First, Do No Harm - A Hippocratic Oath for Coders? 550
rhysweatherley asks: "With the increase in spyware, spam, etc, is it time for a Hippocratic Oath for Programmers? Should programmers be able to refuse to write code that harms the public more than it helps? Should they code defensively to prevent software and information being misused for unintended purposes? And how do we protect such programmers from being dismissed unfairly for standing on principle?"
when you wont do it.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:when you wont do it.... (Score:5, Interesting)
they'd just fire you and hire someone else. If you are unwilling especialy now there will be 10 other people willing to do it and take your job if you aren't.
You're missing the point. First of all, I don't think there's 91% unemployment among software developers. Secondly, if there was any kind of organization among programmers independent of the employer then the employer would have a hard time bringing down this type of action.
I don't think a "union" would occur, but I wouldn't be surprised if a professional organization of ethical programmers would arise. I would imagine members could fetch a better salary, especially if there was some competency requirement, as doctors have the Medical Board exams.
It would hurt the self made programmer, but I would certainly rather see that type of accreditation than what we have today: MCSE, MCSA, etc...
Re:when you wont do it.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: when you won't do it... (Score:2, Insightful)
They weren't terrible things, but parts of my company have wanted to do a few things over the years that would be bad for our customers. I've refused to work on them, but always with clearly-presented objections. They've not gone ahead, or have been killed around deployment time.
It actually works better to delay refusal and start with the objections. Those early phases of design will drag out as you work to build consensus on your objection. If you refuse immediately, you lose your involvement, you lose your voice on the matter. Also, you don't want people to start disrespecting and ignoring you for seemingly arbitrary obstructions.
I always start with the explanation of long-term damage to the company, as this is the best way to counter the typical motivation. Someone says that this will increase long-term profits, and you need to point to the way that this is actually an illusion. This approach is valid for the very large fraction of destructive projects that are really trading off long-term success for short-term success.
However, there will be times when the company will actually make greater profits from a questionable practice, or else ignores the arguments in the first bit. This is where the hard personal decisions and possible sacrifice would come in. Yes, if you don't want to work on it, you will have to continue to refuse or else quit. I have not had to escalate to this point. However, if I were to get that far, I expect I would prefer quitting to being fired, and would make it very clear to the other programmers and to senior management why I was leaving.
The keys to any of this working are that you are correct, the management is willing to listen to you, is sensible, and has their own motivation to be reasonable above and beyond the profit motive. If they didn't fit that description, I'd start looking for alternate employment. Finally, I don't find these situations to be a bad sign; only if the company doesn't respond well is the company unhealthy.
Re:There is huge unemployment (Score:2)
No. Actually, there is huge unemployment in the software industry.
Here in SEATTLE, the progammers job fairs are devoid of employers, but full of would-be employees. The last one featured only two employers, one of which was Microsoft, and they just showed up to maintain a presence, not because there were actually any openings.
I've been programming since I was 7, and have 4 years of professional programming experience. All but 5 people, 3 of which were programmers (if I recall correctly) were laid off at the company I used to work for. There were 25-30 employees there, 15-20 of which were programmers.
Re:There is huge unemployment (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There is huge unemployment (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There is huge unemployment (Score:2, Interesting)
It occurs to me, that in this time of economic trouble while people struggle to find gainful employment with which to support themselves and even expand upon their knowledge base and experiences, the business world shies away from hiring inexperienced employees and instead attempt to hire only those with years of experience under their belt. This in theory makes perfect sense, employers wish only to hire the most qualified persons they can for their money. Sadly this method is ultimately self-defeating.
We live in a market economy. There are producers and consumers. Most companies are both, producing goods or services while consuming resources with which to provide those goods and services. What happens when the resources dry up? With out adequate resources any business will cease to be. For instance a shortage of rubber would help to shut down tire manufactures, do you think car manufactures could exist with out an adequate supply of tires? What about all of the employees? All suffering companies would both have to lay off vast amount of employees to keep from going under right away. These new members of the unemployment line become consumers who have no method of production with which to adequately support themselves with. Suddenly, a large number of consumers no longer can afford to buy as they once did. A shortage in buying will help to destabilize the entire market where producers would not be able produce as much because they cannot sell as much of their products.
A farmer who wants to succeed in farming does not do so by salting his fields, a schoolteacher does not help the school system succeed by burning her school to the ground. Why does business think that by eliminating one of their vital methods of production do they still expect to stay in business?
When businesses refuse to hire those with out large amounts of relevant industry experience they do nothing but hurt their ability to hire qualified people down the line. If job experienced is measured in steps of a ladder, how can a business expect to hire persons who are near the middle or top of the ladder when they prevent anyone from ever setting foot on their lowest rung? Either they hope that someone else will permit that first step or worse... they are not paying attention to what will happen in the future when they shoot themselves in the foot.
Both are equally evil and both are going on as we speak. Isn't it time to allow that first step to occur so that that climber can be brought into the upper levels? The expectation that others will create these quality employees for you is ludicrous. As the old line says "God helps those who help themselves." In no way do I mean that God or anyone else will swoop down and save those who make reasonable attempts towards progress and advancement, I mean that unless one is willing to take steps towards improvement and investment are never going to get anywhere while sitting still will simply cease to be. Those who stand still deserve to perish; with out allowing the first step all there will be is stagnation and an end to all we know and cherish.
Are you ready to allow it?
Re:There is huge unemployment (Score:3, Insightful)
In my profession (SQA Engineer) the opposite happened during this recession. Companies no longer wanted experience but tried to cut financial corners by only hiring junior engineers. I went six months without a job, but started one today with a sharp company. Keep your eyes peeled, and good luck.
Re:when you wont do it.... (Score:2)
When people Unionize, it's much easier for them to stand by their ideals. They have the support of their coworkers, and power both within and without the work place.
Idealistic Unions succeed every day in this Real world.
It sounds like what you need are Real Ethics.
Re:when you wont do it.... (Score:2)
If you have to choose between doing unethical work, or doing no work at all, you choose no work.
In these cases, the most ethical thing you can do may quite possibly be to take the money from the people who are going to turn other people into accomplices in crime with it.
You don't help your enemy, you sabatoge your enemy.
There is no need... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There is no need... (Score:2, Insightful)
it'd need to be across-the-board. and that's not going to happen.
end of story, move along please.
Programmer Codes of Conduct from Around the World (Score:3, Informative)
http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/WorldCodes/Wo rldCodes.html [vt.edu]
That said, a well written poetic work catching the proper spirit, and conducive to memorization is probably worthwhile
Oath for Scientists, Engineers, and Executives (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.globalideasbank.org/BOV/BV-381.HTML [globalideasbank.org]
Hippocratic oath for Scientists, Engineers, and Executives
I vow to practise my profession with conscience and dignity;
I will strive to apply my skills only with the utmost respect for the well-being of all humanity, the earth, and all its species.
