Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am an Engineer' in an Email to the Gov't
motherboard.vice.com
motherboard.vice.com
The Board warned Järlström that he was in violation of the Law and asked him to stop claiming to be an engineer, to which he agreed. It was later, when he continued to claim to be an engineer that legal action was taken.
It is also of note, and stated in the Board's documentation of the case, that Sweden has no legal standards for engineers of any kind.
Finally, full disclosure, I am a registered and licensed traffic engineer.
[edit] grammar
Had he sent the letter/formula/math/suggestions to the local state university civil engineering department, the local/state Dept. of Transportation, or the local/state representative, the response would have fallen on less deaf ears, and his use of the title would have likely gone less noticed.
Reminds me of this talk by Barry Schwartz: https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisd...
Barry Schwartz specializes in telling only half the case to people who know nothing about law, while leaving out any facts that would show his clients in a bad light. Like he'll tell you about the plight of an oyster farmer whose business was shut down by the evil federal government, without mentioning that the farmer in question signed a contract for a fixed-term lease and the government extended the deadline several times before finally enforcing the terms of the lease.
Pick one or more of his cases then go look up the actual court opinions. The facts always seem to be very different from the version he presents to his audiences. He relies on people taking his claims at face value and not doing any fact-checking of their own.
Focusing on the usage of the term "engineer" when what was in discussion was the traffic lights, which was much important, shows such a shortsightness. Of course, everybody was just doing their job, just following the rules.
Presumably, if he prefixed this with IANAE, there would be no issue. Well, in this case, a traffic engineer.
But essentially he was defining himself to have greater authority over the subject matter than he actually had, which while here is not really problematic, the act itself often can be.
Jarlstrom was informed that he wasn't entitled to hold himself out as an engineer and agreed not to do so. The reasons not to do that are valid, for the simple reason that it pretends to a level of expertise he does not have, when trying to influence how public infrastructure is run.
I have said many times that Jarlstrom could simply have pitched his idea without claiming to be an engineer. Why didn't he? Probably because people did not listen to him as readily if he did not use that title.
what was in discussion was the traffic lights, which was much important
Why is it so important? Only because Jarlstrom says it is and claims that his solution is world-changing. But this is sales talk. If his solution is really that good, then he should be happy to present it as an amateur, without pretensions to qualifications he does not hold.
His proposal sounds OK, but I know nothing of traffic engineering and can't really evaluate it. Neither, I suspect can anyone else except the one person who posted that they are a licensed professional traffic engineer. It's unclear what, if any, assertions Jarlstrom is making about the benefits of implementing his scheme. Will it save any lives or reduce the number of accidents? No idea. All we have is this: '"hen you make a turn you slow down but that's not accounted for in their solution, so people are getting caught in red light cameras for making safe turns.'
OK, I understand he is not crazy about red light tickets because his wife got one when driving around their hometown, but so what? What is so overwhelmingly urgent about this that the Board should make it heir priority? Why doesn't Jarlstrom have the patience to push his idea as a regular driver without making false claims to qualifications he does not in fact possess? I must reiterate that I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with his amateur traffic engineering endeavours...if he would have clearly labeled them as such.
but he is calling himself an engineer to leverage social credibility that attaches to that professional term. I can share my legal opinions with you all day but no matter how well-formed those opinions are it doesn't alter the fact that I am not qualified to practice law, so the only person I could legally represent in court in myself. It would be dishonest of me to label myself as a lawyer, because people who didn't know any better would easily believe me and might create all sorts of problems for themselves by relying on that false belief.
What's going on here is that you heard a sympathetic story about something you think you understand well - who doesn't understand traffic lights, they are so familiar - with an underdog pitted against the image of a large unresponsive bureaucracy. And that is the point at which pany people in this thread have stopped thinking. Look across the thread, there are even people insisting that Jarlstrom is in fact a licensed engineer, repeatedly, based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever! People are literally inventing facts to uphold their preferred version of the story.
I am a bit depressed to see how easily people are taken in, and abandon reason in favor of their emotional reaction to a piece of obscure public policy. I have no opinion on the right length of traffic light periods (because I don't drive, thank heavens), and I would have no objection to people evaluating Jarlstrom's proposal and adopting it worldwide. But he chose to go about advancing his proposal in a way that he knew would cause problems, and now he is claiming to be a victim after doing something that he knew in advance would create such a problem.
His legal case will go nowhere because he chose to antagonize the very people who were best-positioned to assist him, for no other reason than to inflate his own ego. It would be wise to ask yourself why the story excluded so many important details about the sequence of events, and perhaps to reread pg's famous Submarine essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
I do care whether the traffic lights need fixing, what kind of fixing, if my local traffic lights suffer from the same issue and how it was troubleshooted.
All the rest of this discussion is just wasting everybody's time. And it is only happening because someone didn't have the good judgment to not fine someone who was obviously interested in the collective well being (initially motivated by personal reasons? who cares?).
All rules followed to the letter and society is losing.
