(Cover photo by Arto Marttinen)
Earlier this week, Jamie Kyle and Daniel Stockman merged a PR to Lerna adding a modified version of the MIT license. The modifications specified that certain companies were not granted a license to use the software due to their business contacts with ICE, (Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a US law enforcement agency). The rationale was given in the PR; ICE has been cruel to immigrants and refugees and Jamie wanted to use his position in open source to respond.
I agree with his cause, though not his actions; ICE has crossed a line into brutality and abuse that can't be defended. However, Jamie's change was quickly reverted. This is not a summary or reaction piece—his actions have already been debated and rehashed online, and I don't intend to pile on. It's made me think, though, about the ethics of creating software and our ability to shape the industry in which we spend our professional lives.
While I agree with Jamie in principle, I disagree with his execution. I think he would have accomplished more if he had built support for his plan before merging the new license. It is not enough to act alone when protesting the actions of large organizations. The odds that a single open source contributor could successfully pressure Microsoft and Palantir, a company that has raised two billion dollars, into severing their contracts related to ICE, a federal law enforcement agency, were low. The outcome does not surprise me.
Our individual moral compasses can't be the only thing that guides us, because we have very little leverage to enforce our beliefs. We as an industry have no shared code of ethics; nobody to whom we can report violations. No license or certification to give our statements weight, beyond our own reputation. In many ways, the low barrier to entry is what makes software development great, but it means we have limited protection against unethical behavior by our employers.
In other fields of engineering, there are professional societies or engineering unions. The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) includes a code of ethics that members must abide by, backed by the organization itself. Members receive a title of "Professional Engineer," which is widely respected in the industry, and are expected to report ethical violations (by other engineers or their employers) to the organization for review.
- Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
- Perform services only in areas of their competence.
- Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
- Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
- Avoid deceptive acts.
- Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
Violations of these ethics have cost lives or endangered the public. In 1981, a hotel walkway collapsed because design changes had been approved without proper review. The Challenger space shuttle failed because an engineer's manager overruled his recommendation to delay the launch. In 2002, a nuclear power plant nearly failed because engineers signed off on falsified inspection reports.
Software development comes with a different set of ethical issues. Most of the software we encounter in our day-to-day would not put our lives at risk if it were to fail. The ethical quandaries in software engineering are more frequently about the success of projects, not about minimizing the risk of failure. Software, and its impact on society, is still new, and we're still figuring out what is destructive.
The professional organizations most closely related to our field are the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), both of which have ethical codes on their website (IEEE's and ACM's). But neither of these organizations has had a strong presence in my career thus far, and neither code of ethics has much to say on the unique capacity software has to influence people's lives. The ACM ethical code is much, much more detailed than IEEE's, but the sections on avoiding harm and protecting privacy are insufficient to provide guidance on the ethical questions in software today.
Is it ethical for Facebook to gather and sell the volume of data that they do? Facebook has made changes to the data it sells to its customers, but only after the question of government regulation was raised. Facebook has exceptionally fine-grained knowledge about its users' behavior and preferences, which it exposes to its advertising customers largely unfiltered. Is it ethical to allow advertisers such laser focus for their campaigns?
Is it ethical for YouTube to suspend channels without warning because of copyright claims? Google has infamously poor customer service, despite an increasing number of people relying on their platform for their livelihood. Does Google have an ethical responsibility to improve their process? Or is the ethical onus on content providers to be more diligent when identifying infringing videos?
It's clearly unethical for car manufacturers to cheat emissions tests—yet Volkswagen, Chrysler, Jeep, Nissan, Renault, and Mercedes were all found to be using software to do so. Skirting regulations is illegal and automotive manufacturers were penalized for their emissions cheating, but that unethical behavior is not present in other their areas of engineering. I posit that this is because of the lack of a code of ethics for software engineering.
It takes strength to take a stand for what you believe in and do something controversial, and I applaud Jamie's courage for his attempt with Lerna. But to have real, lasting impact on unethical behavior, we have to do more than take individual action. We need to lay some ground rules for what we as developers consider to be ethical software development.
We need a frank discussion of what ethical software development is, and we need a reference that we can use for guidance on whether a project is ethical. I'd love to see your thoughts on ethics in software in the comments, but I've also created a Discord server and a GitHub repository to capture discussions.