I will not permit considerations of nationality, politics, prejudice, or material advancement to intervene between my work and the duty to future generations;
I make this Oath solemnly, freely, and upon my honour
Don't blame the programmers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't blame the programmers (Score:5, Insightful)
Its all about the money (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't like what it could turn into. (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF are you talking about? (Score:2)
This isn't some legislatively requried oath. It's a code of ethics. Sure it's within the realm of physical possibility that someone will require that you stamp 666 on your forehead in order to be a professional coder, but its highly unlikely.
Man, if the parent isn't an example of a slippery slope I don't know what is.
Re:I don't like what it could turn into. (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
THIS WAS NOT POSTED BY ME !!! (Score:2)
Apologies for any offence this may cause
Even doctors are abanodning the Hippocratic Oath (Score:2)
For example, the oath requires you treat your teacher as your father, his children as your siblings.
It forbids surgery!
It forbids charging for medical education.
So it may not be the best model..
Re:Even doctors are abanodning the Hippocratic Oat (Score:3, Informative)
I work at the College of Medicine of the University of Illinois at Chicago, which is the largest one in terms of MDs graduated annually in the US (about 400 per year).
Like many other US Medical Colleges, the oath that graduates take is the 1948 Declaration of Geneva version of the Oath of Hippocrates, which reads:
Now being admitted to the profession of medicine, I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity. I will give respect and gratitude to my deserving teachers. I will practice medicine with conscience and dignity. The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration. I will hold in confidence all that my patient confides in me. I will maintain the honor and the noble traditions of my medical profession, My colleagues will be as my family. I will not permit consideration of race, religion, nationality, party politics, or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient. I will maintain the utmost respect for human life. Even under threat I will not use my knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity. These promises I make freely and upon my honor.
As you can see, even medicine changes with the times, while trying to maintain the important features of the Oath of Hippocrates.
Re:Even doctors are abanodning the Hippocratic Oat (Score:4, Interesting)
<P>
Doctors take this oath, and follow other rules, as part of being a <b>certified</b> profession. To be a certified profession means there is a governing body, and often the government, which defines whether you are a doctor or not, and defines whether you can practice medicine.
<P>
Certification makes sense in a very limited set of professions where the practicioner will be doing something life-critical like cutting you open, or defending your freedom in court, or designing a bridge for you -- and just as importantly, in cases where you have a consulting relationship with the professional rather than an employment one.
<P>
If you're going to trust somebody you barely know with your life for a short-term contract, you bet you want some external means of certifying that they are capable of the job.
<P>
But with a very few exceptions, programming and sysadmin are not like this. THere are of course many consultants, but most are actually employees. Instead of the government defining who is a programmer, the employer decides who they want to hire.
<P>
What would an oath for programmers mean? Would there be a certifying body checking things? Would it get to define who was a programmer? Would somebody not be allowed to be a programmer if they didn't take the oath?
<P>
That's not what we want.
Can be used for good or evil (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can be used for good or evil (Score:2)
Programmers are free to quit if they want... (Score:2)
If you think your employer is doing something you think is unethical, you can refuse. If they fire you, then you have the option of finding another software job or flipping burgers at McDonalds.
It is not the end of the world to lose your job, especially if you lost it because of your principles.
Re:What's wrong with a Union? (Score:2)
I agree 100%.
I see local Unions (IBEW 46 & 77 [ibew77.com], Teamsters) out in the streets doing great things for people very frequently. They let other groups use their space, and are a great source of social and economic justice activism.
Unions go far in helping people build spines that they otherwise don't develop when they believe that their life is tied to a cruel system.
Re:What's wrong with a Union? (Score:2)
Spoken like someone who's gained the benefit and didn't even know it. Ever hear of the 40-hour work week? How about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire? Unions were -- and, I believe, remain -- a crucial part of establishing the dignity of labor in the industrialized West. Like most organizations that grow powerful, a lot of decay has set in, but that doesn't negate their positive impact. If anything, the heartbreak of modern unions is how much they've forgotten their roots and their achievements.
Re:What's wrong with a Union? (Score:2)
Re:What's wrong with a Union? - A lot. (Score:2)
Coders are human, too (Score:4, Insightful)
An hippocratic oath is all very well, but it's not going to accomplish anything. Conscientious programmers will refuse to write stuff to which they object, other programmers won't. That'll always be the case, irrespective of any resolution.
I believe teh British Computer Society has a clause in its members' charter which is akin to this sort of thing; it says something along the lines of programmers having to bear in mind the social impact of their work, but I don't know whether they've every kicked any spamware programmers out. I kinda doubt it.
An Oath Won't Work (Score:2)
Personally I think if a company is intending on invading your privacy they should be forced to display a *short* *readable* warning (ie. not legalese) that tells the user what they are about to do. Hiding something in a 30 page privacy policy is no different than not mentioning it at all, even lawyers don't read those things!
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]
Re:An Oath Won't Work (Score:2)
Oh, where does free speech come into all this? I would assume a programmer's right to express him or herself takes backseat to regulating problems that never existed. If you don't like spyware, don't use it!
Misrepresentation is the problem (Score:2)
I agree that just coding or distributing spyware without the intention of using it unethically should not be regulated in any way.
ACM/IEEE Software Engineering Code of Ethics (Score:5, Informative)
Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice
ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Task Force on Software Engineering Ethics and Professional Practices
Short Version
PREAMBLE
The short version of the code summarizes aspirations at a high level of the abstraction; the clauses that are included in the full version give examples and details of how these aspirations change the way we act as software engineering professionals. Without the aspirations, the details can become legalistic and tedious; without the details, the aspirations can become high sounding but empty; together, the aspirations and the details form a cohesive code.
Software engineers shall commit themselves to making the analysis, specification, design, development, testing and maintenance of software a beneficial and respected profession. In accordance with their commitment to the health, safety and welfare of the public, software engineers shall adhere to the following Eight Principles:
1. PUBLIC - Software engineers shall act consistently with the public interest.
2. CLIENT AND EMPLOYER - Software engineers shall act in a manner that is in the best interests of their client and employer consistent with the public interest.
3. PRODUCT - Software engineers shall ensure that their products and related modifications meet the highest professional standards possible.
4. JUDGMENT - Software engineers shall maintain integrity and independence in their professional judgment.
5. MANAGEMENT - Software engineering managers and leaders shall subscribe to and promote an ethical approach to the management of software development and maintenance.
6. PROFESSION - Software engineers shall advance the integrity and reputation of the profession consistent with the public interest.
7. COLLEAGUES - Software engineers shall be fair to and supportive of their colleagues.
8. SELF - Software engineers shall participate in lifelong learning regarding the practice of their profession and shall promote an ethical approach to the practice of the profession.