It's like a product manager, with no understanding of how software is built, coming to your daily standup, and telling everyone about what compiler flags they should be using. All the while, calling themselves a programmer/software engineer. If your company isn't insane, it should censure him for that - especially if he said he'll stop doing it.
Actually, from the documents provided, he initially made the claim that he held an engineering degree in electronics, which is hardly holding himself out as a registered engineer in the state of Oregon. In a later email he commented to the board that he was an excellent engineer, which may in fact be the case given that he held a degree in engineering. Again, there is no attempt to misrepresent himself as licensed in Oregon.
The first incident is a huge stretch to say he was attempting to mislead the public that he was a registered professional engineer. In fact, if he was a Swedish engineer, regardless of whether they regulate the industry or not, it is a factual statement to say he is a Swedish engineer and is not an attempt to make false claims of his credentials. The are arguing that he cannot speak of his occupation in another country and perform engineering calculations in the state of Oregon. That is clearly a violation of his free speech.
The second statement that he was an excellent engineer is a little more vague, but it is also a factual statement that he is an engineer. He does not ever claim to be a registered professional engineer in the state of Oregon and it is a valid argument that they cannot prevent him from stating his background in engineering.
If he was a doctor in Sweden, it would be perfectly if he still called himself a doctor in Oregon without implying that he was licensed to practice medicine. He would in fact be, after all, a doctor. Essentially what they are doing is equating the performing of engineering calculations (to back up his theory and present to actual engineers) with the practice of medicine. They are attempting to bolster that with two weak (but possibly valid) claims that he was representing himself as a registered professional engineer in Oregon in the process.
The fact is that the laws in this case are vague enough that they could be used to keep someone quiet for whatever reason--perhaps they didn't like the media making them look bad. Ultimately, that would be up to a judge to decide if they are in fact infringing on his first amendment rights.
> I am a bit depressed to see how easily people are taken in, and abandon reason in favor of their emotional reaction to a piece of obscure public policy
I don't see how, all the documents are right there in the article. And seriously, I have read well over thirty condescending comments from you in this thread with your fake intellectualism and it is a bit much. But hey, why don't you refer me to an essay or something.
That's not the only issue the Board said it had, and not the most important one at that:
> [...] you continued to use the title "engineer" in your communication with Board staff and, of more concern, are the documents you provided that indicate you may have engaged in unlicensed engineering work in Oregon.
(emphasis mine). It's the emphasized clause, and the Board's Final Report, page 6, Section 14[1], that is concerning: he's being punished mainly ("of more concern"!) for doing thinking and speech that, IMO, should not be prohibited.
1. https://www.scribd.com/document/346354146/mats4#from_embed
You're treating the documents containing his proposal as a completely separate issue from his claim of professional status, but the documents are a doubling down upon his original and repeated false claim of being an engineer, which claim he was warned he should not be making.
If I hold out a mystery pill and invite you to swallow it, how you react will differ considerably depending on whether or not you believe I'm a doctor. This is in no way a commentary on the efficacy of the pill, but only on whether I am likely to have the appropriate medical knowledge that would justify my suggestion.
If you're arguing the board doesn't actually think that's a violation unless one also said one is an engineer, great, I've never disagreed with that; but they explicitly said "because [action definition X] you are in violation" and [definition X] pointedly does not include saying anything but "here's a creative application of math and stuff".
1. not the part where he said "I'm an engineer" -- the other paragraphs deal with that
I've seen this in so many legal cases - people file appeals arguing that the law is terribly wrong and their arguments are beautifully logical but for the fact that they are asking the appeal court to forget some very salient fact.
Imagine you go to a party and pee in the punch bowl. It doesn't matter how many times you subsequently offer a great recipe for punch in a demonstrably clean bowl, nobody is going to forget about the fact that you pissed in it the first time. I apologize for employing such a crude metaphor but I am baffled by your refusal to acknowledge the context in which the investigation occurred, so I'm resorting to shocking imagery in the hope of opening your eyes to this.
The court (or similar administrative body) should not have to spell the context out over and over and over again for every bit of the case under discussion. When you read the judgement in a legal case you are expected to hold that idea in your head unless you're explicitly told that X and Y are entirely separate issues. Parsing bits of the decision out of context will lead to errors of interpretation. I don't know how to explain this any more clearly to you.
However, section 14 is very different. It does not rely on his use of the title of engineer. Instead it states "By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and "worldwide" traffic signals... Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such create work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b). (...) By engaging in the practice of engineering (specifically, traffic engineering) without registration, Jarlstrom violated ORS 672.020(1), and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c) on a second occasion."
Section 14 never cites the use of the title "engineer" as relevant for violating ORS 672.020(1), only his engaging in the "practice of engineering." As a practical matter, they may not have brought legal action if he had not used the title, but they certainly believe the law states that disseminating his findings certainly count as "practicing engineering" and is illegal without certification.
