Lots of engineers work professionally without a PE.

http://news.thomasnet.com/imt/2013/07/15/is-a-professional-e...

Most engineers work professionally without a PE. I think it's something like 80% of engineers never get a PE.

This idea that all other engineers have a PE is rampant in the software field, but it's just not true.

Most engineers don't offer services to the public. Every public building, bridge and road you've ever used were all overseen and signed off by a PE. Same with the infrastructure for your local utility companies.

Most software engineers don't provide services directly to the public either, but licensure would a necessary first step to regulating the field.

Having PEs sign off and oversee projects is not the same as all "real" engineers being licensed. If you believe that "real" engineering is the model for software engineering, then only a small fraction of software engineers would have a PE.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. At the very least, I think it's reasonable to require that certain software engineering projects have some professional oversight, but that doesn't mean that the intern needs to be licensed, just that the important architectural bits of a project are approved by a competent professional.

That's a stupid attempt at solving this though. It would drive every capable but un-licensed programmer right in the arms of organized crime who would be more than happy to employ them.

Just like all the unlicensed doctors?

I don't think it's a good idea to require licensing for most software engineers, but I think this specific concern is not actually a significant issue.

I think it could be a significant issue.

1) Quite simply, software is much easier to learn than medicine, so you have a larger supply of capable software engineers than doctors. If the market for their services is being artificially suppressed, they will gravitate to wherever their services can make money.

2) There is a black market for medical services. Ever heard of a back-alley abortion?

> Quite simply, software is much easier to learn than medicine, so you have a larger supply of capable software engineers than doctors. If the market for their services is being artificially suppressed, they will gravitate to wherever their services can make money.

The black market for exploits is already very lucrative. Devs willing to take that money are probably doing so already.

> There is a black market for medical services. Ever heard of a back-alley abortion?

Back alley abortions exist mostly because of restrictions on legal abortions, not because doctors aren't allowed to practice without license.

So if a teenager who is getting into programming has an aunt who is selling quilts on the side, he can't help her set up a custom website?

Or he can, as long as he only writes static HTML and not a line of javascript, or he can do that as long as she doesn't pay him even a nickel or a free quilt?

He can't represent her in court or officially do her taxes, why should he be allowed to officially render other professional services to her?

Because the alternative is rent collecting. What you're proposing would make it illegal to upload HTML you can wrote yourself to a domain you own and collect money for it. It's one thing to require credentials for specific specializations within the industry that have critical safety impact (like aviation); it's another thing entirely to require my nephew to be licensed before he can upload code to the internet.

It's mind boggling to me that you'd even make this argument...taxes aren't even a good example. I can officially do my own taxes and I'm not an accountant. So would the aunt have to "unofficially" have her nephew write the code, then pretend to have written it herself and everything is fine? That's currently legal with taxes - I help my own family with them.

Furthermore, ask me how often I'm seen a company get hacked that had ISO 27001 certification from a security firm with more letters after their names than employees.

Define "professional services." Forget programming, can she pay him to help her build a shed in her backyard?

It makes sense to require some sort of accreditation for systems that must be failsafe against significant financial, legal, or physical harm. But it doesn't make sense to require it for the digital equivalent of a backyard shed.

And even safety-critical systems don't require the force of law.

I develop embedded software for safety-critical systems. There is no force of law governing that in the US, but there are industry-recognized service providers that will evaluate your design and provide a certificate affirming that it adheres to specific standards such as ISO13849 and IEC61508. No-one in this industry will buy an uncertified product, despite no law telling them they have to. There is no need to create a law that will have massive unintended consequences.