CDR: RE: was: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?

[David Honig]

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.