Actually, I wonder if the court didn't misinterpret 672.005(1)(b). I've cited it below and it seems to rely on the work in question being used for the purpose of ensuring compliance.
672.005(1) states: "Practice of engineering" or "practice of professional engineering" means doing any of the following:
(b) Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects.
I'm exhausted trying to explain this and frankly annoyed that I've wasted most of my afternoon trying to provide legal insight to people who refuse to listen to reason that contradicts their preconceptions.
WHY do you think section 14 should be interpreted in isolation from section 13? Do you think that makes it like a new function or procedure in which all the scope rules are reset? Why are you ignoring 672.007?
It's really frustrating that programmers seem to think that working with logical constructs makes them lawyers. Maybe you would take me more seriously if I charged you $250/hour?
From Texas engineer board code (I think other states are similar): § 1001.057. Employee of Private Corporation or Business Entity (a) This chapter shall not be construed to apply to the activities of a private corporation or other business entity, or the activities of the full-time employees or other personnel under the direct supervision and control of the business entity, on or in connection with: (1) reasonable modifications to existing buildings, facilities, or other fixtures to real property not accessible to the general public and which are owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by the entity; or (2) activities related only to the research, development, design, fabrication, production, assembly, integration, or service of products manufactured by the entity. [Sections (b) and (c) omitted for clarity] (d) For purposes of this section, “products manufactured by the entity” also includes computer software, firmware, hardware, semiconductor devices, and the production, exploration, and transportation of oil and gas and related products.”
Meaning, engineers can perform engineering work for a company without being licensed.
> I am likely to have the appropriate medical knowledge that would justify my suggestion.
One can have relevant knowledge without being an MD. E.g. by being a biochemist. Having license for particular profession is not the same as having knowledge.
I have been on HN since the beginning of my studies and after a decade of lurking I have made an account. If anyone is hiring CE's or would like to help me out of the good of their heart please PM me. I have had a tough time landing an entry job since medical reasons extended my college time to 7 years.
I studied "Software Engineering" and have a bachelors degree from Australia. I am a member of the Australian Institute of Engineers (accredited degree).
If I say something like "I am a Software Engineer" when I work in Canada, any other Engineers will get all prickly and go on about how that's not a recognized kind of Engineer, and it's illegal to say-so, blah blah.
Even if I put B. Eng. (Software) after my name they get uppity.
To get my degree accredited in Canada, I must work some huge number of hours as a Software Engineer working with Software Engineers. But of course, there is no such thing in Canada, and so... yeah.
Furthurmore, there are 1316 Computer Engineers. These are not huge numbers, but it is wrong to say that there is no such thing as software engineering in Canada.
Looking at it now, it seems they've dropped that 3 CS course requirement (at the time it was the same first 3 courses as CS majors) and replaced it with 1 required CS course: Computing for Engineers. Everything else, required, is ECE (electrical and computer engineering) with options to satisfy some major electives via CS courses (up to 7 by the hours, but no specific sequence, required to be 3xxx or above meaning a student would need to take at least 2 or 3, depending on present CS curriculum, to even qualify for them with prerequisites).
I picked this one as it seems like the quintessential CMPE program from what I've seen, and it's one of the top engineering schools in the US so it ends up influencing or setting the standard by which other US schools do things. And specifically, it's not halfway. It's often (from a perusal of other schools I'm familiar with) heavily biased towards the hardware side (by requirements, electives of course permit the student some leeway for individual breadth).
EDIT: I did misread the current GT requirements, seems they moved 2 of the programming courses into the ECE department and out of CS.
Also worth noting, professional registrations may not line up exactly with degrees. You don't necessarily need a degree in computer engineering to be a computer engineer. The board would likely find a degree in electrical engineering and a few years of relevant work experience to be sufficient. (Though, this may vary by jurisdiction.)
We exist. I'm a Canadian P.Eng. (Software). I got my experience working on software for controlling unmanned vehicles, and I know a few dozen other Software P.Engs.
Requiring some amount of local experience makes sense, as a major part of engineering is ensuring your project abides by all local laws that govern what you're doing. Getting the required work experience under the supervision of another engineer is a lot rarer than in other disciplines, but on the bright side, that P.Eng. title is required a lot less often than in other disciplines.
With that being said, it certainly is difficult for foreign engineers to get their degrees recognized. If any improvement is to be made on that front, the government almost certainly will need to prod the engineering associations into doing a better job of evaluating foreign credentials.
There are possible career benefits, though they're not huge. The company I left was just starting to require a software engineer on every team to sign off on each release. And, my father convinced me to do the paperwork for the P.Eng. with a story of a raise he missed out on due to not bothering with the P.Eng. despite holding an engineering degree.
Getting one generally requires at least one existing PE who can vouch for the quality of your work which creates a chicken and egg problem if there are no PEs where you work.
Thanks very much, there is hope!
(And thanks to all the other replies too!)