Number 4; ouch. (Score:2)
VI or Emacs
Emacs or Xemacs
IDE or Basic Editor (Hmm, a trend)
Command Line or GUI
BSD or GPL
Windows or bend over (which would you prefer?)
Re:ACM/IEEE Software Engineering Code of Ethics (Score:2, Troll)
1. PUBLIC - Software engineers shall act consistently with the public interest.
And what is the public interest? I'm sure the margeteers of gator think they're serving the public.
2. CLIENT AND EMPLOYER - Software engineers shall act in a manner that is in the best interests of their client and employer consistent with the public interest.
This one's ok, but take care of yourself first. The company will do just fine looking out for themselves and couldn't care less about you. Don't look out for the company only to get screwed in the end.
3. PRODUCT - Software engineers shall ensure that their products and related modifications meet the highest professional standards possible.
And the kicker here is "possible". Often, you have to give the client what they're asking for, even if it's not the best way. There's doing right things and doing things right. Doing things right may not be the right thing to do. Set the expectations, communucate with the client, but in the end, give them what they think they want, and cover your ass.
4. JUDGMENT - Software engineers shall maintain integrity and independence in their professional judgment.
I think this appies to everyone.
5. MANAGEMENT - Software engineering managers and leaders shall subscribe to and promote an ethical approach to the management of software development and maintenance.
Man, these people have never worked with accidenture. To bad this is not as common as is should be.
6. PROFESSION - Software engineers shall advance the integrity and reputation of the profession consistent with the public interest.
That sounds nice. But no body likes lawyers and they're doing just fine.
7. COLLEAGUES - Software engineers shall be fair to and supportive of their colleagues.
All I have to say is watch your back.
8. SELF - Software engineers shall participate in lifelong learning regarding the practice of their profession and shall promote an ethical approach to the practice of the profession.
When am I allowed to take a break and stop learning? I'm a fscking swiss army knife. My resume is so big, people are actually starting to doubt that I really have actual working experience to back up that huge list of tools.
I love idealism. Asking programmers to take an oath like this is like asking my kids to swear never to stay up late, eat junk food, and leave their bicycles in the driveway. People haven't changed one bit in thousands of years, and they're not about to start. Sure, I'll recite the oath... and look over my shoulder while doing it, so that I can cash the check and keep on keeping on. In the end, what really matters is whether or not I can feed my family, pay my bills, and live a stress-free life. If that's not your focus, maybe it should be.
Philosophy of the ACM Code of Ethics (Score:4, Interesting)
The basic idea behind the ACM code of ethics, which was first developed in the 1960's (but has been amended many times since) is to avoid being specific or definitive in any way. There are good reasons for this that were published in an ACM paper titled "Rules for Ethics in Information Processing" [acm.org], by Donn B. Parker in the ACM journal for March, 1968, describing the reasons that the code of ethics was designed how it is.
If you look at the code of ethics carefully, there are virtually no declarations in the entire thing that state "thou shalt not" or "thou shalt". If there's anything that says that, it puts the judgement of what it means on the member themselves.
When it comes down to it, the code of ethics is more of a requirement that ACM members use their common sense and do what they truly believe is right and ethical in a way that is within reason acceptable to society. Every single person has their own idea of what is ethical, and the boundaries are very fuzzy. As soon as you start drawing lines, you create as many problems as you solve.
It has been used in the past to kick people out of the organisation. I think one of the first times it was used was to dismiss a member who'd put workarounds in some banking software so that his own account had certain financial advantages over everyone else's... or something similar. He was put before a committee representing ACM, he couldn't ethicly justify what he'd done in a way that satisfied the committee, and so he was thrown out.
The ACM paper above is a good read about why it isn't a good idea to have a strict code of ethics. Personally I think the ACM approach is a good way to do it.
Re:ACM/IEEE Software Engineering Code of Ethics (Score:2)
Who defines what is in the public interest? Ask ten different people and you will get ten different answer.
"Public interest" is sprinkled through just about all the points. How can anyone possibly base a code of ethics on something that can't possibly be defined?
I would never agree to such document.
ACM Code of Ethics already covers this (Score:2)
1.1 Contribute to society and human well-being.
1.2 Avoid harm to others.
A curiously archaic notion (Score:2)
That said, I think the reason that there is no Hippocratic Oath for coders is because it would make no sense. Those who have the moral fiber to disagree and live up to the consequences do so. Those who only are in it for the money say, "You want spy-ware? Heck, I'll give you spy-ware that eats up anti-spy-ware programs!"
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Hippocratic Oath seems like a quaint archaism that's more symbolic than anything. Actually, I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that new doctors were not even required to take it. But doubtless some med student will give us the inside scoop.
:Peter
Re:A curiously archaic notion (Score:2)
For a pessimistic sort of fun, read through all the Slashdot titles, and every time there's a question besides in Ask Slashdot, simply add "No" to it mentally. There haven't been all that many questions recently, but some work:
Alternatives to the CBDTPA? No.
Will Evolution Exchange Microsoft? No.
Is Starband's Satellite Internet Service Palatable? No.
Cells from Liposuction Function as Stem Cells? No.
Portable Ogg Players? No.
Is Verizon Up To Speed? No.
Explaining the GPL to Non-Lawyers? No.
Programming doesn't need 6 years at med school (Score:2, Interesting)
There are two ways to look at thist:
a. There are commercial software applications that are going to be used in life threatening applications. Medical software is a growing industry. As soon as someone dies as a result of your medical software, or even when a doctor was using it, expect a lawsuit. The standard threats of legality and fear of punishment are the motivators when writing software for that kind of industry. Therefore, in the commercial world, it is (in the most part, and especially in code with a more serious use than KaZaA) self regulating.
b. Software, being the way that it is, is very easy to modify -- sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Any kid can take an open source program, hack in their own viral segment, and then release it. While forking isn't that bad a problem in the OSS community, and in some cases is a very good thing, if Windows ever got publically open-sourced I know that hundreds of kids would go through and change every occurence of "Microsoft Windows" to "my l33t h4x0r cl0n3 0s" in the source code. Hell, I hex-edited command.com back in the day for a laugh. But I didn't know enough to do anything but change strings.
That's the clincher - only people that know what they are doing can become a registered medical practitioner, as opposed to any 12 year old who can be a "software programmmer." I propose a simple return to the Internet of a few years back, where you had to be relatively smart, but not a rocket scientist, to get online. There were no "Compile, link and run this downloaded code" buttons in flash IDEs. I hope that the development of Internet2, or whatever it turns out to be, means that we can return to a bit more geek-academic-centric network, instead of an advertising and pr0n festival.
