Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

Post by imtringued » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:28 AM UTC

sneak wrote: post #263

paulryanrogers wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So management bears no blame for requiring illegal work be done, on pain of termination? Said another way, engineers now need to be technical and legal experts in the business domain? (Remember employees in the US depend on the company for health insurance. Saying 'no' could cost a lot more than just ones position.) Most software engineers are not like doctors. We have little autonomy over what is created. Our respon…

Very few software engineers in the US, despite receiving health insurance as compensation, do not have sufficient cash comp to purchase health insurance on their own should they need to. I believe that this is a red herring. Yes, the drone operator that pushes the button is a murderer, even if it was the POTUS that gave the order for it to happen.

Post by unishark » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:32 AM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #130

qyv wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I was only following orders." Edit to add: If you are being asked to perform illegal or unethical acts as part of your employment, then perhaps termination is an ideal course of action? Unless of course your personal enrichment outweighs legalities or ethics in your worldview?

And I wasn't implying engineers should be entirely blameless. Everyone has a limited understanding of legal systems too complex for one person to fully grasp. And workers far below the level of decision makers should be judged according to evidence of their knowledge and responsibility. Likewise those who give orders should bear more responsibly. All these "companies take on a life of their own" arguments sound a lot…

Post by moron4hire » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:32 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #206

ilaksh wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's completely the wrong comparison and context. The reason MCAS came about was because management wanted to try to fudge a larger engine into an outdated design created for a different purpose rather than do the engineering and certification necessary for the new requirements and to update the system. Management wanted to save money. Of course the engineering leadership did not want to fudge something -- they wan…

Which demonstrates the irrelevancy of a hippocratic oath for engineers. Because the complexity of the system is such that no single engineer understands it all, and thus no single engineer is (or feels) responsible. Blaming it on management is also irrelevant, since management merely takes the advice of engineers, and do financial/business trade offs to maximize profit. If the engineers cannot tell that MCAS system c…

Post by MrQuimico » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:33 AM UTC

Post by imtringued » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:45 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #127

tfehring wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The programmer still decides whether that code gets written, since they’re the one writing it! If you write or review a piece of software, even if the spec was written by the PM/business, you’re endorsing whatever that spec says and all of its ethical implications. “Just following orders” is a famously poor defense at this point.

Exactly. I can’t believe all the blame-shifting I’m reading in this thread! It’s as if software engineers are suddenly these powerless victims, lacking agency over their work, only capable of saying “yes, boss, whatever you say, boss!” If a civil engineer’s manager told them to design an unsafe building or bridge, they’re not going to just say, “Sure thing manager! One death trap coming right up!” It is their ethical…