Ethics for Programmers.

[swestrup]

glyf has written a well-thought-out essay on the need for a real code of ethics for computer programmers. I highly recommend it.

Comments

[sps.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I did not read carefully enough (I just skimmed, but plan to go back later and read), but I don't get it. Either we follow the doctors' model, in which our ethics override the business contract, or we follow the lawyers' model, in which the reverse is true. Now, there's a good reason for the lawyers' model: it is that the legal system is expressly adversarial.

Sony believes that the software industry is likewise adversarial.

I don't.

But it isn't clear, is it?

[swestrup]

glyf Looks at them both as putting the consideration of the primary foremost. With a doctor, the primary is the patient. With a lawyer the primary is the one they are defending. glyf thinks the primary in programming should be the user.

Sony, no doubt, would differ.

[sps.livejournal.com]

How can you tell? Sony pays the programmer, Sony (in their view) own the content, Sony (in their view) own the experience, Sony (in their view) are the primary. Computers are all the same, they're just platform. It's like saying that the lawyers should follow the wishes of the jailers, because they own the building where the meeting with the prisoner takes place, isn't it?

I don't think you can argue but that Sony's programmer's customer is Sony.

The question is whether he should check his social responsibility at the door.

[sfllaw.livejournal.com]

You could go with the professional engineering model. It's not very strong, but it's arguably better than what we have now.