I think the point is that we can't just rely on individual ethics to enact change. People have bills to pay and kids to feed, if it's all on the man at the bottom to say no then a lot of bad software is still going to be created.

I think making a statement as an industry helps avoid some of this stuff even being asked. With research you can easily find doctors who are brought in to assist with torture or other heinous crimes, but in general I would expect it to be harder to find a doctor to help with my project of creating a more addictive cigarette versus finding a web developer to help me market them.

There's some (not a lot, but some) power in a profession just claiming to have ethics, even if there is no enforcement and change in the hearts of practitioners.

Plus, at some point, we all just have to own what we do with our lives. It's great to advocate for systemic change but doing your own small part is at least as important.

You would lose the ability to practise medicine as a license is required.

Do you want to license software developers?

I think the way Uncle Bob said it was reasonable. We have a choice: either we commit to doing good ourselves, and get out of licensing. Or we fuck up repeatedly, and eventually someone else will force a licensing process upon us. And it will not be a pretty one, because it's unlikely the person designing it will know the first thing about how we work.

I think we should license some software developers - if you're developing software to be used in industries where the people using your software need to be licensed (i.e medical equipment, structural engineering, industrial control systems) then perhaps the software engineers should be similarly rigorously qualified.

But if you're working on video games, or pizza delivery, or really probably like 90% of software then no.

Medical software systems already have legal obligations that fall on (I believe) the CEO of a firm. In the CRO space for clinical trials for example you're often audited by the FDA, MHRA, and others to ensure your processes are documented and followed, your issues traced and corrected, etc. You also have a requirement to fulfil things like 21 CFR Part 11 for records and signatures tracking/management.

Failures of a company responsible for this kind of thing that lead to injuries or deaths can result in imprisonment of (at least) the CEO and possibly others. I'm not sure licensing is necessary here, that's what documented process is supposed to manage (change tracking, development process, etc.)

The argument made is that it's necessary, not that it's sufficient.

The consequences of the decisions made by Microsoft Presidents and their ilk, since they are the ones who actually decide what software will look like. But still it would be good when MS gets found to do unethical things that a programmer could be scapegoated instead of their president, at least from the presidents perspective.

In some Engineering societies maybe, in general you may be liable if you construct a building you shouldn't have.

Software is fundamentally different because until you run it it has no consequences, and even if you run it, it can be contained. I can write a worm and not release it on world. In that regard, it is more like engineering _plans_. I can draw up plans for a building that is designed to collapse with X number of persons inside -- in fact I can imagine either of the two assignments given as an exercise in University.

No reason to make more laws: it should be immaterial whether I chop down the Christmas tree at the local town square or program a robot to do it.

It should be immaterial whether you chop down the Christmas tree or set a pre-programmed robot capable of doing the same on its way.

The programming of said robot isn't the bad act here, it's the act the robot actually performs.

The danger of being castigated for having written something that wasn't used is that we then get into the area of thought-crimes.

Well there is one major assumption error there - that negative real world consequences are only linked to negative ethics.

That is so wrong it isn't even funny. If the car was invented as powered by a Mr. Fusion the buggy whip makers going out of business would be a negative real world consequence.

Cars made us wealthier but they also contributed to obesity. It's not exactly clear if reducing obesity by banning cars is worth it.

Is behaving ethically not a part of being a designer or a PM or a director/boss?

And, what's more, isn't behaving ethically not part of being human?

Aristotle and a while host of philosophers certainly thought so.

Extending this, why don't we expect everyone in society to behave ethically? But then we get into arguments about what is ethical, because people disagree on that, and people naturally will disagree on what is ethical in software development, which isn't always a problem. The is a diversity of opinion, though since are clearly extreme.

One of the issues with a "Hippocratic oath" for software developers is that software spans the while spectrum of human activity and thought.

Constraining software is nearly equivalent to constraining human thought in more ways than one.

Yeah, the problem with this idea is that it assumes there's one fixed set of right ethical values everyone should agree on. Take for example the actual, original Hippocratic Oath - it required, amongst other things, doctors not to provide abortions to women. There's still a large number of Americans who hold this ethical belief, but I'd venture a guess that almost all the people pushing for ethics in software development hold the exact diametrically opposite view.

A lot of the demands for software ethics get into even fuzzier and more complicated territory, like whether the companies which control our mass communications should use that control to decide which political views people should be able to share and what they should target, whether this is good or bad for democracy, etc. Also, many of them seem to be things that would've been incredibly niche viewpoints even a decade ago. I've seen people in another thread thinking that Google promised not to use e-mail contents to sell ads originally and then snuck that in, but in reality basing ads on the contents of e-mails was part of their business model all along and it's just that no-one cared when they launched because it was so much less obnoxious than the ads on other providers. Somewhere along the way, we got this meme about big tech selling our personal information, and everyone seems to project it backwards in time onto how people felt before the meme.

Ethic is subjective. Across time and space.

Want to see an example - Ask Aristotle are women same or lower than men?

And relevant to this conversation, software can be written anywhere especially if you need alternative ethics.

That's why Smith also talks about a new DIGITAL GENEVA CONVENTION - not just a code for devs - so there is a defined framework for everyone in the chain.

Pls excuse the caps, but too many people seem to ignore this very important part of his argument here.

I thought everyone ignored it because that is what would happen in practice. Like the actual Geneva convention only applying in an unconditional surrender or complete defeat.

Ethics are subjective. Plenty of people working at facebook will tell you their work is ethical.

Are you expecting engineers to quit FB and IG and Twitter en masse? Because I'm not. People like money more than each other.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are people specializing in ethics violations in exchange for lots of money.