Hacker News Reader

Comment by the__alchemist | Hacker News Reader

I like how the article brings attention to this issue, and I especially like its list of examples of hostile behavior. The actionable-advice part it transitions to is a bit odd, culminating at the list of the bottom of what to do as an engineer and project manager. It reads to me something like:

" Hey bandits! Do this:

  - Don't mug people
  - Be ethical
  - Treat people with respect
  - Threatening bodily injury and death is bad too!
  - Instead of robbing banks, earn money through an occupation
"

View on HN

Yeah, really. That said, anything that advances cultural acknowledgement of banditry is a good thing. Right now people are walking around with titles like Senior Stagecoach Divestiture Specialist and everyone pretends that it's normal.

Exactly this. It's now "industry standard" to mug people; why should I swear your Hippocratic oath when everyone else is getting rich? Instead of asking developers (the organizations, not the individuals) to mend their ways, we users need to take action to defend ourselves.

- Education. People who didn't use computers in the earlier age of full user agency might not even imagine a world where they fully control their devices.

- Advertising. One should not be allowed to advertise "selling" something without handing over full control.

- Law. Shrink-wrap licenses should be neutered, software patents limited, DMCA abolished; these are legal moats around developers' power.

- Technology. Open software, open hardware, open data, self-hostable services.

- Platforms. It's time to treat software as hostile by default, the way an Internet connection is now de facto hostile. The OS needs to be hardened not only against hackers, but also against developers.

These are vague generalities, not concrete suggestions, and there are huge obstacles to each. Perhaps others have useful suggestions.

> why should I swear your Hippocratic oath when everyone else is getting rich?

One must cultivate one's own garden.

That's implied in the "your". Go ahead and be happy in your garden. But don't expect anyone else to follow along.

Plus, like, OK, imagine I'm an engineer. "I don't think customers would like this feature. In fact I think it's against their interests." "We appreciate your concern, but we've judged that this feature actually benefits customers, so please implement as specified." Discussion over.

Quit. “I was just doing my job” stops being an excuse at some point…

If they were ordering me to do war crimes I suppose I would but I don't think the annoyances in this article are quite at that level and I question the idea that you'll find anywhere that never makes any decisions you don't agree with.

If Software Engineers operated at parity with other Engineering fields, the conversation could be quite different.

"I will not sign off on your design as specified. Change the design, or Do Not Operate". Any attempts to implement and operate without sign off will be reported to the authorities, because the Public's Interest, and my continued licensure are more important than your empire building."

At this point, I think I'll suffer the burden of licensure to keep unethical groups/impls in check.

In Canada, if you have a P. Eng, you can do that (and, in fact, must).

(I don't know how many software developers have P. Engs though. The regulators try to extend the coverage of their regulation to encompass software and tech, but at the same time ignore a lot of tech companies and workers operating without license. They also tend to write rules with an implicit assumption that all engineers are working in big utilities or mining companies, making it very hard for tech workers to jump through those hoops and get licensed.) /rant

But in point of fact engineers ship artificially limited products all the time. Yeah it's different if we're talking about a bridge that can kill someone but that's not exactly like an online installer, is it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com