Cell Phone Software Forum
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Andy Dingley
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:53 pm Post subject: The ethics of doing The Wrong Thing |
 |
|
Assume a software engineer (contractor, consultant, outside bespoke
house, but probably not an employee in this context).
Assume a client. Well-meaning and honest, they hold important
financial data on their customers.
Now assume a project requirement that's in clear breach of some
technical requirement of the recognised industry body for this data.
There's no technical argument here -- what they plan to do is simply
Bad and Wrong to anyone with the relevant technical knowledge. The
likely result of this is an insecure system, unacceptable risk to the
customers' data and a clear breach of the industry standard (although
this isn't itself obviously enforced or legally mandatory).
What's the engineer's _ethical_ position here? What should they do?
What should they refuse to do, and how insistently?
I'm in the UK, but the US seems to discusss this a bit more obviously.
Here's the relevant ACM / IEEE code
<http://www.acm.org/serving/se/code.htm>
I was surprised to find that this situation seems to be handled in
(what I would consider to be) a quite feeble manner.
"2.06. Identify, document, collect evidence and report to the
client or the employer promptly if, in their opinion,
a project is likely to fail, to prove too expensive, to violate
intellectual property law, or otherwise to be
problematic."
Now I've "reported to the client" that their FooBar 2000 product eats
babies all too many times in the past, and very rarely did any
technical reason over-ride a commercial interest. I've also
(personally) refused to carry out certain changes or operations in the
past because I considered them unethical. The ACM don't seem to share
this view though -- am I expected to "report" and then do it anyway?
Seems a bit Pilatean... If I refuse, then what's my defence against
a breach of contract? If I do it and the customers bring a class
action in the future, what's my defence for having done something I
knew to be a risk? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Chris Hills
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: The ethics of doing The Wrong Thing |
|
|
In article <1177498428.218197.222730@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Andy
Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> writes
| Quote: |
Assume a software engineer (contractor, consultant, outside bespoke
house, but probably not an employee in this context).
|
How long is the contract? If near the end head down, finish and get out
with the cash and on to the next project before raising head over
parapet. However put concerns in writing.
| Quote: |
Assume a client. Well-meaning and honest, they hold important
financial data on their customers.
Now assume a project requirement that's in clear breach of some
technical requirement of the recognised industry body for this data.
There's no technical argument here -- what they plan to do is simply
Bad and Wrong to anyone with the relevant technical knowledge.
|
Bad and Wrong ethically may not be so legally. :-(
| Quote: |
The
likely result of this is an insecure system, unacceptable risk to the
customers' data and a clear breach of the industry standard (although
this isn't itself obviously enforced or legally mandatory).
|
Difficult position. All you can do is raise the concerns. Keep a copy.
| Quote: |
What's the engineer's _ethical_ position here? What should they do?
What should they refuse to do, and how insistently?
|
Difficult as always in these cases. Do you have a family to feed? The
problem with the Good Guys is they tend to get trampled by Big
Business... It ain't Hollywood where the little guy wins in the end.
| Quote: |
I'm in the UK, but the US seems to discusss this a bit more obviously.
|
Not true. It depends on the circles you move in.
| Quote: |
Here's the relevant ACM / IEEE code
|
Which is irrelevant. They apply to US laws and not UK law. They are VERY
different.
See the relevant BCS or IET code of conduct.
http://www.bcs.org.uk
http://www.theiet.org
I assume you are a member of one or the other? If not why not?
And as a contractor see the http://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/index.php
JOIN IT and ask for help. It is UK based
| Quote: |
Now I've "reported to the client" that their FooBar 2000 product eats
babies all too many times in the past, and very rarely did any
technical reason over-ride a commercial interest.
|
In writing? If so back up those documents
| Quote: |
I've also
(personally) refused to carry out certain changes or operations in the
past because I considered them unethical.
|
Put it in writing.
| Quote: |
The ACM don't seem to share
this view though -- am I expected to "report" and then do it anyway?
|
That is for the USA not the UK VERY different laws. However put it in
writing (and bcc it home and any replies)
| Quote: |
Seems a bit Pilatean... If I refuse, then what's my defence against
a breach of contract?
|
It wasn't illegal and breach of contract to who? Your employer/client?
| Quote: |
If I do it and the customers bring a class
action in the future, what's my defence for having done something I
knew to be a risk?
|
Well the answer is "it depends" you need *UK based* advice on this. The
US laws are as relevant here as the UK ones are in the US.
Regards
Chris
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
H. S. Lahman
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: Re: The ethics of doing The Wrong Thing |
|
|
Responding to Dingley...
| Quote: |
I'm in the UK, but the US seems to discusss this a bit more obviously.
Here's the relevant ACM / IEEE code
http://www.acm.org/serving/se/code.htm
I was surprised to find that this situation seems to be handled in
(what I would consider to be) a quite feeble manner.
