On the need for a Hippocratic Oath for programmers. | Hacker News Reader

On the need for a Hippocratic Oath for programmers.

glyf.livejournal.com

10 pointsasciilifeform11 comments

The barrier to entry for programming is just so low. Oaths and certifications for the general programming population will not prevent bad people from learning to program and expressing malice algorithmically; but it may hinder good programmers from releasing new software.

I agree there are problems when a company which should be trustworthy, such as Sony (cited in the post), will act maliciously towards their customers. But at some point consumers must take responsibility for their choices and consider their rights and personal safety ahead of their wants. If you know that Sony installs a rootkit, then don't buy Sony media. Instead, write a letter or even a blog explaining why you won't buy their product. If you're just too weak and really want that DVD, then live with your decision and don't try to pawn off the consequences on "those shady programmers".

> at some point consumers must take responsibility for their choices... If you know that Sony installs a rootkit, then don't buy Sony media.

Have you ever bought or rented a DVD? If so, you have subsidized DRM, the purchase of copyright extension laws, and lawsuits against P2P users.

The burden to act ethically must rest largely on programmers precisely because users are largely unable to act collectively, while media conglomerates easily unite to protect their own interests.

The Sony Rootkit fiasco is an exception, rather than the rule. Consumers would have simply rolled over and accepted it, just like they accepted every other abuse perpetrated by copyright holders in recent history, were it not for the heroic efforts of a few activists.

Game consoles have shown us how to raise the barrier to entry: only run signed code by default, and require a "license to code". The security class I was in last semester discussed this; it may not catch on for consumer PCs, but it's not inconceivable that it could be the model in the business world.

Generally an interesting idea. Though I can think of some other areas which have more need for that(_finance_).

That's interesting. I had noticed that the folks who were in finance to Make a Difference and all that cost us hundreds of billions of dollars (at Fannie and Freddie). Meanwhile, the mercenary, only-in-it-for-the-money hedge funds outperformed the S&P by 20% last year.

The "secret" that cuts to the heart of the ethical imperatives of my field (and supersedes the Hippocratic Oath) is simply, "The secret of caring for the patient is in caring for the patient".

Some need the constant reminder of oaths: those for whom money is the sine qua non for giving a damn.

Hunger for discovery, compassion, and the need to create beauty, eliminate the need for oaths.

> those for whom money is the sine qua non for giving a damn

You mean, almost all programmers?

Patently false. See: the last 5-10 years of open source. "many" may be accurate, "a majority" may be accurate, but "almost all" ain't accurate.

The author is a fool. He is a fool who does not understand the free market. Users are cows. They should be treated as such. Cows do not know what they want. It is our job as programmers to give the cows what they need whether they like it or not. We the programmers know better than the cows who are the users. A programmer who does not understand that is a fool who should be weeded out of the free market. In a free market the cows can choose the software they want - if they don't like it, they are free to not buy it. But the programmer must do his best to save the cow (or the lemming) from himself. Users are fools who don't know what is best for them. Only we the programmers do. If they don't like our software they don't have to buy it. Such is the nature of the free market. Programmers should continue to write good software even if the user doesn't like it. Fools did not understand the buildings of Howard Roarke, nor do they understand the intricacies of software. So be it. The cows can go on mooing. The architects and programmers of the world will go on moving civilization forward.

I don't know if this is satire. I hope so, but either way it's emblematic of a common but absurd worldview.

Without empathy for your users, you will always make poor software. Users may not be able to perfectly articulate what they need, but neither are programmers able to infer what they need from first principles. If you treat your users like cows, what you create will not be fit for human consumption.

What of programmers/architects who are also users?

Moo back to you. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com