One thing that is especially hilarious is the interview process: the equivalent of the software world's interview process would be to grill an engineer by requiring him to, say, solve a projectile motion with air-resistance problem (fairly common in first-year calculus-based mechanics classes and as review in sophomore/junior year classical mechanics) on the whiteboard and using that as a way to gauge his ability to design whole systems. These interview processes aren't good at looking for engineers, they're good at looking for code monkeys with a high opinion of themselves.
That's my underlying feeling as well. Software Engineering seems like a futuristic discipline, like being a Nanobot Technologist. We're just not there yet - why bother pretending?
The line's blurry, except for places where the law gives a sharper distinction.
Did you read the Board's complaint? At first the asked the Board to investigate the city even though the Board had no jurisdiction to do so. they advised him of this and also cautioned him not to advertise himself as an engineer, in accordance with Oregon's code. He agreed, but then went on to write to various government and media entities promoting his idea and promoting himself as an engineer, before asserting again to the Board that he was an engineer - the very same Board to whom he had given his assurance that he would not hold himself out as such.
He could have put the exact same information and proposals out in public, saying 'I'm not an engineer, but I believe I have come up with a great solution to this traffic problem' and he would have been fine. It's simply not true for you to assert that they're trying to censor his ideas.
"I, JB Reefer, am God, command you to stop driving. I am the king of all engineers, president of space, etc etc etc"
and it doesn't matter. You really do get to say whatever the fuck you want in this country, as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to someone else. There's no "this doesn't apply to job title" caveat.
The Supreme Court disagrees.
Similarly, simply saying "i am an engineer" is obviously not a crime. Students do it all the time, despite not being licensed. Using it to lend credence to your ideas around traffic lights, however, may be a different story. I think thats the crux of the dispute.
There are more limitations but that's an easy and possibly counterintuitive example.
It's a reference to dicta in that case, which would be dubious to cite as meaningful even had Shenck not been overturned.
I doubt that these laws are going away any time soon. Perhaps modified as more and more influential people see "programming" as "engineering", but doubtful that they'll go away for things like civil/mechanical/electrical infrastructure.
[1] http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_bu...
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
It's a meaningless saying that doesn't actually have any real bearing on the law or the first amendment.
Other examples besides claiming to be a doctor/lawyer while giving advice include: remarks that constitute credible threats to someone's life.
By the way, and appropriate to this thread, I am not a lawyer.
No, he's not according to the violations cited in Final Order, page 6, section heading #14; in particular:
By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b).
By engaging the practice of engineering [...] without registration, Jarlstrom violated [laws]. [...] By again providing the public with his traffic engineering calculations for the modification of Beaverton's traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom again engaged in the practice of engineering and, specifically, the practice of traffic engineering. He thereby violated [laws] on a third occasion. By providing his publicly released traffic engineering calculations to the sheriff of the 20 county where he advised changes in traffic signals, Jarlstrom again purported to be authorized to engage in, and did engage in, the practice of engineering. He, therefore, violated [laws] on third and fourth occasions.If he had merely submitted the "critique and calculations" for "consideration" as a concerned citizen, he would have not gotten a fine. Simply put, he called himself an engineer and suggested that public infrastructure be changed. In Oregon, when you're not licensed by the state, you can't use the title "Engineer", and you definitely don't want to use it while trying to suggest modifications to public infrastructure.
I'm not equating the two in terms of "I believe both situations are completely just"... but doing what he did is akin to a thief walking himself into the police station. The purpose of the Board of Engineers in most states is not to decide what is "good engineering practice" and what is "bad engineering practice", it's to regulate licensure and set the bar for who is qualified to be an "Engineer" in the eyes of the state. He mis-navigated the American system, for better or worse, and paid a fine that is meant to dissuade people from doing things like this:
http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_bu...
I hear you, and agree that when he says "I'm an engineer", we have a certain set of laws that apply to that speech.
I'm saying there is another aspect which is the the crux of the reply-to-top-level comment to which I objected: that Final Report is saying "doing [math and stuff] on [public things] is engineering, and you did [math and stuff], so you're doing engineering without a license". I don't think my "the Final Report is saying..." is unfair: check the Final Report sections 8,9, and 10.
I bet there are a lot of confounding issues in this particular case, but, very narrowly, what I'm saying is that using publicly-available data and speaking (without saying "I'm an engineer") of applications of "special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences" cannot be illegal or fine-able, yet this is pretty literally what sentence three of section 13 (Final Order, Page 6) says is happening.
He can't unring that bell because he already accepted a warning (absent any fine or penalty) and agreed to abide by the Code on not calling himself an engineer and then repeatedly broke that agreement, so he doesn't get to keep selling his proposed traffic solution because of his demonstrated bad faith.
It's like someone who called themselves a doctor and turned out to have no medical qualifications being enjoined from wearing a white coat and a stethoscope and hanging around hospitals offering unsolicited medical advice.
You are mistaken: I told you in an earlier reply that the first linked document states he is not licensed to practice in any state.