"2.06. Identify, document, collect evidence and report to the
client or the employer promptly if, in their opinion,
a project is likely to fail, to prove too expensive, to violate
intellectual property law, or otherwise to be
problematic."
|
Basically the ACM is saying one is obligated to be whistle blower.
However, the ACM is not going to be in the position of sanctioning
unilateral action to "fix" the problem. The reason is that, however
well-intentioned and well-informed, the whistle blower may be wrong.
For example there could be audit trails, etc. that the engineer knows
nothing about. [This is actually fairly common in financial institutions
because they can't afford to trust their own developers. So the software
may be deliberately augmented such that the left hand does not know what
the right hand is doing or even that the right hand exists.] Whether
this applies in your case doesn't matter; the ACM just can't get in the
business of defining policy on a case-by-case basis.
| Quote: |
Now I've "reported to the client" that their FooBar 2000 product eats
babies all too many times in the past, and very rarely did any
technical reason over-ride a commercial interest. I've also
(personally) refused to carry out certain changes or operations in the
past because I considered them unethical. The ACM don't seem to share
this view though -- am I expected to "report" and then do it anyway?
Seems a bit Pilatean... If I refuse, then what's my defence against
a breach of contract? If I do it and the customers bring a class
action in the future, what's my defence for having done something I
knew to be a risk?
|
You probably have no defense, at least with respect to being fired.
OTOH, if it got to a jury with a good lawyer that might not matter.
However, if you have blown the whistle and you feel that strongly about
not participating further, I think the better course of action is simply
to away. You have satisfied the established ethics of your profession so
refusing to do the work becomes a moral decision that is difficult to
separate from your employment.
IOW, I think that decision is no different than working for a defense
contractor when one is morally opposed to weapon making. There are no
convenient lines to draw in the sand about which activities directly
contribute and which don't. By maintaining employee status one is still
part of it whether one sets fuses or balances the books.
*************
There is nothing wrong with me that could
not be cured by a capful of Drano.
H. S. Lahman
hsl@pathfindermda.com
Pathfinder Solutions
http://www.pathfindermda.com
blog: http://pathfinderpeople.blogs.com/hslahman
"Model-Based Translation: The Next Step in Agile Development". Email
info@pathfindermda.com for your copy.
Pathfinder is hiring:
http://www.pathfindermda.com/about_us/careers_pos3.php.
(888)OOA-PATH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
JXStern
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:02 am Post subject: Re: The ethics of doing The Wrong Thing |
|
|
On 25 Apr 2007 03:53:48 -0700, Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
What's the engineer's _ethical_ position here? What should they do?
What should they refuse to do, and how insistently?
|
If it's a matter of dumb design but no harm, hey, that's my life.
If it's a matter that might cost the company some money, well, that's
their problem.
If it's a matter that might cost someone life or limb, well, that's an
issue.
So of course the answer is, it depends.
| Quote: |
I'm in the UK, but the US seems to discusss this a bit more obviously.
Here's the relevant ACM / IEEE code
http://www.acm.org/serving/se/code.htm
I was surprised to find that this situation seems to be handled in
(what I would consider to be) a quite feeble manner.
"2.06. Identify, document, collect evidence and report to the
client or the employer promptly if, in their opinion,
a project is likely to fail, to prove too expensive, to violate
intellectual property law, or otherwise to be
problematic."
|
The ACM and IEEE codes pretend to be ethical codes, but those who
wrote them tend to be very unsophisticated in the ways of ethics,
morals, and certainly national and international laws.
| Quote: |
Now I've "reported to the client" that their FooBar 2000 product eats
babies all too many times in the past, and very rarely did any
technical reason over-ride a commercial interest. I've also
(personally) refused to carry out certain changes or operations in the
past because I considered them unethical. The ACM don't seem to share
this view though -- am I expected to "report" and then do it anyway?
Seems a bit Pilatean... If I refuse, then what's my defence against
a breach of contract? If I do it and the customers bring a class
action in the future, what's my defence for having done something I
knew to be a risk?
|
The ACM will back you with their cadre of lawyers and an unlimited
budget, don't worry.
Oh, sorry, they won't, will they? Hmm.
Hopefully you have a contract that allows you a quick exit for no
stated reason, like the "at will" employement we know and love here in
California. One time in twenty-plus years, I've exercised that
option, working on a medical device with a quite insufficient process,
IMHO. Leave something of a paper trail, with general concerns,
nothing explicit, consult an attorney in drafting an appropriately
vague document, if necessary.
