
Man Fined $500 for Crime of Writing 'I Am an Engineer' in an Email to the Gov't - runesoerensen
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/man-fined-dollar500-for-crime-of-writing-i-am-an-engineer-in-an-email-to-the-government
======
takk309
The issue that the Board has is that he claimed to be an engineer in a public
forum. The Boards interpretation of "engineer" in this context was to mean
Traffic Engineer.

The Board warned Järlström that he was in violation of the Law and asked him
to stop claiming to be an engineer, to which he agreed. It was later, when he
continued to claim to be an engineer that legal action was taken.

It is also of note, and stated in the Board's documentation of the case, that
Sweden has no legal standards for engineers of any kind.

Finally, full disclosure, I am a registered and licensed traffic engineer.

[edit] grammar

~~~
rmxt
Completely agreed. He pretty much barked up the one tree that actively cares
about use of the title "engineer", and used it in violation of the law (as it
is now).

Had he sent the letter/formula/math/suggestions to the local state university
civil engineering department, the local/state Dept. of Transportation, or the
local/state representative, the response would have fallen on less deaf ears,
and his use of the title would have likely gone less noticed.

~~~
gtirloni
Fining the man was probably what the law dictates. Yet, it feels so wrong in
this case.

Reminds me of this talk by Barry Schwartz:
[https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisd...](https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom)

~~~
anigbrowl
They didn't fine him at first. They warned him not to do it, and explained
why. He acknowledged this and agreed in September 2015 not to present himself
as an engineer again. Then he changed his mind and resumed doing so.

Barry Schwartz specializes in telling only half the case to people who know
nothing about law, while leaving out any facts that would show his clients in
a bad light. Like he'll tell you about the plight of an oyster farmer whose
business was shut down by the evil federal government, without mentioning that
the farmer in question signed a contract for a fixed-term lease and the
government extended the deadline several times before finally enforcing the
terms of the lease.

Pick one or more of his cases then go look up the actual court opinions. The
facts always seem to be _very_ different from the version he presents to his
audiences. He relies on people taking his claims at face value and not doing
any fact-checking of their own.

~~~
gtirloni
I'm not an expert in Barry Schwartz but I think you're​ just making his
argument stronger.

Focusing on the usage of the term "engineer" when what was in discussion was
the traffic lights, which was much important, shows such a shortsightness. Of
course, everybody was just doing their job, just following the rules.

~~~
anigbrowl
You are being played.

Jarlstrom was informed that he wasn't entitled to hold himself out as an
engineer and _agreed_ not to do so. The reasons not to do that are valid, for
the simple reason that it pretends to a level of expertise he does not have,
when trying to influence how public infrastructure is run.

I have said many times that Jarlstrom could simply have pitched his idea
without claiming to be an engineer. Why didn't he? Probably because people did
not listen to him as readily if he did not use that title.

 _what was in discussion was the traffic lights, which was much important_

Why is it so important? Only because Jarlstrom says it is and claims that his
solution is world-changing. But this is sales talk. If his solution is really
that good, then he should be happy to present it as an amateur, without
pretensions to qualifications he does not hold.

His proposal sounds OK, but I know nothing of traffic engineering and can't
really evaluate it. Neither, I suspect can anyone else except the one person
who posted that they are a licensed professional traffic engineer. It's
unclear what, if any, assertions Jarlstrom is making about the benefits of
implementing his scheme. Will it save any lives or reduce the number of
accidents? No idea. All we have is this: '"hen you make a turn you slow down
but that's not accounted for in their solution, so people are getting caught
in red light cameras for making safe turns.'

OK, I understand he is not crazy about red light tickets because his wife got
one when driving around their hometown, but so what? What is so overwhelmingly
urgent about this that the Board should make it heir priority? Why doesn't
Jarlstrom have the patience to push his idea as a regular driver without
making false claims to qualifications he does not in fact possess? I must
reiterate that I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with his amateur
traffic engineering endeavours...if he would have clearly labeled them as
such.

but he is calling himself an engineer to leverage social credibility that
attaches to that professional term. I can share my legal opinions with you all
day but no matter how well-formed those opinions are it doesn't alter the fact
that I am not qualified to practice law, so the only person I could legally
represent in court in myself. It would be dishonest of me to label myself as a
lawyer, because people who didn't know any better would easily believe me and
might create all sorts of problems for themselves by relying on that false
belief.

What's going on here is that you heard a sympathetic story about something you
think you understand well - who doesn't understand traffic lights, they are so
familiar - with an underdog pitted against the image of a large unresponsive
bureaucracy. And that is the point at which pany people in this thread have
stopped thinking. Look across the thread, there are even people _insisting_
that Jarlstrom is in fact a licensed engineer, repeatedly, based on absolutely
no evidence whatsoever! People are literally _inventing facts_ to uphold their
preferred version of the story.

I am a bit depressed to see how easily people are taken in, and abandon reason
in favor of their emotional reaction to a piece of obscure public policy. I
have no opinion on the right length of traffic light periods (because I don't
drive, thank heavens), and I would have no objection to people evaluating
Jarlstrom's proposal and adopting it worldwide. But he _chose_ to go about
advancing his proposal in a way that he knew would cause problems, and now he
is claiming to be a victim after doing something that _he knew in advance_
would create such a problem.

His legal case will go nowhere because he chose to antagonize the very people
who were best-positioned to assist him, for no other reason than to inflate
his own ego. It would be wise to ask yourself why the story excluded so many
important details about the sequence of events, and perhaps to reread pg's
famous Submarine essay:
[http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