If it wasn't for the kids hacking code that started through a vanity desire, we wouldn't have half the cool technologies OSS has today. You have to put up with the good and the bad, and filter through it. For every Brilliant Digital there will be a Lavasoft protecting us, eventually.
Programming requires at least 5 years university (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know what kind of programmer you're refering to. It took me five years to get my degree in Computer Engineering, plus a lot more time of ongoing education since I graduated in 1990. That was an extra five years after getting my associate degree.
I actually have very little respect for doctors' attitude that 'we save lives'. So do I when I design control systems running heavy machinery, or avionics, or run an industrial plant, or whatever. Like any other profession, medicine is full of people who aren't as capable as others. The problem I see with doctors is that they all want us to believe that they're 'hollier than thou'. I don't accept that. If a doctor fucks up, a patient dies. If an avionics software engineer fucks up, a couple of hundred people die.
If the state of the medical profession, HMOs, drug manufacturers, and other health services in the United States is any indication, I'd much rather be an unlicensed software engineer than an "ethical" doctor. Why is it that medicines and medical attention cost as much as ten times as what they cost in other countries?
As for the cool technologies OSS has today, keep in mind that a great majority of them are re-implementations of software developed privately or under a university grant. Somebody did the research and h4x0rs re-implemented it. I support OSS (and not GPL'd, by the way; other licences like BSD are more to my liking but that's me), so don't go flaming me for this comment. A h4x0r != software engineer, though often a software engineer is also a h4x0r. People forget (even on /.) that coding is only the smallest part of the profession. System design, knowing how to analyze and apply the correct algorithms, understanding the OS (or how to build one), the compilers (or how to build them), and so on are as valuable as coding. I met many h4x0rs, even employed software "professionals" who don't have a clue of how to code something as simple as a Quick Sort.
Last time I checked, there are all kinds of charlatans developing 'miracle cures' and diets and what have you that, in the end, try to pass for members of the health industry. Turn midnight TV on and see for yourself.
Cheers!
EImpossible (Score:2)
Beyond that, the military-industrial complex relies far too heavily on computer programmers. If they swore to first do no harm, they wouldn't be able to use computers to design and control weapons systems. There'd go the economy. We need to kill kill kill in order to remain rich rich rich.
I didn't know that we served the public. (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously. How would your boss like it if he found out that you wouldn't add a feature like banner ads on an ICQ window because you took some kind of oath? I realize that the question asked in the submission, probably doesn't include things like this, but still.
Don't get me wrong, we shouldn't be supporting companies that like to sneak porn into children's software and other extreme similar companies, but for the most part we shouldn't need an oath.
Re:I didn't know that we served the public. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why we need some sort of association (I don't think the term "union" is really applicable) to point out breaches of the ethics code, and if nothing else publicly shame companies which fire employees for refusing to violate it.
Writing up a standard employment-contract term that obligated companies to not allow/coerce their employees to break the code, and urging programmers to demand it, would help a lot, too.
--
Benjamin Coates
Re:I didn't know that we served the public. (Score:2)
I think that I agree with you about an association or watchdog group or advocacy group or something. I also agree with what you said about the term "union" not applying.
The idea of a group publically shaming a company into doing something right, also works well. This would help those searching for jobs, in that they would avoid those companies. If he wants information, then he could pay for a list of names and their violations.
Consumer Reports works on this general idea. If you want their research, then pay for it. I think that there is a strong market potential for this type of an organization. In this day and age, there is a great need for employment mobility, so that employees don't feel trapped.
Malpractice Suits? (Score:2, Interesting)
Doesn't matter. (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:2)
That's a good thing, it makes it more expensive to produce evil code and therefore less profitable.
--
Benjamin Coates
Commit to the Oath! (Score:2, Interesting)
How can you even QUESTION for a moment commiting to the oath? I can't believe you all. "If I don't do evil, somebody else will."
What the hell kind of justification is that? Are you a machine or a person?
I quit my job when I was told to change the privacy policy statement on our web page. Were we going to notify people? Yeah, eventually they did- opt out policy, of course.
Check this out- they decided they wanted to sell as much personal information as possible. But they had to get peoples "consent". So they sent out two test 'notification' messages, one allowing people to opt-in, and one allowing people to opt-out, 5,000 people each. In both cases, they got only 5% response, either from people saying "yes, it's okay" or "no, it's not okay (FUCK YOU WE HATE YOU NOW)". I remember the Customer Service ladies joking about the hate mail we got back, as if these people were loonies for not wanting us to do this. (Oh yes, btw- we were truste approved..) When they found what everyone already knew- that people didn't respond either way, they said, "Oh, well, we'll just do opt-out", and sent out the notification. We got a lot of angry email after that, but it changed nothing.
I argued with my PM, who relayed my "concern" to our CTO. The CTO is an aristocrat and sees the wealthy as the custodians of society. It's right for him to do this, because the money will be used towards "proper" ends.
I left the company.
I shun all those who remained.
I shun all of the PMs who sat back and made up justifications for their transgressions. I shun the CTO's and investors who view themselves as the managers of the world.
Always have a back-up store of money, so that you aren't tempted to do evil in order to live.
Pussies who say that capitalism is good, but then violate the Golden Rule ("They're slackers anyways; They should read the contracts more carefully") drive me up the wall. Coworkers that claim that "If I don't, someone else will" drive me up the wall. The folks making the decisions saw it as their duty to guide the human race; They were manipulating people for their own good, and the sake of progress.
Fucking bastards.
Bee Ay eS Tee Ay aRe Dee eSs.
BASTARDS!
Shame on you!
Unionize (Score:2)
It's exactly this reason that Unions came into existance - when a worker can be replaced because easily, the boss can do whatever he wants.
Capitalism only works when both sides are equal in the partnership. I'm sick to death of the libertarian bullshit that infests this place - "just let the market take care of it". When the marketplace is fair, it's worth considering. But the only way to make it fair is to increase the power of the workers so that they have something to bargain with.
Most everything that makes our country great - the 40 hour work week, minimum (hopefully living in more and more places) wage, sick leave - where do you think it all came from? Generosity of employers? Hell no - it came from workers standing up for their rights.
Many, many people have been killed (read any good history book) just for trying to organize. Remember that the next time you say "we don't want a union".
Re:Unionize (Score:2)
Sorry, I have to disagree here: Unions are inherently violent, corrupt, and the most egregious oppressors of the workers that have ever existed. As a young engineer at an aerospace company in California, I was given the job of watching for Union attacks from the top of the roof of the main assembly building. (This after the company acquiesced to all significant demands of the Union - it was later revealed that they struck "because we had the money in the strike fund".) After the mob of Union thugs turned over three Police cars and set fire to them outside the company gates, just "to make a point", they STARTED SHOOTING AT US later in the afternoon. No one was injured, but they could have been, and Union bulletin boards encouraged trying to take us out. (It gets darn cold on the roof in Riverside at night, BTW!)
