N.C. Official Sics License Police On Computer Scientist For Too Good a Complaint 705
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."
It's terrible! (Score:5, Insightful)
Send them a copy of the Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
"...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?
Nothing is more threatening to government (Score:5, Insightful)
Than citizen volunteers who would dare to do something for free.
It's simple, really (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should he need a license? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when is talking about technology the same as practicing without a license? Asshole in power is being an asshole.
Question (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
What morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Good Luck With That (Score:4, Insightful)
So in essence, the complaint is that Cox appeared more competent than an ordinary citizen is allowed.
Did I miss something... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Why should he need a license? (Score:5, Insightful)
When applied to a defendant's right to represent himself in court this could conceivably result in charges practicing law without a license if one was too good of a jailhouse lawyer....
-I'm just sayin'
Re:Sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Also the summary is incorrect It should read:
"Kevin Asshat, chief traffic asshole for the state DOT, and the shitbag who filed a complaint, protested that in trying to have Computer Scientist and Esteemed Citizen David Cox investigated while not licensed as a professional engineer: "I'm not trying to hush him up. I'm just trying to be a tyrant and make his life miserable, because I enjoy acting like Mubarak."
I bet he weighs as much as a duck, too (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the form that you use to report on people suspected of practicing engineering without a license in N.C.
http://www.ncbels.org/forms/ComplaintForm.pdf [ncbels.org]
What say you that we flood them with complaints about ineptitude?
Internet Don't Let Me Down (Score:5, Insightful)
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/ [ncdot.org]
From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
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,
I think I misunderstood something (Score:4, Insightful)
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. Of course, that is really the point of most government regulations, to protect certain government favored groups or businesses from competition.
The Quote of the Article (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:You don't need a PE to be an engineer... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Yeah, lets give the Government LESS power (Score:2, Insightful)
What could possibly go wrong?
Yeah, let's give "the Government" LESS power instead. That way, instead of him being able to fight back and likely eventually get the traffic signals he is asking for like he's doing now, there will be no tax revenue for traffic signals to begin with. That way, instead of his chances being pretty good if he's willing to deal with the nuisance of this Lacy guy, they will be mathematically zero.
Yup, that's the answer.
As an NC engineer.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm sorry, that's it. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is about protection of a monopoly of certified engineers ... it's not about bureaucracy, it's about crony capitalism.
Re:Sorry (Score:2, Insightful)
Story should read:
City Engineer complains when someone gives him quality work that he must investigate instead of dismissing offhand.
In other news, consulting company looks embarrassed when non-professionals dispute shoddy work as requested by the state.
Re:The Quote of the Article (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I think the issue here is:
In most fields of engineering (electrical engineering is what I am most familiar with), there isn't a requirement for an engineer to be licensed. The PE organization would beg to differ in that regard, but in general you rarely see EEs, MechEs working in non-civil fields, etc licensed as PEs:
Within the field of civil engineering, nearly all states require any project to be signed off by a licensed civil engineer with a PE certification. In general, I believe most civil engineers need a PE certification or they simply can't function in the current regulatory environment. One should assume in this case that "engineering = civil engineering" when a civil engineer talks about engineering.
The claim here is that supposedly a non-licensed person practiced civil engineering in generating this work product. However:
1) It was not an official work product, it was a complaint to an organization that DOES contain licensed engineers
2) There were no claims made that anyone involved in the document preparation were civil engineers, licensed or otherwise
Re:Sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's simple, really (Score:5, Insightful)
If you do ANYTHING that embarrasses most people they will retaliate. Public officials just have more tools to retaliate with.
Re:Internet Don't Let Me Down (Score:4, Insightful)
I should have known someone would find it before long. Please remember that polite but firm messages are more likely to be effective in expressing the public's opinion than incoherent flamefests that will just get deleted.
I 3 you Internets!
Re:I'm sorry, that's it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporately Owned
Some government bureaucrat abuses his power and numpties like this emerge from the woodwork and ascribe guilt to corporations.
