tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post113948089937579843..comments2023-10-16T06:06:25.012-04:00Comments on TaoSecurity Blog: Ed Nisley on Professional EngineeringRichard Bejtlichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13512184196416665417noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4088979.post-1148911784164831252006-05-29T10:09:00.000-04:002006-05-29T10:09:00.000-04:00Interesting that one of his arguments against lice...Interesting that one of his arguments against licensing is that there isn't a software engineering body of knowledge.<BR/><BR/>There is. In fact, it is called "Software Engineering Body of Knowledge". SWEBOK. It even has it's own website and produced by the IEEE Computer Society in conjunction with other professional groups and academia: http://www.swebok.org/<BR/><BR/>His problem with maintaining his PE is that there is no advantage in doing so as a software engineer. In fact, legally we aren't suppose to use the title software engineer because the profession is not licensed (and a variety of other legaleze).<BR/><BR/>In short, the benefit in maintaining his PE and eventually havin a PE in software engineering will be realized when you must have that in order to practice in this profession. As long as states don't require licensing there is no point. So I understand his desire to stop spending his time and money maintaining his PE. <BR/><BR/>I believe the day has come. It is time to grow as a profession and license ourselves. It is the wild west - we have problems with viral software being created, data being stolen or abused, and the public is at risk. <BR/><BR/>In order to protect the public we need to require ethics in the profession. And those who do criminal things should not be permitted to practice in our profession. Where the law fails to protect the public for breaches of ethics, the profession should step in.R. Lawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08264939411631488535noreply@blogger.com