"Jarlstrom is not now, and never has been, registered to practice engineering in Oregon, or any other state in the United States. Jarlstrom has claimed to be a Swedish engineer. However, engineering is not a regulated profession in Sweden. No licensure, registration or certification is offered or required to practice engineering in Sweden"
[0] - https://www.scribd.com/embeds/346354146/content?start_page=1...
Indeed there is a whole set of exceptions related to "Exception to application of ORS 672.002 to 672.325"[0].
You may be interested in ORS 672.060(6)(a and b):
(6) The performance of engineering work by a person, or by full-time employees of the person, provided:
(a) The work is in connection with or incidental to the operations of the person; and
(b) The engineering work is not offered directly to the public.
Indeed, this is one of the affirmative defenses that he tried using, but was rejected.
Basically, you can't just stop at a definition in law, you have to read the full law to know what the law says.
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/l...
As a simple example, if you have a faint and I ask you if you're all right, what you're feeling etc., that doesn't mean I'm practicing medicine without a license despite the diagnostic nature of my questions.
I mean, if he hadn't said he was an engineer to Licensed Engineers many times, I agree nobody would have bothered. But now that they've bothered, their justifications matter.
You are incorrect. See my other post with a link to the clear exceptions baked directly into the law.
If what you said were true, then he literally would not have had an affirmative defense to plead at all, which is plainly wrong as the final order specifically notes his pleading of 2 affirmative defenses.
You can find these analysis of those affirmative defenses by reviewing the sections of the final order starting at 19
"by [critiquing an engineering formula] and submitting the critique [...] to members of the public" [...he...] thereby engaged in the practice of engineering [...] specifically, traffic engineering [...and thus] violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)".
I agree his affirmative defenses are inadequate, but I'm not taking issue with the analysis of his defense. I simply am pointing out the justification used in Paragraph 14 is concerning. ORS672.005(1)(b) is way too broad.
[0] - https://www.scribd.com/document/346354146/mats4#from_embed [1] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 [2] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.005
You could be right if that false claim hadn't happened. But it did, and everything subsequent has to be evaluated within that context. Think of the difference between global and local variables, and the sort of bugs you get if you ignore scope rules (I'm guessing you're a coder, ignore if that's not the case).
If "professional services or creative work" could be read as "services or creative work, either of which are done for money," perhaps it would be okay?
'As used in ORS 672.002 (Definitions for ORS 672.002 to 672.325) to 672.325 (Civil penalties), unless the context requires otherwise:'
It's terrifying because you are reading bits of it out of context and extrapolating incorrectly to the broadest scope imaginable. I perform some of the activities on this list on almost a daily basis just in the normal course of making things and being an artist (the old-fashioned variety slapping paint on canvas). I have exactly zero fear of ever being prosecuted for unlicensed engineering activities.
How you should be reading it: ORS 672.005 described things that an engineer does as part of their work. Then you go on to look at ORS 672.007 which talks about how
(1) A *person* is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person:
(a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer;
(b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or
(c) Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 (Additional definitions) as the practice of engineering.
You are not going to get fined just for calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public. In programming terms, you're worrying about the value of a variable without considering its scope.
Forgot to mention that all emphases are added by me.
If the argument is "he said he was an 'engineer' and he isn't licensed", that's fine. And the Board's Final Report contains a lot of language establishing that, and for that he can be fined.
But the Board's Report goes out of its way to say that ORS 672.005(c) and ORS 672.002 define "practicing engineering" as quite close to just "calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public", and that just practicing engineering in this manner without registration is not allowed. Check Section 14 of the Final Report. It makes no reference to "purporting to be an engineer": it's "by [critiquing an engineering formula] and submitting the critique [...] to members of the public" [...he...] thereby engaged in the practice of engineering [...] specifically, traffic engineering [...and thus] violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)".
If you tell people you are not a doctor, and you do doctor things, then there's no misunderstanding, and nothing to fine
But if you tell people you are a doctor (or let people think you are), when you are not, and you do doctory things, then there's trouble.
It seems reasonable to me that it requires both the misunderstanding and the potential to create public harm for it to be a crime/fine-able.
In your metaphor "doctor" is a protected term in many jurisdictions, so merely claiming to be a medical doctor is a crime. And practising medicine without a licence is similarly illegal, even if you make it clear that you're not a doctor.
But instead of pitching his idea as a simple concerned resident he went back to claiming to be an engineer a couple of months later. That's not a mistake because the issue had already been clearly explained to him. He's not a victim.
It's quite difficult to read, and even harder for mobile users. It might be better to use > or asterisks for quoting.
For anyone else who was trying to read the quoted parts, here they are:
He's perfectly at liberty to [share the information]
No, he's not according to the violations cited in Final Order, page 6, section heading #14; in particular:
> By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b).