You people make no sense.
Re:Sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm sorry, that's it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Riiiiight, so even the most extreme excesses of government regulation are the fault of capitalism? Hmm, maybe that's so - most monopolies thoughout history were government creations, come to think of it.
Re:It's terrible! (Score:4, Insightful)
The risk is that it will appear that they have knowledge, but there's no actual guarantee that they do. That's the danger. Did you know that if a PE creates a detailed report like that, even if they don't seal it, that they can (and will) be held personally liable for the results if anything goes wrong? Not their employer, not the board, not the state, themselves, personally. That's the distinction, and its a damned important one.
Re:I'm sorry, that's it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
Lacy said this is the first time he has referred a case to the professional licensing board.
Right, so before this, Mr Lacy has always said "The petition is rejected because the petitioner doesn't know what he's talking about." Now Mr Lacy is trying a new way to reject a claim: "The petition is rejected because the petitioner does know what he's talking about."
Wow. With logic like that, Mr Lacy must have an easy job.
Re:Sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if i could i don't think i would get a PE licence - too much liability on what you sign off on.
The real problem here is, the PE in question is now liable if he fails to properly investigate and refute the report. Its an ego play because he doesn't want to be in a position where he's beholden to the public for failing to do his job.
Re:I'm sorry, that's it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, that's it.
America over.
The end.
All of our modern conveniences were created by engineers. Some percentage of those engineers are neurotic and controlling and completely lack social skills. We would be swimming in our own filth if it weren't for those people. What we really need are personality engineers to help them blow off steam or to feed their egos in a self contained environment. For the meantime we have the occasional Kafka moment.
Re:I'm sorry, that's it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Or if you look at it another way, the government is enforcing the laws for the corporations - the work done by a company suggesting the traffic signal was not needed was contradicted by a personal submission. Mr Lacy is complaining that this kind of personal initiative has no place in his county.
Re:Sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you are not against "all regulation." But a lot of libertarians are.
What we have here, though, is not an example of regulation. It is an example of someone deciding that being a government employee gives him the right, nay, the responsibility to act like a petty tyrant. It's got nothing to do with regulation, per se. It's abuse of power. It's very common in the U.S., and practiced by government functionaries from all parts of the political spectrum.
It's unfortunate that we the people tend to spend so much time being polarized against one another, and less time acting as citizens should: restraining abuses of power in the government that is supposed to be working for us.
Re:Sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
Medical work is another story- it doesn't matter if you work for free, but you can't practice medicine, do surgery, etc, without a license.
I covered that" "Any level of study work (not involving actual actions or other people)".
You can study diseases, conduct lab experiments, maybe even on lab mice, write papers (good luck getting them published), etc. Study. Just don't involve other people, or take any actions that might be construed as "practicing" or do any dangerous experiments that put people at risk or involve controlled substances.
Same thing for Detective work. You might need a license to carry a gun, or sell your services as a Private Investigator. But as an individual working only for your self, you can research all you want, dig thru the net, research in libraries, check public records, call people up, and ask people questions. (Not to the point of harassment).
You can be a rocket scientist and handle things that are quite dangerous, like solid fuel rocket motors.
You can design roads and bridges, automobiles, airplanes, buildings, ships. Just can't sell them, or in some cases even build them without having them blessed by someone with credentials.
Re:Sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
To play devil's advocate for a minute, what's the difference between building a house without review, and getting an exact detailed proposal approved by a city?
Think of other similar stories that happen every day. How often do computer scientists complain about software specifications that come from the folks in marketing? Sure, they might look good at first glance, but there's almost always hidden problems. Of course, by the time those problems are noticed, the plan has been approved, and it's nearly impossible to convince management that it's a bad idea.
The same goes for any city. Once the plan's approved by the council/voters/whatever in charge, it's nearly impossible to make significant changes, even if the original plan is wrong. The concern is that by having such a detailed plan, it could be pushed through without adequate review from engineers who've had all their training.