At 02:42 PM 9/18/00 -0400, dmolnar wrote:
Here's another link on licensing of software engineers, this time from the
it seems that cryptographic/security software, if we ever get the liability structure whose lack is often pointed out by Schneier ("we don't have good security because we don't have to"), may be a prime target for such licensing.
-david
The notion of licensing programmers as competent in some field has come up before, e.g., in safety-critical systems. The idea being that when you're sued because your radiation therapy machine fried a few people, you (the manufacturer) can show 'due diligance' aka best practices. Using DES, then 3DES, then AES is the same cover-your-ass protection. Of course, a firm is still responsible for its bridges that fail, even if it used state-licensed engineers and reviewers and followed standard practices. But the penaltie$ are less if you snag engineers qualified to work in the domain. ..... I believe in Texas or some other state you can't call yourself an engineer since that is a legal term.