...and summarizing:
> By engaging the practice of engineering [...] without registration, Jarlstrom violated [laws]. [...] By again providing the public with his traffic engineering calculations for the modification of Beaverton's traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom again engaged in the practice of engineering and, specifically, the practice of traffic engineering. He thereby violated [laws] on a third occasion. By providing his publicly released traffic engineering calculations to the sheriff of the 20 county where he advised changes in traffic signals, Jarlstrom again purported to be authorized to engage in, and did engage in, the practice of engineering. He, therefore, violated [laws] on third and fourth occasions.
Another instance I can recount is here where a woman was banned from touching horses.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/17/woman-could-go-to-jail-for...
I don't think most software devs should require licensing, but they're not doing what I and many others would consider 'real' engineering. At least, their mistakes don't often have serious impact on people. We're not talking about that here though, we're talking about civil engineering.
Exaggeration never, ever makes a legal argument more convincing.
Another example of government employees being incompentant.
Here's one quick example of cities shortening yellow lights for profits.[1]
1. https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-sho...
* State
* incompetent
As far as I know there is no national accreditation body for the title in the US.
I'm not a PE but I still call myself a software engineer on everything except government forms. As far as the government's concerned I'm a programmer.
I don't think so. It's been a bit since I read up on Visa stuff (and I imagine it doesn't matter to you as an American citizen) but there are distinctions between programmer / software developer / etc.
1. (note the "software" in the list of exams offered) http://ncees.org/engineering/pe/
Heck, you can have a job title of Software Engineer without even having graduated college.
If you wrote an article on cardiology, and you said 'I am a doctor' but you hadn't kept your medical license current, then it would be a false claim, regardless of the fact that your article on cardiology was 100% true. Asserting a privileged status that you do not hold misleads people who rely on the licensure system as a proxy for performing due diligence.
Professionalism is about more than whether people are willing to pay you or not. It involves commitment to uphold particular standards even if it is not in your personal interest to do so.
This is not an attack on math and science no matter how much you want to see it that way. If he had been frank about his amateur status from the outset hew would have had no problem. getting it wrong without bad intentions is nothing serious either, but after he was warned and agreed to abide by the state code, he had no excuse to repeat the behavior.
You can come up with the most interesting scientific result in history, but that does not give you an automatic right to have your discovery implemented by others, does it?
without?
You can certainly make an argument that it looks like he went out of his way to piss 'em off, but the fact that he could be charged for calling himself "an engineer" -- and the fact that we all have come to a point where we think it is something reasonable -- is so upsetting.
License = union.
If you are building iOS apps you are probably a developer, not an engineer.
Professional orders can disbar you temporally and impose training for any competence or ethical shortcoming. Their role is solely to protect the public. This is the 'systems of accreditation, checking for competency' that many societies came up with. The idea that you can rely on self-regulation is ridiculous.
Most Doctors are not grossly negligent, but if you find one that is what are you gonna do? There is no one to complain to without professional orders.
Um, the legal system? Have you honestly never heard of the legal concept of malpractice? "Gross negligence" is very much included in it.
Malpractice is handled by the professional order's Syndic along with all sorts of minor offences such as misrepresentation.
It is part of the judicial system. It can impose fine, training, disbarment, etc. As a side note, the American obsession with suing everything just look backwards to most of us.
Yet this company comes along that very aggressively flies in the face of this licensing and the world flocks to it.
We can't equate the inexistence of mandated licensing to there not being feedback mechanism for quality, competence, etc. If we did not mandate licensing, don't you think those would emerge? And perhaps even be better?
The university degree is only the first step toward becoming an engineer. In the US, to be a licensed engineer one must have a degree, pass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam, work a cumulative 4 years under another professional engineer, and then pass the Professional Engineering exam for the discipline they wish to pursue. After that, continuing education credits are require to maintain the license. Additional testing may be needed depending on field and location. To say that the license is just a stamp on the degree is not correct.
I've gotta tell you that concluding your argument with 'Period' makes you sound exactly as convincing as Sean Spicer, ie not at all. Same thing with phrases like 'case closed!' and so on. Solid arguments don't need rhetorical flourishes like this.
I'm "a doctor"; certainly I will see to that brain surgery for you.
Moral: do business in a different state.
> of more concern, are the documents you
> provided that indicate you may have
> engaged in unlicensed engineering work
> in Oregon.
That would be free speech for sure.
So, in his context, having a degree is sufficient to be able to call himself an engineer. Funny he hasn't acclimatized to US, though.
It's worth bearing in mind that there are multiple different legal philosophies at play in the USA, some of which have historically been violently opposed to each other. If you are interested in these social dynamics (and you probably should be at this point in history) then I strongly recommend American Nations by Colin Woodard as a guide for the perplexed.
Unrelated to the legal issues, what the engineering board is doing seems to be beyond ridiculous. IMHO Mr. Järlström should have informed himself better about the implications of the word "engineer"... but you know the old saying "three felonies a day", this case seems to validate it.
For example, if someone owes me money, is it illegal for me to send them a letter, in which I purport to be a lawyer?
1. Who you send it to 2. The purpose of the communication 3. The consequences of the communication 4. Whether it is inter- or intra-state 5. What profession it is
There are other questions that can factor in, but the general rule is: don't lie.
