a part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. That’s not the usual case for laws that are on the books.

Thank you for agreeing with me that cabaalis' statement that "all laws are enforced by violence" is incorrect. I would agree with "most". I disagree with "all".

Here's a couple others:

38 CFR 38.630 - Headstones and markers. - "VA will furnish, when requested, a memorial headstone or marker to commemorate an eligible individual whose remains are unavailable." - https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/38.630

Who is threatened with violence for breaking that law? At most, a VA employee can be fired, yes?

36 U.S. Code § 106 - Constitution Day and Citizenship Day - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/106

That's another completely voluntary law ("are urged"), and the Supreme Court didn't get involved.

Post reply on HN