~~~
gtirloni
I couldn't care less if he's a licensed engineer or not, if he was calling
himself one or not...

I do care whether the traffic lights need fixing, what kind of fixing, if my
local traffic lights suffer from the same issue and how it was troubleshooted.

All the rest of this discussion is just wasting everybody's time. And it is
only happening because someone didn't have the good judgment to not fine
someone who was obviously interested in the collective well being (initially
motivated by personal reasons? who cares?).

All rules followed to the letter and society is losing.

~~~
vkou
You should. If I start calling myself an engineer, and start making noise,
about how some bridge or other needs to be retrofitted right this minute... My
opinion on the matter is not as valid as that of an actual engineer. And you
should probably not conclude that the bridge _needs_ retorfitting, solely on
my testimony.

It's like a product manager, with no understanding of how software is built,
coming to your daily standup, and telling everyone about what compiler flags
they should be using. All the while, calling themselves a programmer/software
engineer. If your company isn't insane, it should censure him for that -
especially if he said he'll stop doing it.

------
grecy
I run up against this sometimes in Canada.

I studied "Software Engineering" and have a bachelors degree from Australia. I
am a member of the Australian Institute of Engineers (accredited degree).

If I say something like "I am a Software Engineer" when I work in Canada, any
other Engineers will get all prickly and go on about how that's not a
recognized kind of Engineer, and it's illegal to say-so, blah blah.

Even if I put B. Eng. (Software) after my name they get uppity.

To get my degree accredited in Canada, I must work some huge number of hours
_as_ a Software Engineer working _with_ Software Engineers. But of course,
there is no such thing in Canada, and so... yeah.

~~~
slavik81
> To get my degree accredited in Canada, I must work some huge number of hours
> as a Software Engineer working with Software Engineers. But of course,
> _there is no such thing in Canada_ , and so... yeah.

We exist. I'm a Canadian P.Eng. (Software). I got my experience working on
software for controlling unmanned vehicles, and I know a few dozen other
Software P.Engs.

Requiring some amount of local experience makes sense, as a major part of
engineering is ensuring your project abides by all local laws that govern what
you're doing. Getting the required work experience under the supervision of
another engineer is a lot rarer than in other disciplines, but on the bright
side, that P.Eng. title is required a lot less often than in other
disciplines.