Lying of any form for personal gain is generally a species of fraud, but pretending to have a professional qualification – even without gain – can also incur consequences.
It's not limited to professional qualifications; some places still observe the crime of jactitation, which is pretending to be married.
"However, it is important to make a distinction between a "graduate engineer" and a "professional engineer" or "licensed engineer." A "graduate engineer" is anyone holding a degree in engineering from an accredited four-year university program, but is not licensed to practice or offer services to the public. Unlicensed engineers usually work as employees for a company, or as professors in engineering colleges, where they are governed under the industrial exemption clause. Some states, such as Ohio and New Jersey, prohibit the use of the term "engineer" by an unlicensed person unless it is part of the internal classification of their employer."
So you don't need a license to call yourself an engineer. What this effectively does is permits engineers to perform engineering tasks and be called engineers in their line of work, without having to complete the examinations and all of that jazz. Otherwise, the entire system makes 0 sense. Furthermore, this demonstrates that you may call yourself an engineer if you have graduated from engineering college as you are under granted the title "graduate engineer", and thus can use engineer for shorthand, just as "engineers in training" and "professional engineers" may call themselves engineers for short. I doubt they want to always have to call themselves professional engineers or engineers in training or face a silly fine.
Though I do fully support requiring licensure for some engineering related work. Basically, if you can fuck something up that can cost lives (aviation, bridges, buildings, etc...), you should have a license. Screwing up some code or mixing industrial chemicals normally doesn't fall into that category, though. If it does then yes you should be licensed.
Meanwhile I'll keep on being an engineer all the live long day :)
By sending such a letter, I'm not claiming to be a lawyer, right? But then, what am I doing?
† The law was at least smart enough here to require a partnership structure. Imagine if your fictional lawyer could be "employed by" a real shell corporation!
Wrong. The author of the letter (you) is falsely claiming to be a lawyer. You are also falsely claiming other things, which may or may not have additional consequences.
If so, then would it change anything if I just wrote a letter as myself, saying that I would contact my named, fictitious lawyer and have them draw up a suit against the recipient?
Or, on a completely different (ridiculous) tangent: if a program generates an email claiming that it's a lawyer (not from a template written by a person; from genuine black-box deep-learning text generation, hooked straight up to an email client, without foreknowledge or expectation from the author that this would be the result), has the author of the program committed a crime? I would assume the author in that case more parallels the owner of an animal that did something that would have been a crime if a human did it, but is very blurry without the presumed mens rea humanity brings to the table.
Consider if you change the communication medium from written to oral: if walk up to someone and claim a different name than is actually yours, claim to be a lawyer representing someone else (who you identify with your actual name), and then issue some demands, etc., it's pretty clear that you are claiming to be a lawyer. Changing the medium from oral communication to written doesn't change the essence at all.
I don't think the "walking up to someone" analogy applies, because there's a "me" doing that walking that the person can see, and so by asserting any claim through speech, I'd be attaching the subject of that claim to the person they're seeing—i.e. to myself. But in sending a letter written "as" someone else, there is no "me" from their perspective to attach the claim to. There's only "whoever is named [fake lawyer name]" (nobody) and "whoever sent this letter" (someone else, although I paid them to do it. Coincidentally, if I did have a lawyer, I'd be paying them to do it.)
The letter is a written statement which (whatever else.you may claim in it) is, un fact, from you, asserting various facts, including that the writer of letter is a lawyer.
The claims in the letter are made by the actual author of the letter, not the (potentially fictions) person that they are claiming to be when they wrote it.
> When does a text change from fiction into a claim about reality
When it is presented either with intent that it will be taken as a claim about reality, or when a reasonable person would see it that way. What you write in a novel is an overt work of fiction that no reasonable person, in context, will, in the general case (barring special circumstances), see as a claim of fact. If someone else copies part of it out of context and presents it differently, thats a different story, but has nothing to do with you.
When you send something that you have written to someone with the intent that they view it as what it purports to be on its face, than any knowing falsehoods in it are knowing false claims made by you, the actual person who composed and sent the communication with the intent to deceive.
1. Medical doctors 2. Certified Public Accountants 3. Lawyers 4. Professional Engineers 5. Realtors
Many other professions and certifying agencies will claim that a certification is necessary to practice, and that you should pay them for the privilege, but these are some of the few that are legally protected.
You need a "Professional Engineer" certificate from the NSPE to sign off on certain documents. But note that these certain documents are only used in certain fields, like civil engineering. This certification is not required to be (or to claim to be) a software engineer, electronics engineer, mechanical engineer, product engineer, chemical engineer, etc. For example, I've taken many engineering courses, I have a bachelor's of science in engineering degree, and I practice engineering day-to-day without being a professional engineer. In college, perhaps 5% of my graduating class took the PE exam? And now, few of my coworkers, customers, or suppliers are professional engineers - The two individuals that I can think of transferred into the domain out of civil engineering.