Let there be no mistake about it: Unions are BAD!!! Nothing they've brought to American wokers is worth the continual price we pay in corruption, murder, and mayhem. Thank God I now live in a right-to-work state, where no one can be forced to join a union and have their money forcibly confiscated to pay for criminal activities or lobbying for causes they disagree with.
Fortunately, the American people are beginning to see Unions for what they really are, and Union membership is the lowest point in decades.
Now THAT is a huge boost to the cause of freedom!
How will it start? (Score:2)
"I swear by Apollo the Physician and by Asclepius and by Health and Panacea and by all the gods as well as goddesses, making them judges..."
How would the Geek Oath start?
"I swear by Boole, and Babbage, and Turing, and Knuth..."
Hypocritic Oath for End-Users (Score:2)
That you will lead your lives and practice your art in uprightness and honor.
That into whatsoever web site you shall enter, it shall be for the good of opt-out mailing lists to the utmost of your mouse, your holding yourselves far aloof from privacy, from the GPL, from the tempting of others to intellectual property theft.
That you will exercise your art solely for the commercial squatting of patents, and will give no bandwidth, perform no division by zero, for a mad MP3 collection, even if solicited, far less suggest it.
That whatsoever you shall see or hear of the promise of open source software which is not fitting to be spoken, you will keep inviolably secret.
These things do you swear. Let each bow the head in sign of acquiescence.
And now, if you will be true to this, your oath, may prosperity and worthless stock options be yours; the opposite, if you shall prove yourselves forsworn.
ok, more work for me (Score:5, Funny)
If any of you programmers turns down work on principle, please send it to me. Since I'm a whor^H^H^H^Hconsultant, I'm in business to make money. And I'm willing to write whatever you ask for without giving a single thought to youthful idealism.
Sincerely,
infinite9
Re:ok, more work for me (Score:4, Insightful)
We do need people with some morals left, to stand up and say that exploiting the consumer is WRONG. We all know it is, we all hate being exploited, but somebody out there keeps writing the code that does it. Personally, as a programmer, I could not let myself write a program that does that (partially because I am best at programming underlying utilities, not end-user applications).
Anyway, my point is there doesn't seem to be enough in the way of people willing to stand up for their beleifs and/or morals and say that something is just plain wrong. This is the case in many fields, and not least in politics. If we could just stand up and truly protest, something might get changed - but there have to be ENOUGH, and that is a common problem that we're seeing both here and in other areas of society.
I've heard it said before that the downfall of every great civilization (such as Rome) was preceded by a moral decline. And if this isn't a wonderful example of that happening here in America. We need to return to the values that too few of us never left.
Slashdot Review: Code of Ethics for Programmers? (Score:2)
Review: Code of Ethics for Programmers? [slashdot.org]
I apologize in advance, as it's by Jon Katz.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Some programmers still have principles (Score:2)
I used to work at an ISP. Was with the company for approximately 3 years. The company forked off an internet promotions subsidiary. My role was to be the guy who gets the technology in order to make it happen.
If you're new to this, lets be clear, internet promotion is spamming. Fuck that. I'm not going to use my (frankly, awesome) skillset to stuff junkmail in people's inboxes. How could I live with myself? So I quit. There were some other reasons as well, but this managed to be the clincher.
I run my own business now, where no one is going to pressure me to sacrifice my morals for the almighty buck. That's all the hippocratic oath I need.
Abigail's Oath is my favourite (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Abigail, as reworked by Mike Sphar
Yes. (Score:2)
Similarly most patients, plaintiffs, etc. are not in a position to go over national (or even state) borders to find a cheaper (unlicensed) practitioner. Nor are many in a position of being their own legal counsel or physician (although many are forced to economically). As a result the oaths and their violations have teeth.
There is no central body controlling software developers or engineers in this way, nor do I think that there should be, per se. I believe that ethics in engineering is a valid thing (see works by Samuel C. Florman [alteich.com] for more discussion.)
Yet, I do not think that the field can be so easily regulated. Physicians say "Do no Harm" that means "Do not kill people" Lawyers say "Do not lie" (and they mean it whatever common wisdom holds). But what does that mean for software developers?
"Do not help the wrong people get information?" Who are the "wrong people" many people (myself excluded) feel that "the government" should have any and all information it can on people as "Innocent People have nothing to hide" (John Ashcroft). Many others do not.
Similarly many people (myself included) feel that the RIAA is overstepping its bounds on trying to control users and should not be allowed to mandate national copyright control. Many others disagree, not because they are greedy bastards but because they support strong copyright.
The same questions could be made about developing weapons, Blue Boxes, and working for the DEA, etc. Because such ideas are not so clear-cut I don't think that you could easily put together a national consensus (or even a local consensus) on just what is and is not "harm." As endless language debates have shown "Clean code" is a debatable point.
That having been said, I think that ethics are a good thing, and that we as geeks should enforce them in our peers and ourselves as much as possible. This may include returning to the age-old custom of shunning sinners. At the very least we can work to see that what we do in our professional and personal development is good, and ensure that, when we have a say, no-one gets hired to our companies who doesn't measure up.
You might see also:
[cpsr.org]
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
The Association for Computing Machinery [acm.org]
and their working group on Computers in Society [acm.org]
My $0.02.
Irvu.
If it didn't work for Doctors... (Score:2)
Cruise missle software (Score:2)
That's worked so well before... (Score:2)
What exactly is disallowed? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Geek Oath would be even worse off when it comes to gray areas. For example:
I used to work at a (now defunct, like the rest of 'em) dot-com. Our software was, by most definitions, spyware: If you downloaded and installed our software, it would keep track of what you listened to (via pretty much any media player -- we had the top twelve or so covered by the end) and send that info to our servers, which would respond with a wealth of information -- current news, tour dates in your area if you so chose, new releases, etc. The longer you listened, the more information you would get -- "Oh, I realize you're not listening to Radiohead right now, but by the way they've got an album coming out..."
Now: a) We never attempted to sneak onto someone's system; b) We made the uninstall as painless and obvious as possible; c) We never hid the fact that we were sending back listening statistics. But still, we *were* monitoring what you were listening to.
So would I have been in violation of this theoretical Geek Oath?
(Save your flames and your "I'd never!"s -- fact is, a lot of people did, myself included. It just Didn't Work Out, but our management handled the end -- once it was obvious that it was inevitable -- very well.)
Re:What exactly is disallowed? (Score:4, Insightful)
One point in your favour.
b) We made the uninstall as painless and obvious as possible
Two points in your favour.
c) We never hid the fact that we were sending back listening statistics
Three points in your favour.