With that being said, it certainly is difficult for foreign engineers to get
their degrees recognized. If any improvement is to be made on that front, the
government almost certainly will need to prod the engineering associations
into doing a better job of evaluating foreign credentials.

~~~
cholantesh
I've considered getting my P.Eng. once I complete my degree; do you feel that
it's a worthwhile credential to have? Every P.Eng. that I've met has been
involved in mechanical or electrical engineering, so I'd like to get the
perspective of someone in software.

~~~
slavik81
I've never used it, as I quit my job and went into grad school about the time
I got it.

There are possible career benefits, though they're not huge. The company I
left was just starting to require a software engineer on every team to sign
off on each release. And, my father convinced me to do the paperwork for the
P.Eng. with a story of a raise he missed out on due to not bothering with the
P.Eng. despite holding an engineering degree.

~~~
cholantesh
Thanks for the perspective; seems like, in the aggregate, it's not really
worth it for professionals in our line of work. :/

------
patorjk
Everyone's talking about the title issue, but it's amazing that the Oregon
board doesn't believe he should be able to publish or present his ideas. You
can go on and on about what it means to be a certain title, but the man should
be able to put forth his work and ideas.

~~~
anigbrowl
But they don't. He's perfectly at liberty to do so, but not to assert
professional standing which he lacks in order to make it seem more convincing.

Did you read the Board's complaint? At first the asked the Board to
investigate the city even though the Board had no jurisdiction to do so. they
advised him of this and also cautioned him not to advertise himself as an
engineer, in accordance with Oregon's code. He agreed, but then went on to
write to various government and media entities promoting his idea and
promoting himself as an engineer, before asserting again to the Board that he
was an engineer - the very same Board to whom he had given his assurance that
he would not hold himself out as such.

He could have put the exact same information and proposals out in public,
saying 'I'm not an engineer, but I believe I have come up with a great
solution to this traffic problem' and he would have been _fine_. It's simply
not true for you to assert that they're trying to censor his ideas.

~~~
JBReefer
Look, you're not wrong. But you have to remember that none of that matters,
because I can put the following notice out, and any government prohibition of
such is a big payday for me:

"I, JB Reefer, am God, command you to stop driving. I am the king of all
engineers, president of space, etc etc etc"

and it doesn't matter. You really do get to say whatever the fuck you want in
this country, as long as it doesn't cause direct harm to someone else. There's
no "this doesn't apply to job title" caveat.

~~~
monochromatic
> You really do get to say whatever the fuck you want in this country, as long
> as it doesn't cause direct harm to someone else

The Supreme Court disagrees.

~~~
JBReefer
Can you cite a case? Hate speech etc has a long history of being court-
supported.

~~~
foobarchu
That's because prohibiting hate speech would be nothing but suppression of
speech. If you use hate speech to incite a riot, that _is_ a crime. Simply
saying it is not.

Similarly, simply saying "i am an engineer" is obviously not a crime. Students
do it all the time, despite not being licensed. Using it to lend credence to
your ideas around traffic lights, however, may be a different story. I think
thats the crux of the dispute.

------
wil421
The chart he created shows he has more engineering skills than the beaurcrats
running the Oregon Sate Boards.

Another example of government employees being incompentant.

Here's one quick example of cities shortening yellow lights for profits.[1]

1\. [https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-
sho...](https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-
yellow-light-times-for-profit/)

~~~
ctb_
* bureaucrats

* State

* incompetent

~~~
wil421
On mobile. Not sure why my iPhone didn't catch those.

------
miiiiiike
Yep. I went to an engineering school and multiple professors told us to get
our PE licenses before we called ourselves "Engineers". No court will take you
seriously if you aren't licensed. Upside, if you do have a PE license you can
get side-gigs as an expert witnesses.

~~~
porpoisemonkey
How does this apply to "software engineers"? Do they have to call themselves
something else in the state?

As far as I know there is no national accreditation body for the title in the
US.