The electronics engineer in the article mistakenly stumbled into the territory of civil engineers who are very, very protective of their licensure, and they overreacted IMO. I don't dispute that if he'd claimed to be an NSPE-licensed Professional Engineer, and signed off on documents which are legally required to be approved by a PE, that he'd be deserving of the punishments associated with this fraud (which are much steeper than $500). But the NSPE does not own the generic term "engineer".
It is possible to be a "real estate agent" (the profession) without being a Realtor. There are licensing requirements, which vary by state, to be a real estate agent.
Perhaps predictably, the people complaining about this feel that it's a form of rent-seeking by incumbents, but none of them have bothered to consider the flip side of the equation which is that bad actors who falsely hold themselves out as licensed professionals can hurt would-be clients in two ways: by directly exploiting them for the cost of services which they are not licensed to provide, and by jeopardizing their longer-term interests in a way that might severely impact them in the future.
Obviously this gentleman is not running around trying to scam Oregonians into paying for cut-price engineering work. But publicly asserting that you are licensed to practice a profession without actually being so, especially when licensure is generally easy to obtain, creates the potential for public misunderstanding. The point of the fine is not to impose a serious financial penalty (hence the token amount of %500) but to draw the public's attention to the fact that anyone holding themselves out as an engineer needs to be licensed within the jurisdiction in which they are practicing - and practicing on your own behalf is still practicing and indeed widely considered by professionals as a kind of marketing.
Considering that the annual fee to practice as an engineer in Oregon is only $75, and that engineering is well established as a profession, I don't think his complaints have a whole lot of merit. Last time I looked engineers are required to take ethics classes as part of their education, and in many jurisdictions keeping ones certification up requires a certain number of hours spent in continuing education each year, same as in the medical and legal professions. If you're not actively practicing your profession then you have, legally speaking, retired and should not present yourself as being currently licensed.
Where is he licensed? Why is he not licensed in Oregon, despite having been timely notified, without penalty, of the requirement to do so if he wished to claim that title? Why did he agree to abide by this requirement then break his agreement within months?
The first linked document in the article states that the defendant is not licensed by any state.
Architect, Lawyer and Medical Doctor, for sure.
Seems incredibly petty.
Way to pass up a revenue stream.
What a crazy world we've created for ourselves.
Also, if his job title includes "engineer" the board is going to have a very difficult time justifying the case.
And.... this is a civil matter. His best option is to get a good lawyer and just ignore them.
Yet another reason for small government.
'The board shouldn't exist' is a novel proposition. I guess you can't understand what interest the state might have in the ability to commission accurate land surveys and reliable public works. Almost makes you wonder how these things come into being in the first place, doesn't it?
Insofar as government is a provider of public goods in the form of infrastructure I would certainly say that it has a legitimate interest in maintaining standards so as to avoid wasting public money.
Privacy may be part of the problem -- yes it would suck to publicize everyone's whole history of administrative fines, but making this information public by default would limit corrupt application of the rules.
In my opinion this is a first amendment case. The supreme court created something called 'strict scrutiny' to analyze cases where other laws encroach on the first amendment. Under strict scrutiny, the government needs to prove a compelling state interest to restrict free speech.
Does the state of oregon have a compelling interest in preventing this person from informing a state agency, via private correspondence, of a safety-related calibration issue in their traffic light system?
If you think so, interested to hear your argument.
I appreciate the existence of the certification, but I think using the same word for the certification and the work is an attempt to confuse the public about the difference between a licensed engineer and someone applying the same methods without a license.
(I've got the master of science in civil engineering, not the Microsoft one)
It's pretty cute how the same yuppies who are supportive of strict regulation are lining up to praise childhood programming courses. By the time our children are grown, programming will be illegal without a license - ushered in by the mayhem created by hipsters programming insecure IoT devices. These are the same people who praise curiosity out of one side of their mouth, but insist no one should practice cryptography because it's far too hard for mortals to understand.
I would be delighted if academic America would get off it's high horse. You're starting to look an awful lot like Hollywood circa 1998.
However, that is the problem - people shouldn't be pushed around by bureaucratic functionaries because he hasn't paid the cover charge to use the title that is appropriate for his trade. He was sending an intelligible email with genuine, well researched claims - he was disrespected, fined and suppressed.
I wonder how many emails Oregon is receiving now from engineers?
Did you read any of the primary source documents in the article? If not then this is going to be a waste of time. If so, please reconcile your arguments with the fact that Jarlstrom initiated contact with the board in an attempt to push a city authority around, and then broke the agreement he made to abide by Oregon's code when it was explained to him absent any kind of bureaucratic sanction.
You can say you're an engineer
You can recommend new traffic signal algorithms
But you can't say you're an engineer while recommending new traffic signal algorithms
If you say you are a member of a profession and are not obviously fake, most people will take that assertion at face value, and take any of your comments on that subject as truth. Not enforcing licensing requirements is basically an invitation to scammers.