[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.