Comment by rmxt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmxt | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Using the title "engineer" in conjunction with "submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification [...] of traffic signals", I believe, is the critical part here.

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...

> Using the title "engineer" in conjunction with "submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification [...] of traffic signals", I believe, is the critical part here.

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.

That's because you're lifting it out of the relevant context. He has already messed things up for them by previously claiming to be an engineer to government agencies and local and national media.

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.

If I'm not mistaken, he is an engineer, and even a licensed one too, just not licensed in the Oregonian jurisdiction.

> If I'm not mistaken, he is an engineer, and even a licensed one too, just not licensed in the Oregonian jurisdiction.

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.

According the final order, he is not. Page 2 of [0].

"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...

No he isn't! Why do you keep asserting this falsehood?

I didn't see your earlier reply. I was traveling across the continent with intermittent network access.

The law is not without context, nor is the law not without exceptions.

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.

Which basically covers the run of the mills, "I'm doing math and engineering in my backyard, or my friend's front yard, or for my neighbor".

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.

[0] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.060

Understood - I read those exceptions and his attempt to use them. Obviously neither exception applies; but it's the fact that the definition of engineering in ORS 672.005(b)[0] is so broad is worrying. Saying that I can do some math and create a nice graph for my neighbor, but not post it on imgur without a fine, is a step too far for my taste.

[0] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.005

Please do yourself a favor and read this for a while instead. Taking bits of statute in isolation and extrapolating from them is a Bad Idea, and if ou ever get sued it will impair your ability to understand your own case. I've seen what that looks like close-up and it's not pretty.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/academic-programs/l...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com