Plus, you provided an interesting and useful service. You didn't mention anything about what you did with the data once it was in your servers, but I choose to believe, lacking evidence to the contrary, that you would have been as open, upfront, and intelligent about dealing with the data once you had acquired it as you say you were when you were obtaining it - and if you were, I might well have used that service (if I cared to have personalized news of any sort delivered to me - which I dont; I don't even like having to 'dig' for all the stories /. posted today, not just the ones that are the biggest. It's not a privacy thing in this case - just a preference thing) and been quite happy with it.
And I don't think that code violates the hypothetical "Geek Oath". Your code is neither malignant nor curmudgeonly.
How can you make that comparison? (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all - please read the Modern Hippocratic oath [pbs.org] to get a feel of the sheer gravity that the oath actually represents. Then imagine the programmers oath
"Wherever I can, I will code many hidden easter eggs without the project managers consent or knowledge to provide the end users something to do. Also, I shall endeaver to ingest large quantities of mountain dew."
I mean, I can think of a few professions above programmers I want to take an oath (How about the short order cook that spit in your food last week huh?)
Second of all - How can you even compare the concept of upholding the ability to save and improve physically the life of an indivdual without corruption to a programmer? How is coding spam similar to endangering a life for unethical pursuits?
Third of all - WHO CARES? Oaths are meaningless in a captalistic society such as ours. Want proof? Lets take a quick tour down career avenue and look at the professions that take oaths - Lawyers (hmm, they seem to be a respectable bunch), Elected Officials (don't get me started), Judiciaries (Not too bad in his arena) and Public Safety officals (Rodney King, Malice Green, etc. etc.) Not to open a can of worms but the ORIGINAL Hippocratic Oath [mit.edu] actually had a section condeming a doctor to perform an abortion so theoretically doctors that perform abortion break their oaths (I agree to the modern version expressed above and my political viewpoints on abortion are hopefully not reflected!)
To compare the importance of upholding the importance of ethics in the medical profession to a coder writing spam, spyware or other such "annoyances" is ABSURD.
Oath for coders? Oh, lord. (Score:2, Funny)
Say, you don't think a sys-admin would ever do that, do you?
=brian
Truth hurts. (Score:2)
If you want to be any concern to a company, you need to be able to effect their profits. 1 Coder or a group of programmers will not make a difference. Unless its ALL the programmers in the company. You need to be able to effect productivity with walk outs, slow downs, or a strike.
The old saying "The man who owns the gold makes the rules.." is true. Effect his gold and you can change his direction.
But hey, its nice to talk openly about what we would "Like to do..." But if you want change, Start the movement, get political power, start a union, get people together, get some power. Or be the Rosa Parks of ethics, and lose your job.
We have this right (Score:2)
I doubt it... (Score:2)
What would an "oath" do anyway? Would it keep sleazy programmers from working for sleazy companies? Would it get the guy who writes a virus to not write a virus?
Doctors are a different story. Many of them deal with life and death on a regular basis. We programmers, generally, do not.
And to what should this theoretical oath extend? What about a programmer who works on a guidance system for a cruise missile? Some may find that unethical, others may not.
I think the motive is good, but I just don't think that it could amount to anything of importance, unfortunately. I think we ought to teach more about computer ethics in schools. A computer is like any other tool. It can be used for good or it can be used for bad. We need to find a way to stop young people from indulging their tendencies to destroy things (a.k.a. writing a virus or hacking into systems to deface web pages or do real damage), and we ought to be teaching it early on. This, I think, would have a more direct effect.
Huh? Of course, anyone can refuse to do wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course. In the USA and most western countries, nobody is required to engage in conduct they believe is illegal, unethical, unsafe, or unpleasant -- with the exception of certain positions in the military, who are required to follow the chain of command in most circumstances.
Of course, there are economic pressures: if the only living-wage job in your community for which you are qualified is to work in a coal mine, or in a prison, or writing virus code, then you must make an economic decision: Balancing.
Nobody has to write bad code. If you believe that your shop should never release code unless it includes sixteen types of "defensive code" (resisting viruses and privacy-invading applets and so on), then you tell your employer those terms, and your employer will decide which action to pursue: ending your employment, or changing its practices.
We have all had those "moments" in our lives where we had to make a decision about Right and Wrong. If I do this, is it Right or is it Wrong? If I do this, can I accept the consequences? If I do this, will I be able to respect myself as a person? If I do this, how can I explain myself later to my child?
Sometimes, the decisions are easy: your employer assigns you to load toxic waste into drums and to pour it into a river. Sometimes, the decisions are really hard: your team has spent 1,000 hours testing your code and you are pretty sure that it's good, but you really wish that you had more time for testing, or a different regimen for testing, and now your team leader announces that he's going to release the code -- it certainly makes a difference if the code we are talking about is Doom III or the operating program for a nuclear reactor.
Everybody has a different benchmark. I've heard lots of stories, all of them quite respectable:
- I can't do this because if I ever run for public office, this would ruin my chances
- My religion prohibits this
- This violates the "golden rule" (do unto others...)
- My professional ethics prohibit this
- I cannot do this and still be a role model for my child
- This violates my personal beliefs
- This is just, plain wrong, and I won't do it.
In my opinion, you should use whatever test makes you pause and refuse as often as possible. When someone suggests that the problem is that "we might get caught," I lose all respect for that person: that statement already accepts that the action is wrong (nobody ever says "I'd love to help you rescue that child from the burning building, but I'm afraid I might get caught").Sure, there are things we do that we wouldn't want to discuss with our kids -- not because they are "wrong" but because they are personal or unpleasant or simply not appropriate to discuss with a child.
Life is full of hard choices. I think that 99% of the time, we know what is the "right" thing to do. We often recognize that we are doing something 'wrong' and we have lots of excuses, and some of them feel quite tolerable (I need this job, my kids need health insurance, little harm will come, or harm is quite unlikely).
A long time ago, I found that when I was in certain kinds of situations, I found it "necessary" to do certain things. It was my job, it was legal, it was appropriate -- but it was unpleasant and people disliked me because of it. I had to decide whether I wanted to be the kind of person who did those things. I decided that I did not want to be that kind of person, and I recognized that I could not do my job competently without being that kind of person. I quit my job and changed my profession.
And now, to the question at hand:
> "Should [programmers] code defensively to prevent software and information being misused for unintended purposes? And how do we protect such programmers from being dismissed unfairly for standing on principle?"
Okay, now we are looking at something much less clear. What kind of application are we talking about, and what kind of abuse or misuse are we worried about?
There are various issues to balance, including potential legal liability, potential adverse publicity and adverse market response, and of course potential harm to the public.
