[clnq]

The labor pool of software engineers is very diverse in terms of backbones, ethics and morals. It puts replaceable engineers in an awkward spot to object to unprofessional requests.

For an anecdotal example, I have been told that standing up for ethics in software engineering would have negative consequences on my performance (implied: bonus, promotions, career). I have left that company, and they probably found someone more agreeable to replace me.

I don't know how we can force ethics onto companies, especially large corporations who receive thousands of applicants into engineering roles each week. There do not seem to be good incentives for engineers to be overly concerned with the overall ethical impact of their work. And so there are many engineers who won't ready to replace those who would.

[hn_throwaway_99]

> The labor pool of software engineers is very diverse in terms of backbones, ethics and morals.

This is exactly my point. The same is true for other engineering disciplines, too, but by codifying their ethical responsibilities (and, in some cases, assigning liability to engineers who forego those responsibilities), other professional engineering organizations help to ensure a bare minimum for what is and isn't allowed in their profession.

I'll give another example that has much less dire consequences than the OP's. 90% of "scarcity marketing", e.g. "Act now! There are only 2 rooms left!" or even "8 other people are looking at this property!", is complete and total bullshit. I've even seen A/B tests where they developers were like "yeah, the data here is not real, we just want to see if it has an effect." Why is this even in the realm of acceptability? There is no gray area here - it's not just a "dark pattern". It is 100% outright lying. Yet I never heard someone stand up in those product reviews (myself included, so I'm no hero either) and say "How can we spend so much time on our 'company values' when this is obviously bullshit and slimy?"

I wish there were a "software engineering code of conduct" that said that outright lying to end users is verboten, and that software developers can be held personally liable if they are aware of the lie and still implement it.

[SentinelLdnma]

As others have noted, professional licensure (which can be revoked) is used in other industries.

Not feasible to ask this for every developer, but for safety critical systems it should be mandatory.

[lolinder]

What happens in other engineering disciplines is the government revokes your license if you make a decision that violates your discipline's standards. Companies can't generally just force their engineers to do irresponsible things because even if they fired you and hired someone new, that new person would be putting their own future employability on the line by conceding. Better to get fired from a bad firm than to have to find a new career.

Obviously this doesn't solve all the problems, but it works as well as any solution I can think of.

The caveat when it comes to software is that coming to a consensus of what the standard procedures and policies should be would be nearly impossible. If and when software joins the licensed engineering fields, a lot of people are going to be very upset at whatever the requirements end up being.

[clnq]

The caveat is very true, and I think that I would be unhappy if a licensing body told me I'm suddenly "not qualified" to do the work I've been doing well for many years. Besides, it wouldn't be just for me to bear licensure costs (whether direct or indirect by being out of work while I get licensed) to correct an ethical fault in companies.

Perhaps licensure could be an effective solution, but one that is not very empathetic to engineers. Maybe some kind of a government-owned ethics controller/body to handle unethical software would be more just for engineers. Although it could also be very inefficient.

[intrasight]

The profession and the state have to choose between freedom and regulation - or some hybrid compromise. For computer types, the profession and the state have opted for freedom. I'd say that on balance it was the right decision. For other professions (doctors, layers, accountants) that balance has been achieved and codified over may generations.

For egregious ethical violations, the whistleblower act provides a remedy.