~~~
miiiiiike
I went through an ABET accredited software engineering program, they pointed
us to the NSPE.

I'm not a PE but I still call myself a software engineer on everything except
government forms. As far as the government's concerned I'm a programmer.

~~~
jnbiche
The NCEES absolutely offers a PE exam in the US for software engineers, for
about 5 years now [1]. Most states offer PE licenses now in software
engineering.

1\. (note the "software" in the list of exams offered)
[http://ncees.org/engineering/pe/](http://ncees.org/engineering/pe/)

~~~
cbhl
Is California one of those states?

~~~
jnbiche
I don't know, but I remember that a slide from the NCEES from 2013 states that
30 states were already offering it, and 10 more scheduled to go online in
2014. So perhaps all 50 are offering it now? You'd have to call/check out the
CA Board of Engineering to know for sure, unless someone here can confirm.

------
ChicagoBoy11
Professional licensing of just about every kind serves one and one purpose
only: Fatten someone's pocket and artificially restrict the labor supply to
favor those already licensed. Period.

You can certainly make an argument that it looks like he went out of his way
to piss 'em off, but the fact that he could be charged for calling himself "an
engineer" \-- and the fact that we all have come to a point where we think it
is something reasonable -- is so upsetting.

~~~
takk309
Professional licensing exists to protect the public at large from fraud. Would
you want a public building, say a sports stadium, designed by someone without
the proper training? Engineering licenses add a layer of protection and
assurance that the person performing the work is truly capable of performing
the work.

~~~
fsloth
I think you need to think of a better example. The stadium would be built by a
major contractor, and they would be responsible for hiring capable people. In
general, having a university degree in structural engineering means a person
can design structures that don't fall down. In this instance, having a license
would be just like an extra stamp on the university degree.

~~~
takk309
The contractor would be hired to build what the engineer designed. The
contractor does not check the designs.

The university degree is only the first step toward becoming an engineer. In
the US, to be a licensed engineer one must have a degree, pass the
Fundamentals of Engineering exam, work a cumulative 4 years under another
professional engineer, and then pass the Professional Engineering exam for the
discipline they wish to pursue. After that, continuing education credits are
require to maintain the license. Additional testing may be needed depending on
field and location. To say that the license is just a stamp on the degree is
not correct.

------
musesum
A friend grew an engineering company in Oregon from 200 employees to > 1000
employees. He took the company public and is an industry standard. His reward:
getting charged with not following the letter of the law. He spent most of his
life savings fighting back.

Moral: do business in a different state.

~~~
coupdejarnac
If it was because of the engineering license issue, most or all states have
similar laws.

~~~
ghostly_s
I don't think the issue is the law, it's the seemingly capricious enforcement.

~~~
coupdejarnac
It might seem capricious, but what typically happens is that companies operate
under the radar until they get caught. Unfortunately, being ignorant of the
law is not a good excuse. I'm not even sure how you can have an engineering
firm that large and be ignorant of the need for licensure. It sounds like they
blew it off, and it finally came back to bite them.

------
avar
This title is misleading clickbait, from the article:

    
    
        > of more concern, are the documents you
        > provided that indicate you may have
        > engaged in unlicensed engineering work
        > in Oregon.
    

They're clearly being dicks, but him calling himself an engineer in an E-Mail
isn't the full story.

~~~
jack9
I noticed that the story has salient omissions. Clickbait, possibly.
Miscarriage of the public interest, probably.

------
memracom
When they told him that changing an engineered ITE formula constitutes the
practice of engineering without a licence, he should have claimed that he was
a performance artist and his letters should be considered a comedic
performance designed to draw public attention to the court jesters who claim
to be engineers but came up with the flawed ITE formula which even a
performance artist can find flaws with.

That would be free speech for sure.

~~~
anigbrowl
Why not just be honest from the outset?

