| HN Mirror

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxe9g0el8epo

> You will not find lawyers willing to perjure themselves, accountants to cook your books, or civil engineers happy to sign off on deadly designs.

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/practice/general-practice/ac...

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3406928,00.html

These are noteworthy counterexamples, the exceptions that prove the rules.

You will struggle to find any similar news stories for "software engineer jailed for implementing dark patterns"

they prove your claim "you won't find this" is wrong.

And probably because that's not illegal.

>that's not illegal

Unintentionally revealing comment here. Software goons have no concept of professional ethics and will do any terrible thing you pay them to do.

You made 3 claims, all of them easily disproven. When someone else pushed the claim further, immediately disproven. All you have left to your comment is namecalling.

You're being intentionally obtuse and I suspect you understand full well the difference between professionals like accountants, doctors and lawyers (who, yes, on isolated occasions fail to uphold the standards of their profession) and software developers who are not professionals and operate as solo hired guns, absent any widely agreed ethical standards from a community of peers. It's not name-calling, it's a fact of life: If I refuse an instruction from my bosses, I get fired.

I'm going to stop here because this is just an exercise in silly faux ignorance on your part.

egberts1 487 days ago

Mixing three claims together to assert your "perfection" does not touch the basic fact that "we are human".

OJFord 487 days ago

None of these is an example of someone in one of those professions committing malpractice on their employer's instruction.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tesco-fraud...

That wasn't part of the parent comment, but okay, here: Tesco finance chiefs accused of cooking the books and bullying the finance employees below them to misconduct themselves:

“The three defendants who are on trial in this case are not the foot soldiers who misconducted themselves. The defendants in this case are the generals – those who are in positions of trust, and who were paid huge compensation packages in order to safeguard the financial health of Tesco.

“These defendants encouraged the manipulation of profits and indeed pressurised others working under their control to misconduct themselves in such a way that the stock market was ultimately misled.”"

OJFord 487 days ago

It was at least implied, I thought it was the whole point, because obviously there are malpractising professionals full stop:

> [...] ethical obligations above and beyond their obligation to their employer. You will not find lawyers willing [on behalf of their employer] to perjure themselves [...]

but based on their response to your the examples, :shrug:.

My point is that [ethical] professionals [who are not committing malpractice] have an obligation to their peers, as embodied in a professional code of ethics that is independent from and supersedes their obligation to their employers.

[Many/most ethical] accountants [who are not committing malpractice] will tell their employer, "no, I can't sign off on those fraudulent financial statements," but software developers [as a community, I'm sure someone will pop up with one colorful example] will not tell their employer, "No, I won't run fake bots on the site to inflate our user numbers," or "No, I won't implement this browser fingerprinting to violate our users' privacy."

The sibling commenter seems to be willfully misreading this as "all lawyers are ethical"