J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Andy Dingley
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject: Re: The ethics of doing The Wrong Thing |
|
|
On 25 Apr, 13:43, Chris Hills <c...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
How long is the contract?
|
Thanks for the comments, however I'd like to re-state that this is
_not_ an employment law issue. It's a question of inter-business
responsibilities, which leaves liability issues open to litigation
indefinitely, not merely ending with the termination of employment. As
contractors (UK laws) aren't people anyway (they're service companies,
providing an interchangeable technical service), the same issue would
apply anyway.
| Quote: |
Bad and Wrong ethically may not be so legally. 
|
That's the problem. It's a clear-cut technical issue, it's not a legal
issue (except possibly tort) and that leaves us in a grey ethical
region. One that the US professional bodies at least talk about, the
UK bodies wouldn't recognise if it blew up in their faces (as it did
yesterday with the junior doctor exposure).
| Quote: |
All you can do is raise the concerns.
|
That's my puzzlement. It's certainly possible to do more, i.e. to
refuse to implement a bad idea. However is this a view that's seen as
supportable and praiseworthy, or is it regarded more as the breach of
specific contract than the general position of serving the wider and
greater good.
| Quote: |
Do you have a family to feed?
|
So what? It's emphatically _not_ an employment question.
| Quote: |
See the relevant BCS or IET code of conduct.http://www.bcs.org.ukhttp://www.theiet.org
I assume you are a member of one or the other? If not why not?
|
No, I'm not a member of either. I'm still waiting to see any reason to
have anything to do with the BCS -- great idea, pathetic
implementation. If I were a member of anything (used to be Inst. of
Physics) it would be the IEE (UK) (who's even heard of the IET yet? -
great bit of re-branding there) or even the IEEE (US) -- at least they
have a decent profile.
Maybe (probably) it's the wrong attitude across the UK industry, but I
see much more direct benefit to me from my own track record: clients,
patents, publications, than I would do from any "chartered" or
"certified" status. Too many of my clients couldn't tell IET from
MCSE.
| Quote: |
The US laws are as relevant here as the UK ones are in the US.
|
There are no laws, that's the point. In the gap between laws and
technically competent good practice, we rely on professional ethics.
No one has a law saying that civil engineers shouldn't build bridges
that fall down, they have a professional group that puts forward a
notion of "acceptable practice". If your bridge falls down and you
followed this practice, you have a reasonable defence against
negligence. If you didn't, you have less of an obvious defence case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alexei Polkhanov
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:34 am Post subject: Re: The ethics of doing The Wrong Thing |
|
|
On Apr 25, 3:53 am, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Assume a software engineer (contractor, consultant, outside bespoke
house, but probably not an employee in this context).
Assume a client. Well-meaning and honest, they hold important
financial data on their customers.
Now assume a project requirement that's in clear breach of some
technical requirement of the recognised industry body for this data.
There's no technical argument here -- what they plan to do is simply
Bad and Wrong to anyone with the relevant technical knowledge. The
likely result of this is an insecure system, unacceptable risk to the
customers' data and a clear breach of the industry standard (although
this isn't itself obviously enforced or legally mandatory).
What's the engineer's _ethical_ position here? What should they do?
What should they refuse to do, and how insistently?
I'm in the UK, but the US seems to discusss this a bit more obviously.
Here's the relevant ACM / IEEE code
http://www.acm.org/serving/se/code.htm
I was surprised to find that this situation seems to be handled in
(what I would consider to be) a quite feeble manner.
"2.06. Identify, document, collect evidence and report to the
client or the employer promptly if, in their opinion,
a project is likely to fail, to prove too expensive, to violate
intellectual property law, or otherwise to be
problematic."
|
Try to make something useful for yourself out of it - raise your
concern by sending email to right people in a company starting first
from your immediate and direct Team Lead/Manager or XXO of some sort.
Email is better not because it leaves track but because people tend to
pay more attention to written note and it can be forwarded easily to
others. Make sure it does NOT sound like an accusation and at the end
present yourself as one who can help to SOLVE the problem. If you do
it right you maybe offered to work on solution for the problem hence -
make money.
You see problem is that you may think you doing good to customers who
are unaware of the problem but you are the one who unlike customers
expected not to raise problems but provide solutions. If solution does
not require big investment you should take necessary actions silently
and inform client of changes made in "release notes" after fact. It
will be then up to client to reward you for extra effort or not.
Otherwise when presenting proposal for solution ALWAYS put items which
are more important from client's perspective first and those you think
necessary second or third. This way you will get clients commitment to
solve problem without creating conflict. Customer's safety is your
real goal here not the prove that you are right - is it?
ALSO understand that from client's perspective you may seen as an
opportunistic "car mechanic" trying to exaggerate the problem in order
to charge for unnecessary services or to find "nice" excuse for you
incompetence or inability to solve problem for them or simply as an
egoistic men with attention deficit disorder  I simply hate people
like this myself and will try to avoid doing business with them.
Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
223 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