~~~
glitch003
Because that gets you fined :-P

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm sure you intended it as a joke but since it directly contradicts the facts
I'm unable to see what you find humorous about it.

------
fsloth
In context: The guy was a swede. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that in
general we in the nordic countries don't have an additional licensing scheme
for engineers. Having a university degree is considered sufficient proof of
skill to get hired by an engineering company. And, the last I looked, our
houses and bridges were pretty okay. Nobody designs stuff alone - most
structural engineers work for one engineering company or another and work in
teams.

So, in his context, having a degree is sufficient to be able to call himself
an engineer. Funny he hasn't acclimatized to US, though.

~~~
anigbrowl
For sure. But they took time to explain the issue to him in an agreeable way,
and then he broke the agreement. As a Euro myself, my experience is that many
Americans' complaints about governance turn out to be, well, exaggerated. Of
course one runs into unhelpful bureaucrats from time to time and some cases
are egregious but on the whole it's not nearly as bad as you might imagine
from reading discussions like that.

It's worth bearing in mind that there are multiple different legal
philosophies at play in the USA, some of which have historically been
violently opposed to each other. If you are interested in these social
dynamics (and you probably should be at this point in history) then I strongly
recommend _American Nations_ by Colin Woodard as a guide for the perplexed.

------
mankash666
The state fears challenges to all previously issued traffic violations similar
to that challenged by this guy. That'd turn into a legal and financial
nightmare. Hence the subversion

------
mschuster91
Nothing new in legal terms, claiming regulated titles is a crime or offense in
a lot of jurisdictions - including Germany (§132a StGB, see
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missbrauch_von_Titeln,_Berufsb...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missbrauch_von_Titeln,_Berufsbezeichnungen_und_Abzeichen)).

Unrelated to the legal issues, what the engineering board is doing seems to be
beyond ridiculous. IMHO Mr. Järlström should have informed himself better
about the implications of the word "engineer"... but you know the old saying
"three felonies a day", this case seems to validate it.

~~~
anigbrowl
Three felonies a day isn't an old saying, it's a buzzword pushed by an
attorney who makes a living from telling highly exaggerated stories about
overbearing government that don't stand up under scrutiny. Have a read of the
documents in this case and notice how the engineering board courteously
informed Jarlstrom of his error without any fines or penalties, only for him
to turn around and repeat the behavior he had been warned against.

------
bgun
Honest curiosity: is it fraud (in the US) to claim that you are a member of a
profession that you are not? (I am not saying that is what he intended to do
here).

For example, if someone owes me money, is it illegal for me to send them a
letter, in which I purport to be a lawyer?

~~~
bmh_ca
There are several facts that affect whether the consequence of claiming to
have a professional qualification is regulatory or criminal (being two
branches of "illegal"), including (but not limited to), in no particular
order:

1\. Who you send it to 2\. The purpose of the communication 3\. The
consequences of the communication 4\. Whether it is inter- or intra-state 5\.
What profession it is

There are other questions that can factor in, but the general rule is: don't
lie.

Lying of any form for personal gain is generally a species of fraud, but
pretending to have a professional qualification – even without gain – can also
incur consequences.

It's not limited to professional qualifications; some places still observe the
crime of jactitation, which is pretending to be married.

~~~
derefr
A more interesting question, to me: would it be _more_ or _less_ dangerous to
create a fictional person, who "is" a lawyer—or a fictional LLP, run by such a
person†—and then send a letter written "as" them, representing you?

By sending such a letter, _I 'm_ not claiming to be a lawyer, right? But then,
what _am_ I doing?

† The law was at least smart enough here to require a partnership structure.
Imagine if your fictional lawyer could be "employed by" a real shell
corporation!

~~~
dragonwriter
> By sending such a letter, I'm not claiming to be a lawyer, right?

Wrong. The author of the letter (you) is falsely claiming to be a lawyer. You
are also falsely claiming other things, which may or may not have additional
consequences.