Legal liability is a good starting point. If I am writing the code for a new version of a Microsoft operating system, and I already know that there are 1,000 viruses that attack Windows systems, I probably would be legally liable for releasing a product that is vulnerable to one of those existing viruses, if I could easily and inexpensively block them. An internet-ready operating system with no protection against known viruses, would be a defective product, and I'd probably be legally responsible for the damages, at least to consumers. Even if legal liability were avoided (for example, through enforceable contracts), the adverse publicity and of course the complete failure of the operating system to work, would result in complete market failure: people would not buy this product or my other products.
Now, let's look to the harder case. Suppose I am responsible for the coding for Doom III, a complex computer game that (I assume) includes internet-play. I know there are viruses out there, and I know that there are malicious people out there. I also suspect that someone could write a virus that would target my widely software, attaching itself and perhaps even trying to propegate to other users or distribute private data or system-access information by modifying the code that allows internet play. Must I write code to resist that potential virus? No matter what I do, a clever cracker will find a way to circumvent my efforts -- but what must I do? How much time, what portion of my budget, should be spent to fighting crime?
Basically, it's a balancing act.
Try another example: your employer asks you to write a database or accounting program. You know that it is quite likely that your program will be purchased and used by drug traffickers to track their shipments and profits. What duty do you have to prevent such uses, or to detect such uses and report them to law enforcement?
Try another example: your employer asks you to write a Napster-like computer program that will allow people to share files. You know that some people will misuse the program (sharing copyrighted materials), but you also know that many people will use the program lawfully.
Now, suppose you work for one of these latter two companies, and you decide that your employer is not doing enough to prevent misuse, and you refuse to write certain code, but you also refuse to resign. Maybe your employer's attorneys present you with a "severance agreement" that includes a generous cash severance and a confidentiality clause. Or maybe you already signed a confidentiality agreement, and your employer fires you with no severance.
Damn, I have to side with the employer. There's nothing illegal going on, and you aren't being asked to do something unsafe or improper -- you simply have chosen a set of personal ethical standards that conflict with your employer. So I'd probably agree that your employer could fire you, but I might be uncomfortable enforcing the confidentiality agreement, at least insofar as it might seek to prevent you from talking to appropriate law-enforcement agencies.
Re:Huh? Of course, anyone can refuse to do wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
iirc, NDAs can't be used to stop you from reporting possibly illegal actions to law enforcement.
--
Benjamin Coates
Re:Huh? Of course, anyone can refuse to do wrong! (Score:2)
Actually, they often are used for exactly this. The employer argues that the information is secret, and no laws were broken, and the employee will be sued if s/he discloses the information to law enforcement agencies who are not bound to honor the confidentiality.
The goal is to create a "chilling effect" so that reports are made only when there is pretty clear legal violation, or where the employee is particularly strong-willed.
Turn it around: what happens if an employee discloses information regarding the employer to a law enforcement agency, which then discloses that information to experts and/or competitors of the company while evaluating whether a law has been broken? If law enforcement concludes that "no legal violation can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt," but now the information is "out there" in competitors' hands, the company will certainly want to respond against the ex-employee.
I don't know how a court might rule, but I'm sure the employer will want to discourage any ex-employees (and current employees) from talking to law enforcement as much as possible. That would certainly include terminating any ongoing severance payments and benefits, leaving it to the employee to litigate to recover the promised benefits! Without any cash, unemployed and blacklisted, the employee likely won't even be able to hire an attorney to defend against the company's civil suit for breach of the confidentiality agreement -- allowing the company's army of attorneys to attack hard in order to deter others from ever coming forward. (Welcome to the tobacco industry.)
Bottom line: there are many cases where ex-employees cite confidentiality agreements when refusing to talk to law enforcement, and in 99% of cases the law enforcement agency doesn't have the resources to litigate to create a legal obligation for the ex-employee to talk.
Union (Score:2, Interesting)
"I took an oath to do no harm through code!"
"How fascinating... you're fired!"
But what am I thinking... don't the MBAs take a similar oath?
Probably already been said, but not by me yet. (Score:3, Insightful)
But even without a low in employment numbers, there is no sort of test of virtues to be a coder.
It will never happen (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't (Score:2, Interesting)
1) There's For Dummy's and in 30 Days books about every language ever written. Because of this, every person with a GED thinks that they can write software better than you, the person with multiple CS degrees/certifications/so forth, because they can program their VCR.
2) The client will not trust you, you are a software engineer. That stack you wrote, they don't understand it. In your documentation, rewrite all of your notes from your Intro to Data Structures course. When the client doesn't understand (after all, they don't have the prereqs), or doesn't bother to read it, they will mistrust you. Again, there will be a problem.
3) Your client will now give you THEIR idea of how the software should be written. Because of all of these tools that SHOULD be useful, they're sure that they have written you a design better than anything that you gave them, because it has circles and arrows. Most of them make little sense. Many of them are dangerously redundant. At any rate, the client will check you to make sure that EVERYTHING that they put on that sheet is in the code, and that nothing else is.
4) Forced by Corporate pressure, you will write this. As a result, your software will not work. Perhaps you should have read "Software Engineering for Dummy's" It all makes sense in there.
I refused! (Score:2, Interesting)
They went ahead and did it without me, the spam yielded no profit at all, and I'm still working for them, but considering other job offers.
I explained politely as I could how spamming is not a good business practice, and even though I have many years in the software business, I was ignored. It's sad when companies trust their upshot marketing people over the more qualified seasoned employees.
Giving a code of ethics teeth (Score:5, Interesting)
This works. Very few structures fall down in the developed world because of engineering errors.
One way would be to require that programs whose malfunction can cause nontrivial harm be signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer, the way building plans are signed. To give this teeth, certificates for code-signing would be issued only through registered professional engineers.
Someday, programming may grow up and go this route.
Re:Giving a code of ethics teeth (Score:2)
Damn, you beat my by 1 minute!
(see next comment)
--
Benjamin Coates
Re:Giving a code of ethics teeth (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against engineering...I am one after all. (EE class of '93) But the guidelines of the professional society do not make us any more or less ethical than the next profession. In the end we do what we're told or we get replaced.
As a side note, one of my favorite classes in university was "Ethics in Engineering". The class had a large section on 'whistleblowing' with examples such as the shuttle explosion, etc. The sad part was that in every major case of whistleblowing we studied the engineer who blew the whistle never worked in their former field again. The theme of the section seemed to be "blowing the whistle is the right thing to do in these types of situations....but it will cost you your career". It wasn't a very popular section.
Signed Code? (Score:2)
But if a software ethics organization were to act as a CA, and issue certificates to programmers with which to sign their code (source or binary), along with some descriptive fields declaring what this code does or does not do (uninstall totally, expire after some interval, transmit information without your express consent, install hooks into other applications to gather information, display paid advertisements, use your spare cycles/bandwith, whatever), end-users could see in plain language what the program will do if they use it.
