> An engineer should be willing to tell his boss "No, because I would go to jail"
I guess we just fundamentally don't agree on how power dynamics effect these types of scenarios.
I guess we just fundamentally don't agree on how power dynamics effect these types of scenarios.
Right now, the conversation goes, management: "I want x". Engineer: "X is insecure, we should do y instead". M: "Y will cost us X more than x, and it's never going to matter for us, anyway."
This puts the engineer in a position where they need to argue and justify the cost. Compared to "Sorry, I can't do that; it's illegal and I'd go to jail if I did that and was found out." Now the engineer doesn't have to justify anything. The law isn't a burden on the engineer here, it's a shield.
Yes, there are still some scenarios in which management insists. In my limited experience, that's in gray scenarioa where it's arguable whether the law applies. But the point is, it's much easier for an engineer to argue whether the law applies, than whether it is worth the money.
I think you can see these effects in the lengths companies go to protect healthcare data (hipaa) vs any other random personal data.
The big difference is that companies need professional engineers. Professional approval on certain things is required by law. I'm not sure that would be a good idea for software, but that is what makes the system work for professional engineers.
Presumably there would be repercussions at the government level if a company repeatedly demanded engineers do things worthy of stripping their licenses though, no?
The individual engineer doing the work needs a license, but the company itself also needs a permit to practice. The permit must be held by an engineer, who is personally responsible for the engineering that occurs under their permit.
So, the permit holder needs to worry not just about their own ethical behaviour, but that of all engineers in the company. They are incentivized to ensure the company will hold the public safety paramount, or to walk away if they cannot (thereby leaving the company without a permit).
If the company has a pattern of misbehaviour, it may be difficult to obtain a permit.
So, yes, we agree, if there are repercussions for a company regularly breaking the law, then engineers can and should refuse work that has negative legal or moral repercussions. But in the world of tech, that's not the case.
I personally believe that you, the software developer typing in the code, should hold yourself personally accountable for what you are typing in. You might also be designing what you type in, or even setting the requirements, but it might be other people. Regardless, you are making the software come into being--you're the one coding it and pushing it to the repo, so you should set the standard of what is acceptable. This "well, boss told me to do it!" rationalization and blame-shifting is how we get dangerous and unethical software.
And, yes, I have quit software jobs where I was asked to write software I considered ethically questionable, and failed to change the boss's mind.
No, I am suggesting that there is significantly more grey area between your moral highground and reality.
> I personally believe that you, the software developer typing in the code, should hold yourself personally accountable for what you are typing in
Yep.
> This "well, boss told me to do it!" rationalization and blame-shifting is how we get dangerous and unethical software.
It really is a strange world that, when corporations are attempting to turn profit on illegal behavior, it's the meaningless bodies-in-seats that we're trying to hold accountable.
I am, and have been, repeatedly, suggesting that the lowest level cannot be held accountable without holding the rest of the levels accountable. Jailing engineers for doing things their companies demanded of them is ridiculous if you're not also jailing those doing the demanding. I'm kind of shocked this isn't painfully obvious.
> And, yes, I have quit software jobs where I was asked to write software I considered ethically questionable, and failed to change the boss's mind.
Congratulations, that's a level of privilege lots can't afford.
The equasion should be, for management: "Y will cost us X more than x, but if X is hacked we will get taken to the cleaners"
For the actual engineer to be held responsible you would have to add a formalised approval process, so that its clear who signed what off. Inagine you signed off on something, and then changes were made without your knowledge - that much easier to do with software than a bridge.