~~~
derefr
I don't see how. I'm not falsely claiming that _I 'm_ a lawyer. I'm falsely
claiming that _someone else_ is a lawyer—a fictional person. (I write claims
in the voices of fictional people all the time; I'm a novelist.) Is it because
I would presumably be writing the letter with a first-person-viewpoint prose
style?

If so, then would it change anything if I just wrote a letter _as myself_ ,
saying that I would _contact_ my named, fictitious lawyer and _have them_ draw
up a suit against the recipient?

Or, on a completely different (ridiculous) tangent: if a program generates an
email claiming that _it 's_ a lawyer (not from a template written by a person;
from genuine black-box deep-learning text generation, hooked straight up to an
email client, without foreknowledge or expectation from the author that this
would be the result), has the author of the program committed a crime? I would
assume the author in that case more parallels the owner of an animal that did
something that _would have_ been a crime if a _human_ did it, but is very
blurry without the presumed _mens rea_ humanity brings to the table.

~~~
dragonwriter
You are writing a letter that purports to be written by a lawyer; you are
pretending to be a lawyer that happens to have a different name than your
actual name. That is both pretending to be a lawyer, and pretending other
false things.

Consider if you change the communication medium from written to oral: if walk
up to someone and claim a different name than is actually yours, claim to be a
lawyer representing someone else (who you identify with your actual name), and
then issue some demands, etc., it's pretty clear that you are claiming to be a
lawyer. Changing the medium from oral communication to written doesn't change
the essence at all.

~~~
derefr
I still don't see the argument, because I don't see where writing the letter
translates to _me claiming_ anything. Like, imagine that I wrote the letter as
a text that would appear in a novel. And then someone else, reading my book,
copy-and-pasted that text into an email and sent it to someone. I'm quite
certain I'm not claiming to be a lawyer at _that_ point (although the person
who copied the text might now be, I guess.) What is the smallest change you
can make to what I did by writing the novel, that would push it over the line
into being a criminal act? When does a text change from fiction into a claim
about reality?

I don't think the "walking up to someone" analogy applies, because there's a
"me" doing that walking that the person can see, and so by asserting any claim
through speech, I'd be attaching the subject of that claim to the person
they're seeing—i.e. to myself. But in sending a letter written "as" someone
else, there is no "me" from their perspective to attach the claim to. There's
only "whoever is named [fake lawyer name]" (nobody) and "whoever sent this
letter" (someone else, although I paid them to do it. Coincidentally, if I
_did_ have a lawyer, I'd be paying _them_ to do it.)

~~~
dragonwriter
> I still don't see the argument, because I don't see where writing the letter
> translates to me claiming anything

The letter is a written statement which (whatever else.you may claim in it)
is, un fact, from you, asserting various facts, including that the writer of
letter is a lawyer.

The claims in the letter are made by the _actual_ author of the letter, not
the (potentially fictions) person that they are claiming to be when they wrote
it.

> When does a text change from fiction into a claim about reality

When it is presented either with intent that it will be taken as a claim about
reality, or when a reasonable person would see it that way. What you write in
a novel is an overt work of fiction that no reasonable person, in context,
will, in the general case (barring special circumstances), see as a claim of
fact. If someone else copies part of it out of context and presents it
differently, thats a different story, but has nothing to do with you.

When you send something that you have written to someone with the intent that
they view it as what it purports to be on its face, than any knowing
falsehoods in it are knowing false claims made by you, the actual person who
composed and sent the communication with the intent to deceive.

------
Clownshoesms
I guess I could see he might have an axe to grind wrt to his partner's ticket,
but if he has a point, they should at least (being representatives of us poor
ol citizens) respond to the point and not just slap a fine on him.

Seems incredibly petty.

------
odammit
Oregon could make a killing fining students practicing engineering in college.

Way to pass up a revenue stream.