If a program's behavior was inconsistent with its signature, a complaint could be brought by end-users to the overseeing organization, and whoever signed the code would have to answer the complaints or face sanctions (including revoking their code-signing certificate for existing and future use).
If the system became popular enough, users would think twice about using software without a valid signature.
This would put pressure on programmers to think beyond their next paycheck and consider how what they are doing will affect their professional reputation; It's easier to say "I'm not going to do this because it will get my licence suspended" than "I'm not going to do this because I think it's wrong" (no matter how valid the latter may be)
By being linked to individual programmers instead of software companies, it would also create an effective "credits" system for the programming profession, you could point out your past work on a CV, and prove it with the embedded signature.
--
Benjamin Coates
An Alternative (Score:2, Interesting)
I think a better (and more realistic) alternative to some sort of oath would be to treat software professionals like the engineers they are. In every state (AFAIK), you cannot lawfully claim to be an engineer without a license.
However, the tests that exist in most states are completely inappropriate to software engineering. Dynamics and statics are all very nice, but they have nothing to do with most software systems. What is needed is a test and license for software engineering. Licensed professionals could (assuming an appropriate test) command higher salaries than mere code monkies, and employers would know that they can expect a certain degree of quality from professionals.
This scheme also has the potential to improve the general quality of software. Just like a civil engineer signs and stamps building plans, declaring them sound, a software engineer could be employed to audit a software system's design and implementation, certifying it as secure and robust (to a point). As any experienced developer will tell you, code and design reviews are extremely important, and often neglected.
Coding is not the PRIESTHOOD PEOPLE (Score:4, Insightful)
Coders.. your not holy men.. your not preachers.. you write code.. you a job like anyone else does a job.. why should you need or take a an oath? thats just plain dumb and silly.. if someone doesn't take this oath would that mean they can't get access to development tools? Would'nt that go against the very spirit of open source and the GNU license and the whole spirit of sharing..
sure most people hate adware and spyware stuff as much as i do(a ton). but fact of the matter is thats the current support(MONEY) system for some "free" software out there.. perhaps if people paid for the software there would'nt be all that crap added on..
Its up to you to use that software or ad laden website.. free choice.. stop whining about extras on free software.. its free for a reason, especially the companies that aren't in it for a "greater good" they're in it for making money.. we live in a capitalist society.. get used to it.
end rant
The Hypocritical Oath (Score:2, Insightful)
This topic is asinine, and this question comes frighteningly close to proposing some kind of workplace legislation. (I can't see what else it could refer to.)
Can't anyone see the total, complete hypocrisy in this? Everyone here always screams "keep your laws off my code," when we're talking about the DMCA and other legislation. But when we start talking about stuff that no one likes (spyware, spam programs), there's some kind of moral bandwagon to propose intrusive workplace legislation to "protect programmers from being dismissed".
To solve this problem, people have to stop installing this crap on their computers. Period. There will always be programmers out there who are willing to write this dreck -- and they should be able to, because the bottom line is that programming should be constitutionally protected speech . I thought we were all in agreement on that issue?
If your employer hires you to write spyware, and then you refuse on moral grounds, then you should get fired. It's that simple. The employer should have the right to do that. Don't take a job at Penthouse Magazine if you don't like nudity. Don't get a job working for Howard Stern if you can't handle drunken midgets vomiting in the hallway. And don't take a job at a mega-ultra-multinational-conglomerate-supercorpor
There can be NO good legislative solution to this problem. The idea of some kind of "code of ethics" is fine, but I think the best way to handle it is the creation of a new alliance, an industry standard, some kind of brand or label which identifies companies and products which follow that code of ethics. (I guess kind of like TrustE, except not sucking.)
Epiphany (Score:3, Funny)
No, I'm not going to do PHP on that porn site I was working on earlier because damnit, I think the women who are being paid money for it don't know what they're doing to themselves.
If I take a stand against The MAN, and do it for the sake of the women, perhaps I can be the voice that changes the opinions of a generation of men. I can help those women get REAL hard-working jobs, like at the McDonald's across the street.
I'm going to do it, because I care for all of you. Because in my heart, you are all my brothers, and sisters, and I know that if I do my part to be good to society, eventually it will be good in return to me.
Ooops, where was I? Oh yes...
$sql = "select * from PictureTable where Catagory1 = \"Double-D\" AND Catagory2 = \"sex\""
$query = mysql_query($sql);
while ($row = mysql_fetch_row($query))
{ echo "<img src = \"".$row[1]."\">
";}
Eh, nevermind what I said before... Screw you guys... :)
Re:Does this mean... (Score:2)
Because Somebody(sub1) does not like Somebody(sub2)
Duh.
If I want to kill your ass but not endanger MY ass and I just happen to have some rockets, a workable propellent, and some high explosives laying around, not to mention a suitable PCB and some nice componets that can be integrated easily enough. .
Your fucked.
I think that embedded systems designed to HELP IMPROVE CONTROL OF physical manifestations should be exempt from these (hypothetical) rules, but that for instance any weapon that could NOT be controlled to the point of any sort of usability without a computer WOULD fall under these rulings.
Thus no uber death lasers, but ICBMs are OK.
Re:Bad comparison (Score:2)
Yah some of the self made genius's tend not to need this, but other people like having a wide range of knowledge and not having to reinvent the wheel all over again.
Besides, sure a book can teach you how to PROGRAM, but it cannot teach you WHAT to program. Learning the various gazzilion ways to make AIs, or do computerized visual recognition, or hell just the latest theory on how to design networks (no not neccisarily LAN/WAN networks, but just network theory in general).
Then there is the mathmatics aspect of it. . .
Yah sure SOME people can teach themselves the mathmatics of quanterns, but for the REST of us it is helpful to have somebody who knows WTF they are talking about explain it all to ya.
Better Idea for Managers... (Score:2)
Re:programmers UNITE! (Score:4, Funny)
To that end, I volunteer to put together the first annual Who's Who in Computer Programming. This book will chronicle the most important, ethical people in the industry and will be invaluable to prospective employers who are looking for the creme de la creme of morally introspective code artisans.
If you feel you should be in this book, please send me your name, e-mail address, and the most complicated typedef or template instantiation you have ever written or even tried to read. Only the top programmers will be selected for publication but for $35 I can see to it that you are given priority consideration, your own half-page, a leather-bound edition of the 2003 Who's Who as well as a certificate (suitable for framing) with your name in large-point gothic letters.
Re:programmers UNITE! (Score:2)
Tim
Re:First, Do No Harm (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, let's all pass a law! (*sigh*) (Score:2, Troll)
Please don't mod this up--I'm capped, and some dickless coward will no doubt come after with an "Overrated"--please feel free to mod it down, though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Different points of view (Score:2)
For the most part, I would say yes. I usually find lawyer behavior more annoying than unethical.
--
Benjamin Coates