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

Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

capitalandgrowth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 544 posts

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#391

Post by zajio1am »

qayxc wrote: post #340
kabacha wrote: post #271

The real answer is the same as it has always been: libre software. Funny how same topic comes up every time some new issue pops up but we've had the answer nailed in the 90s. If you want software you can trust no amount of oaths, certificates and overseer bodies will ever be enough. It's only possible to trust fully transparent software.

These are orthogonal topics, though. This isn't about trust. Is using Libre Office Calc for operating a death camp more ethical than using MS Excel? Is the creation and use of an armed autonomous drone justifiable and ethical as long as its firmware is open source? Are misinformation bots and fake news generators OK, as long their source code is freely available for use and further modification?

well, then using Hippocratic Oatch is not a right metaphor. Doctors are supposed to take care of their patients and not judge their morals, even if such patient is a death camp commander.

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#392

Post by paulryanrogers »

unishark wrote: post #343
paulryanrogers wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ...then we can make some sizes and structures illegal before they stumble/march into devastating incompetence. Was with you until this part. Just hold them personally liable if someone gets hurt should they create an uncontrollable system and predictably fail to control it.

Right. My point was in response to excuses being made elsewhere that the nature of large companies mean these executives cannot be personally liable. So if we accept that the nature of huge companies is no one can be liable (I'm not convinced yet) then it would be time for capping sizes or outlawing structures.

Keep in mind the US already has laws around corporate structures and conflicts of interest. (Even if they're selectively applied.)

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#393

Post by austincheney »

sobellian wrote: post #361
austincheney wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there wouldn't be any risk for any executive This isn't a real problem. I take it you have never worked outside of software. You don't need a law license to be the business manager of a major law firm or a medical license to manage a large hospital network. How often does such problems occur in major law firms or large hospital networks? In other words this is a hypothetical complaint of some future condition that…

If a lawyer does something unethical, they could be disbarred. If a doctor does something unethical, their license may be revoked. These end your career. There are already professional organizations for developers and engineers. ACM's ethics code even includes, "avoid harm." You don't need to be in any of them to write software. We would need to pass laws dictating that Facebook et al can only employ licensed softwar…

> These end your career.

Agreed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24106617

> You don't need to be in any of them to write software.

Then they are irrelevant.

> Do we really want to impose that level of gatekeeping on the profession?

Yes, absolutely. Everybody benefits except developers who probably shouldn't be writing software professionally in the first place.

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#394

Post by strken »

TeaDrunk wrote: post #369
imtringued wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would your boss tell you about the unethical ways he is going to use software you have written?

Right now your boss has no reason not to tell you- people at GitHub knew their software was being used to support ICE during the time in which families are being separated. People at Microsoft knew that Microsoft was having contracts with the military. Google engineers knew about Project Dragonfly. Right now bosses don’t even have incentive to lie about it because no engineer is obligated to give a shit about the soc…

This is a good time to point out that a significant chunk of the population isn't opposed to working for the military, for ICE, or for defence contractors who make weapons; they don't view that work as unethical. Moreover, the origin of Silicon Valley, and indeed the entire internet, is DARPA contracts and weapons manufacturing.

Any oath would either not be taken by those people, would be watered down so far as to be meaningless, or would require the entire industry to refuse to make weaponry. The first and second are ineffective and the third is ludicrous.

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#395

Post by ClumsyPilot »

Conan_Kudo wrote: post #193
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…

> Most software engineers are not like doctors. We have little autonomy over what is created. Our responsibility is primarily the how. And with devops sometimes the actual deployment and maintenance itself. If you're an actual engineer of any kind, you always have some choice on this. You make architectural decisions every day, and you generally work for places that do, in fact, take your input into consideration. If…

You are missing the point, the idea is that a average developer at a major bank has very poor understanding exactly what impact of his code will be. He generally has neiglther the information (secrecy, need to knwo basis) nor the understanding of the financial system.

On the contrary, a doctor's desision affects the life of an individual patient in a very clear and understandable manner.

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#396

Post by quotemstr »

Someone1234 wrote: post #32

Doctors no longer take the Hippocratic Oath (because it is incompatible with a lot of difficult situations doctors are placed in). But more to the point: Why are we trying to shift focus from the wrongs large multi-nationals do to individual software engineers? Plus what would the result be if this "oath" conflicts with a manager's instructions? Maybe we should start with Microsoft, Google, Comcast, Oracle, and simil…

> Why are we trying to shift focus from the wrongs large multi-nationals do to individual software engineers?

This "ethics" business doesn't make sense because the stated goals of the people pushing this idea aren't their actual goals. The stated goal of this "ethics" push is to reduce the harm done by software to society. As you point out, it won't work. The actual goal of the "ethics" push is to entrench a certain politically-contentious ideology in tech by branding this ideology as "ethics" and thereby making it immune to criticism.

The only legitimate binding code of ethics is the law. If a practice is harmful, we can all talk about it together and agree to enact a law against it. The "ethics" people are trying to use elevated moral rhetoric to bypass this democratic process, and we shouldn't let them get away with it.

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#398

Post by cassalian »

IMO having a hippocratic oath for software engineers is entirely pointless. There are plenty of people who would say the words with no intention of living up to them - not everyone is going to share your values.

I can't say for sure, but I have a feeling that the hippocratic oath is not what's stopping an unethical doctor from behaving unethically. Instead, it's the risk of lawsuits and loss of their license to practice medicine that keeps them in line.

I just don't think software could match the very real consequences to unethical behaviour that doctors face. We don't have a concept of a "licensed software engineer", and even if we did, there's nothing stopping an unethical engineer from working on their own. Doctors can be blackballed from hospitals, clinical trials, etc. Are we going to blackball software engineers from touching computers?

The above being said, I do believe that software engineers should try to be ethical. However, I do not think there's any mechanism that could be implemented that could force this behaviour, and any attempt to do so is simply a way for its promoters to say "look how good I am", and less so an honest attempt at making the world a better place.

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#399

Post by thesz »

tfehring wrote: post #132
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…

> So management bears no blame for requiring illegal work be done, on pain of termination? No, I wouldn't say that. In many cases, management and engineering share the blame jointly and severally since they both have an opportunity to stop it. > Said another way, engineers now need to be technical and legal experts in the business domain? Engineers should know enough about their business domains to understand the eth…

Ethics and law are not orthogonal. Look at definition from Wikipedia: "Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior"."

Ethics forms basis on which law is built.

And, given that, it is not simpler to make ethical decision, it is harder. The decision should be worth being basis for a law, how's that simpler than following law?

Even if you take definition of ethical decision from Wikipedia: "An ethical decision is one that engenders trust, and thus indicates responsibility, fairness and caring to an individual." These words can bear negative connotations - if I beat people, I should be trusted that I will beat people, I should beat people fairly and I should care to beat an individual thoroughly.

Yes, I fully see you talk about principles. It can be seen that it is easier to make decisions from principles. But, you can misguide yourself about application of these principles.

Re: Microsoft President: We Need a Hippocratic Oath for Software Engineers

#400

Post by ilaksh »

robertlagrant wrote: post #264
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…

> That's completely the wrong comparison and context. By the rest of your comment, it looks as though it's an excellent comparison. How would engineers taking an oath help the situation?

I'm not saying engineers taking an oath helps, its about the executives.. maybe something about the thread structure implies that but I actually only read the comment above.
Post reply on HN