

On the need for a Hippocratic Oath for programmers. - asciilifeform
http://glyf.livejournal.com/46589.html

======
gills
The barrier to entry for programming is just so low. Oaths and certifications
for the general programming population will not prevent bad people from
learning to program and expressing malice algorithmically; but it may hinder
good programmers from releasing new software.

I agree there are problems when a company which should be trustworthy, such as
Sony (cited in the post), will act maliciously towards their customers. But at
some point consumers must take responsibility for their choices and consider
their rights and personal safety ahead of their wants. If you know that Sony
installs a rootkit, then don't buy Sony media. Instead, write a letter or even
a blog explaining why you won't buy their product. If you're just too weak and
_really want_ that DVD, then live with your decision and don't try to pawn off
the consequences on "those shady programmers".

~~~
asciilifeform
> at some point consumers must take responsibility for their choices... If you
> know that Sony installs a rootkit, then don't buy Sony media.

Have you ever bought or rented a DVD? If so, you have subsidized DRM, the
purchase of copyright extension laws, and lawsuits against P2P users.

The burden to act ethically must rest largely on programmers precisely because
users are largely unable to act collectively, while media conglomerates easily
unite to protect their own interests.

The Sony Rootkit fiasco is an exception, rather than the rule. Consumers would
have simply rolled over and accepted it, just like they accepted every other
abuse perpetrated by copyright holders in recent history, were it not for the
heroic efforts of a few activists.

------
ulf
Generally an interesting idea. Though I can think of some other areas which
have more need for that(_finance_).

~~~
byrneseyeview
That's interesting. I had noticed that the folks who were in finance to Make a
Difference and all that cost us hundreds of billions of dollars (at Fannie and
Freddie). Meanwhile, the mercenary, only-in-it-for-the-money hedge funds
outperformed the S&P by 20% last year.

------
logjam
The "secret" that cuts to the heart of the ethical imperatives of my field
(and supersedes the Hippocratic Oath) is simply, "The secret of caring for the
patient is in _caring_ for the patient".

Some need the constant reminder of oaths: those for whom money is the sine qua
non for giving a damn.

Hunger for discovery, compassion, and the need to create beauty, eliminate the
need for oaths.

~~~
asciilifeform
> those for whom money is the sine qua non for giving a damn

You mean, almost all programmers?

~~~
swolchok
Patently false. See: the last 5-10 years of open source. "many" may be
accurate, "a majority" may be accurate, but "almost all" ain't accurate.

------
Allocator2008
The author is a fool. He is a fool who does not understand the free market.
Users are cows. They should be treated as such. Cows do not know what they
want. It is our job as programmers to give the cows what they need whether
they like it or not. We the programmers know better than the cows who are the
users. A programmer who does not understand that is a fool who should be
weeded out of the free market. In a free market the cows can choose the
software they want - if they don't like it, they are free to not buy it. But
the programmer must do his best to save the cow (or the lemming) from himself.
Users are fools who don't know what is best for them. Only we the programmers
do. If they don't like our software they don't have to buy it. Such is the
nature of the free market. Programmers should continue to write good software
even if the user doesn't like it. Fools did not understand the buildings of
Howard Roarke, nor do they understand the intricacies of software. So be it.
The cows can go on mooing. The architects and programmers of the world will go
on moving civilization forward.

~~~
prospero
I don't know if this is satire. I hope so, but either way it's emblematic of a
common but absurd worldview.

Without empathy for your users, you will always make poor software. Users may
not be able to perfectly articulate what they need, but neither are
programmers able to infer what they need from first principles. If you treat
your users like cows, what you create will not be fit for human consumption.

