[st0neage]

I like the idea of an oath like this and also thought about creating something a bit similar. Maybe you could call it a "Hippocratic Oath of Computer Science".

I think it should be extended to all computer scientists not just programmers (or maybe even all of science). Some things in the oath should be a lot more explicit and more strict in my opinion. For example creating or helping create weapons or surveillance technology should be strictly forbidden.

[arethuza]

"helping create weapons or surveillance technology should be strictly forbidden"

That assumes that there are no legitimate reasons for weapons or surveillance technology to exist - and what counts as a weapons or "surveillance technology"? (e.g. are average speed cameras "surveillance technology")

As a bit of background I actually failed an interview once when I was asked about my views on nuclear weapons and I replied (this was the late 80s) "they are a necessary evil". Quite what an acceptable answer would have been escapes me...

[st0neage]

I fail to see the legitimate reason software assisted weapons or mass surveillance tech have to exist. Enlighten me? See my other reply below for your relativation fallacy.

[arethuza]

"Software assisted weapons" have existed in one form or another for ~60 years (even longer if you count analogue computers). I'm not sure why you need a "legitimate reason" for these things to exist - they already do and arguing that they shouldn't doesn't achieve very much.

[ygra]

Some people have no problems with that, others do. Then there is the problem of where you draw the line. I am happy that my employer honours my wish not to contribute to a piece of software that is being built directly for use in tanks. However, through other projects I work on some of the same bits that are used anyway (internal libraries that are reused in many projects) – I chose that's acceptable enough for me, but others might not even want to indirectly contribute to things that end up being weapons.

What if you're working on a compiler you know is used for compiling code that ends up in surveillance technology? Standards work or implementation on image compression that are used in surveillance cameras? It can get grey very quickly.

[st0neage]

>where you draw the line I don't see this as a problem. The goal is to discuss and voice a common moral standard for CS. The idea worked well for doctors.

[jacalata]

Define surveillance. Is a baby cam ok? What if you're using it while the nanny is minding your baby? Or when the kid is a teenager? If they have friends over? If they are a 12 year old latchkey kid? On the babies at the daycare you run? On the employees of the daycare you run, or the nursing home you manage? On the chain of daycares? Cctv on the glass frontage of your jewellery store? Cctv on the valuable jewellery in the store? On a bank teller?

summary: I don't think you mean that for normal definitions of surveillance, and if you do you're in a pretty small group.

[st0neage]

Define assault. Is nudging someone to get their attention ok? How about hitting them in the face full force? Both are touching...

See, the thing is, common sense helps with this. Trying to relativise everything does not take a way the need to make moral decisions.

[jacalata]

No, it doesn't. Because I think some of the things I mentioned are surveillance, and are ok. Common sense doesn't make up for people who are saying things that they either don't mean, or that I disagree with. Are you saying that you'd like me to simply interpret everything you say through 'well, that would be something I disagree with, so I guess he didn't mean it'?

[aestra]

>"helping create weapons or surveillance technology should be strictly forbidden"

Never contribute to open source software then.