~~~
Ductapemaster
Is it a violation of a law to write "engineer" on a resume? It's part of my
title at both of my jobs - did my employer violate a law by giving a title to
someone without a license?

What a crazy world we've created for ourselves.

------
squarefoot
I seemed to recall of some accounts of yellow traffic lights times kept
deliberately short in order to catch drivers passing during red lights and
fine them, and a quick search confirmed this.
[https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-
sho...](https://www.motorists.org/blog/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-
yellow-light-times-for-profit/) Probably not related with this case, but
anyway...

------
djrconcepts
Would be nice if traffic lights in the US had a countdown time. Many other
countries have countdowns on their traffic lights. The US has some catching up
to do.

------
exabrial
Good luck extracting that money from him, if I were him, I'd safely ignore the
notice. They're going to have to prove what he does for work falls under the
legal definition of engineering in that state.

Also, if his job title includes "engineer" the board is going to have a very
difficult time justifying the case.

And.... this is a civil matter. His best option is to get a good lawyer and
just ignore them.

Yet another reason for small government.

~~~
anigbrowl
You really ought to read the Board's side of this in the linked documents
before jumping to multiple incorrect conclusions based on his version of
events.

~~~
exabrial
What? That he claimed to be an engineer? The board shouldn't exist as part of
our government.

~~~
anigbrowl
You realize this all started when Jarlstrom contacted the board to request
that they launch an investigation of the city where his wife had received a
traffic ticket?

'The board shouldn't exist' is a novel proposition. I guess you can't
understand what interest the state might have in the ability to commission
accurate land surveys and reliable public works. Almost makes you wonder how
these things come into being in the first place, doesn't it?

~~~
exabrial
You seem to be asserting the government is the only institution wholely
capable of, is effective at, or even interested in verifying a person's
credentials.

~~~
anigbrowl
You seem to projecting some of your political stereotypes onto me. The Board
in question is in fact semi-autonomous and self-funding and has been for
nearly 20 years.

Insofar as government is a provider of public goods in the form of
infrastructure I would certainly say that it has a legitimate interest in
maintaining standards so as to avoid wasting public money.

~~~
exabrial
Are they really self funded if the fees they demand are codified into law
instead of voluntary? I guess the IRS is also self-funded.

------
cwills
Shouldn't need a license to prove you're an engineer unless say perhaps you're
running an engineering business, where people's lives can depend on your work
- e.g building a bridge. If you have formal education in engineering, then I
would think you can call yourself an engineer?

------
ryanmarsh
I just did a search for "software engineer" in Oregon on Indeed. Shopify and
many others are using the term engineer in their job listings. Are candidates
referring to themselves as engineers to get these jobs? Are they then putting
themselves at risk?

~~~
takk309
Context matters. The job listings you are finding are not implying they are
traffic engineering positions.

------
awinter-py
We need to design better due process for fines.

Privacy may be part of the problem -- yes it would suck to publicize
everyone's whole history of administrative fines, but making this information
public by default would limit corrupt application of the rules.

~~~
anigbrowl
What's wrong with this? The Board asked him to stop calling himself an
engineer, without any fines, and he agreed. He broke the agreement,
repeatedly, at which point they launched an investigation and then slapped him
with a very small fine. I see absolutely zero evidence of corruption here. It
seems a lot of readers are only looking at matters from Jarlstrom's side, and
completely ignoring the fact of his bad faith.

~~~
awinter-py
you're not exactly wrong.

In my opinion this is a first amendment case. The supreme court created
something called 'strict scrutiny' to analyze cases where other laws encroach
on the first amendment. Under strict scrutiny, the government needs to prove a
compelling state interest to restrict free speech.

Does the state of oregon have a compelling interest in preventing this person
from informing a state agency, via private correspondence, of a safety-related
calibration issue in their traffic light system?

If you think so, interested to hear your argument.

------
erikpukinskis
I think I will stop using the word engineer entirely. I'm just going to refer
to all "engineers" as structural designer, mechanical designer, etc. They want
"engineer" to have legal ramifications then it should be used only in legal
documents, not colloquial use.

I appreciate the existence of the certification, but I think using the same
word for the certification and the work is an attempt to confuse the public
about the difference between a licensed engineer and someone applying the same
methods without a license.

------
otto_ortega
ok, I got the title of "Computer Science Engineer" from an university in
Central America, is there any other requirement I should fulfill before
introducing myself as an "Engineer" in California or Washington?

