Slashdot Mirror
N.C. Official Sics License Police On Computer Scientist For Too Good a Complaint
snsh writes "When a computer scientist in North Carolina petitioned the state for a new traffic signal in his neighborhood, a transportation official replied with a complaint about what 'appears to be engineering-level work' done by someone who is not licensed as a professional engineer." Kevin Lacy, chief traffic engineer for the state DOT, and the one who filed a complaint with the N.C. Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors, protested that in trying to have Computer Scientist David Cox investigated for his detailed complaint about a traffic intersection while not licensed as a professional engineer, "I'm not trying to hush him up."
Sorry Mr. Lacy, we require a license to complain about non-compliance to ignorant bureaucratic rules.
I'm sorry, that's it.
America over.
The end.
How will they deal with people who have knowledge even though they're not licensed? Next thing you know, people might start noticing cracks in bridges!
"...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
Or would they prosecute you for practicing law without a license?
Than citizen volunteers who would dare to do something for free.
If you do ANYTHING that embarrasses a public official, they will retaliate. That's the kind of jackasses they are.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Since when is talking about technology the same as practicing without a license? Asshole in power is being an asshole.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Has this sort of argument been brought up before in other areas? Your complaint to the school board was well-formed, properly formatted and grammatically correct, yet you are not a board-certified English teacher. Perhaps even: You took your car to the mechanic and told him it was a quart low on oil, yet you are not a licensed mechanic.
Come on, is this is the best idea they could come up with to shut down the complaint?
Death looks every man in the face. All any man can do is look back and smile. - Marcus Aurelius
What a bunch of dipshits. Traffic is just a routing / scheduling algorithm, if anything his background in Computer Science should *help* him present his case. God, what morons. He just did all that work for you, it's not like you won't review it anyway. Suck it up and do a review. It's your *job*.
This is not a viral sig. Copy it at your peril.
Annoyed Neighbor @ 3am: Could you please keep it down? Your party is awfully loud and I need to get some sleep
Drunken college students: You can't tell me to keep it down! I'm calling the police on you for doing the duties of a police officer!
If Cox is found to have practiced engineering without a license, Ritter said, the likely action would be a letter telling him not to do it again."
Don't you have to accept money or be involved in some sort of contractual obligation to risk something like this? Nothing in the article indicates that Mr. Cox misled anyone. The only thing he did, from what I read, was put together a detailed OPINION of reasoning why these stop lights are needed. Granted, they hired an engineer and the engineer said it was not needed, but why is performing your own research a crime?
Seriously, they're investigating the guy because the report was "too good"? Since when do you need a license to be smart? It's no wonder the US is losing ground in the tech and scientific sector.
I think the Internet needs to tell the people in charge exactly how ridiculous that is. Demand an apology at the very least, if not an investigation into the people who are making these accusations.
Here's a link to get you started:
http://www.ncdot.org/
I simply do not believe the second half. There was clearly no attempt to mislead or misrepresent. If the DOT read the paper and failed to find errors, either that's a reflection on their own professional competence or they were not misled in any way. This is purely an attempt to stop citizen activism from members of a group - civil engineers - that particularly dislike any challenge from anyone outside their profession,
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
And the award for best face palm inducing quote goes to:
I'm a software developer, if I use wireshark to discover that my ISP is up to something fishy, will I be sued for practicing network engineering without a license? If I start counting the number of pedestrians crossing a busy street in order to advocate for a crosswalk, will I be sued for for practicing civil engineering without a license?
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
Lol, this is great
You CAN practice engineering without a license, in fact, it's fine, you just can't sign the document " P.E. " (Professional Engineer) most engineers aren't licensed, because it is primarily used by civil engineers who are designing buildings, bridges, ect. The whole point of a P.E. is enabling you to sign off on documents, official documents that represent build plans for some government facility, or something that legally needs to have a responsible engineer. While it's good to go through the trouble of getting one (Bill Nye has his license) it only qualifies you to sign your work as John Hancock Professional Engineer, or claim to list your services as engineering services in terms of running a business.
Some companies just hire one P.E. to claim their work as engineering, cause they just need one to sign off on everything.
If it's something that's not going to put people's lives in danger if it's misdesigned (i.e. a robot, UAV, toy, printer) normally you don't even need a P.E. to do the work. P.E's are just something that at the end of the day are a legal check to sell engineering work.
and in some states I believe it's enough to just have a degree in engineering to consider yourself a professional engineer (though I know in most you must take a test to attain a license )
Here's a link to the P.E licensing board's website
http://www.nspe.org/Licensure/index.html
You do need to be a PE to design something that is going to be used to construct public works.
But that's not what he did here. What he did was lobby the government on a decisionmaking matter. Anyone can do that, using any information at all, at any time. If his design is accepted it would have to be redesigned by a PE.
What his government officials are doing to him by "investigating" him is a clear violation of his rights. No matter how they try to spin it after the fact.
I'm not a bureaucrat nor an engineer, but even without seeing the document I can tell that it was not done by either. It's only eight pages long!
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
If someone mentions the fountainhead I will hunt you down...
I can assure you that I do Engineer-level work on a daily basis without being a licensed Engineer. In fact, you have to do such work for several years as a requirement to get that license. Some people just need something to complain about.
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
What is revealed is that the point of licensing in this case is to prevent people from competing with those who have been duly selected by the state.
No, that's not what the PE is intended for. I'm an EIT, and anyone can perform engineering work in the U.S. However, not everyone can call themselves a "professional engineer". As a matter of fact, most engineering work performed in the U.S. is not performed by a PE. There simply needs to be proof of non-negligence to protect from lawsuits, etc. This can be in the form of scientific data, or review by a PE. Since the DOT does mostly one-of-a-kind work, there is very little scientific data to justify their designs. Therefore they depend heavily on PEs to check designs.
There would only be an issue if the DOT used the design from the untrained person without review by a PE. IMHO The DOT is completely wrong in this case.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Government employees really need to be reminded that as a condition of being employed by the state that they are held to a higher standard and can be tossed to the wolves for stuff like this, namely:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 241
241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 242
242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.