> In fact, in some Canadian provinces, titles in computing such as “software engineer,” “computer engineer,” and others containing “engineer” are (in principle) reserved for people licensed as engineers by the provincial engineering regulator.
A most rational stance. One we should enforce here in the US.
Edit: Yes, I'm arguing that Software Engineer should be a licensed profession, but programmer shouldn't, and would be a fine substitution in the cases where you didn't need rigor.
--
If I were an engineer, there's no way I would trust any interface to a control system for a water purification plant that connected to the internet and allowed for ingress of control. Just as an example.
The OPM hack of 2015[1] is the worst case, in terms of national security, that clearly proves no Engineers were involved in the design of their computer system. Ingress of control should be absolutely prohibited, and it wasn't. I don't know why that database was ever put into a computer, instead of filing cabinets in a vault, nor why it was ever connected to any other system, and not completely air-gapped in said vault, with manual controlled exfiltration of data upon request.
So what about like "mechanical engineers" or "process engineers" or "hardware engineer" or "biomedical engineers" etc?
> I don't know why that database was ever put into a computer, instead of filing cabinets in a vault, nor why it was ever connected to any other system, and not completely air-gapped in said vault, with manual controlled exfiltration of data upon request.
I suspect this is not because of the fake engineers but rather because other forces, e.g. management wanted more efficiency and security was the last item on the list. I don't see how changing job titles would change anything here
I think the OP was talking about licensing and regulation. Licensed engineers have more power to push back on management. It’s not perfect but giving a licensed engineer the legal authority to say “No this isn’t safe. I won’t sign off on it.” goes a long way in the civil engineering world.
Yes, because it's their signature that actually has the weight of expertise. Similarly, their ass will be on the line if something goes wrong, not the management's.
Does not fully stop the pressure ("we'll find another licensed engineer to retain"), but at least ensures a somewhat level playing field between expertise and investors.
Some mechanical engineers are "professional engineers". That title is a legal liability for messing up. While most of the work designing a skyscraper belongs to any civil engineer, it won't be built until a professional engineer puts his legal mark on it being safe. In turn a professional engineer has the power and legal responsibility to tell management no and he will win against all their pressure. (though sometimes that means the company builds nothing and goes out of business forcing him to find a new job)
FYI: Mechanical and hardware engineers, in the appropriate language of the country, are already protected engineering titles in a lot of European countries.
Calling yourself a „dipl. Ing. <X>“ would be a crime if you don’t possess the appropriate degree.
Yes, but at least in Germany the "Dipl." makes the difference. I think it'd be OK to call yourself a "Software Engineer" without a degree and this is what many people do.
AFAIK the actual reason why „Software Engineer“ is ok is because it’s in English.
Pretending to be an „Ingenieur“ is illegal unless you have the paper to back it up. But it doesn’t necessarily have to be a university paper, there are older trade papers that also work.
mikewarot · · focus · HN ↗
A most rational stance. One we should enforce here in the US.
Edit: Yes, I'm arguing that Software Engineer should be a licensed profession, but programmer shouldn't, and would be a fine substitution in the cases where you didn't need rigor.
--
If I were an engineer, there's no way I would trust any interface to a control system for a water purification plant that connected to the internet and allowed for ingress of control. Just as an example.
The OPM hack of 2015[1] is the worst case, in terms of national security, that clearly proves no Engineers were involved in the design of their computer system. Ingress of control should be absolutely prohibited, and it wasn't. I don't know why that database was ever put into a computer, instead of filing cabinets in a vault, nor why it was ever connected to any other system, and not completely air-gapped in said vault, with manual controlled exfiltration of data upon request.
[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Office_of_Personnel_Manag...
r_lee · · focus · HN ↗
> I don't know why that database was ever put into a computer, instead of filing cabinets in a vault, nor why it was ever connected to any other system, and not completely air-gapped in said vault, with manual controlled exfiltration of data upon request.
I suspect this is not because of the fake engineers but rather because other forces, e.g. management wanted more efficiency and security was the last item on the list. I don't see how changing job titles would change anything here
sarchertech · · focus · HN ↗
necovek · · focus · HN ↗
Does not fully stop the pressure ("we'll find another licensed engineer to retain"), but at least ensures a somewhat level playing field between expertise and investors.
bluGill · · focus · HN ↗
FabCH · · focus · HN ↗
Calling yourself a „dipl. Ing. <X>“ would be a crime if you don’t possess the appropriate degree.
weinzierl · · focus · HN ↗
FabCH · · focus · HN ↗
Pretending to be an „Ingenieur“ is illegal unless you have the paper to back it up. But it doesn’t necessarily have to be a university paper, there are older trade papers that also work.
weinzierl · · focus · HN ↗
Unfortunately I don't remember the details. I'd be happy to learn I was right after all;-)