~~~
bnolsen
Yes, take the EIT and several other tests and you become a certified engineer.

~~~
chrisferry
Nah son, all you need is your MSCE and you are golden!

~~~
wiredfool
Got one of those, but I think you mean MCSE.

(I've got the master of science in civil engineering, not the Microsoft one)

------
maerF0x0
The bureaucracy wins again. Clearly this is just an attempt to shoe a fly.

------
account1984
I am frankly both surprised and unsurprised at the same time with the comments
from those supportive of government regulation of software engineering. If
your a hack who didn't learn to program until you went to school, I suppose I
understand, you want to limit those entering your field to those who paid the
same to play. However, how about all of those who are likely far smarter than
you and learned to program as children and got into the industry right off the
bat - does your jealousy dictate that they should have to pay some sort of
admission cost?

It's pretty cute how the same yuppies who are supportive of strict regulation
are lining up to praise childhood programming courses. By the time our
children are grown, programming will be illegal without a license - ushered in
by the mayhem created by hipsters programming insecure IoT devices. These are
the same people who praise curiosity out of one side of their mouth, but
insist no one should practice cryptography because it's far too hard for
mortals to understand.

I would be delighted if academic America would get off it's high horse. You're
starting to look an awful lot like Hollywood circa 1998.

~~~
anigbrowl
Literally nobody is making that argument, but have a good day.

~~~
account1984
A few moments of reviewing your comment history in this thread indicates that
you are not far from inferring a general complacency with the state of affairs
- and it's okay, you aren't alone in this thread.

However, that is the problem - people shouldn't be pushed around by
bureaucratic functionaries because he hasn't paid the cover charge to use the
title that is appropriate for his trade. He was sending an intelligible email
with genuine, well researched claims - he was disrespected, fined and
suppressed.

I wonder how many emails Oregon is receiving now from engineers?

~~~
anigbrowl
I suggest you spend more than a few moments on it as my arguments seem to have
sailed completely over your head.

Did you read any of the primary source documents in the article? If not then
this is going to be a waste of time. If so, please reconcile your arguments
with the fact that Jarlstrom initiated contact with the board in an attempt to
push a city authority around, and then broke the agreement he made to abide by
Oregon's code when it was explained to him absent any kind of bureaucratic
sanction.

------
nikki-9696
This is why we can't have nice things.

------
chrismcb
This is all for and dandy, except he wasn't practicing engineering, as per
their own definitions.

------
geggam
So is what he discussed actually relevant and is this an attempt to silence
someone ?

------
threepipeproblm
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and
diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in
some contrivance to raise prices.” -- Adam Smith

------
bmsleight_
Simple solution: UK traffic lights, leaving Amber 3 seconds.

------
taf2
Interesting- so I have a BS in computer engineering. Do I get to say I'm an
engineer or would that be illegal?

~~~
jpambrun
In Canada it would be illegal. You need to be a member of the professional
professional order to be able to call yourself an engineer. I have a BS and a
Ph.D. in EE, still can't call myself engineer (nor doctor).

------
maker1138
Looks like there needs to be March for Engineers on Beaverton OR.

------
madebysquares
Very click baity headline. Good article none the less.

------
walshemj
would you not have to be paid to "practice"

~~~
smnrchrds
I would argue that payment is not necessarily a requirement. If someone opens
a free clinic, should they be allowed to practice medicine without a licence,
because it is not really 'practice'?

~~~
walshemj
good point

