Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government The Almighty Buck Science Technology

Oregon Man Fined For Writing 'I Am An Engineer' Temporarily Wins Right To Call Himself An 'Engineer' (vice.com) 369

Mats Jarlstrom, an electrical engineer fined by the Oregon engineering board for calling himself an "engineer" and talking about traffic lights, has been granted the temporary right by a judge to both publicly call himself an "engineer" and talk about traffic lights. Jason Koebler reports via Motherboard: Last month, Jarlstrom sued the engineering board for violating his First Amendment rights, and Tuesday a federal judge gave Jarlstrom the temporary right to call himself an engineer, pending the results of his case. "Plaintiff Jarlstrom may study, communicate publicly about, and communicate privately his theories relating to traffic lights throughout the pendency of this litigation as long as [his] communications occur outside the context of a paid employment or contractual relationship," Anna Brown, a federal district court judge for the district of Oregon, ordered. He "may describe himself publicly and privately using the word 'engineer' throughout the pendency of this litigation." Jarlstrom's attorneys say this is a promising sign and a "critical first step in protecting Oregonians' First Amendment rights."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oregon Man Fined For Writing 'I Am An Engineer' Temporarily Wins Right To Call Himself An 'Engineer'

Comments Filter:
  • by pollarda ( 632730 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @02:10AM (#54523613)
    This is surely a triumph for sanitation engineers everywhere!
  • The first time I saw that was probably more than a decade ago. Right after I was kicked out of an electrical engineering degree.

  • It's "Jarlström" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    you ignorant cunts.

    • by Nemyst ( 1383049 )
      You can't exactly blame them with Slashdot's shoddy support of Unicode. Half the places you'd expect to see extended characters fuck up even today.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Never saw that one during my engineering degree.

      But I do remember "Economics degree. Please take one." written above the toilet paper dispenser in one toilet.

      The only bit of specific engineering mockery I recall (it was a long time ago) is it being said that the Yellow Pages entry for boring said "See civil engineers".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, 2017 @03:30AM (#54523809)

    Reminds me of a Jewish clerk in a Swiss patent office who dabbled in physics and thought he was a Physicist.

    • *physician

  • There should be a distinction between an engineer (as in any person performing engineering actions or with such knowledge) and a diplomed 'Engineer' (a formal title received upon graduation from specific studies). Similar distinction already exists in Germany and other countries with "Dipl.Ing." or Poland with "mgr inz." - these are formal titles.

    Some jobs would require "Dipl.Ing.", you could be still sued for naming yourself "Dipl.Ing." without completing specific education, but you may freely call yoursel

    • by ledow ( 319597 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @04:43AM (#54523963) Homepage

      Why does there need to be a distinction in name?

      What someone refers to themselves as "engineer", "technician", "manager", "consultant", etc. is arbitrary and liable to interpretation, misrepresentation (e.g. a "doctor" of mathematics), etc.

      If you are AT ALL interested in hiring a qualified person, you go by qualifications. Being a member of a particular organisation, holding a certain certificate or licence, etc. Not by what they refer to themselves as.

      Given that every electrician, gas-fitter, window-installer, etc. in my country has to be registered for their work to be building-reg compliant or legal, no matter what they call themselves or whether they were calling themselves an electrician for 30 years before "part P" certifications were a thing, I don't see that it's a burden.

      And then you don't have to live in fear that, despite calling myself a mathematician because I have a mathematics degree, and calling myself a scientist because I have a scientific outlook on life and a computer science degree, someone might take me to court for saying that informally in a complaint letter.

      Protecting a generalised word like "engineer" should be treated like trademarking it. You shouldn't be able to. But equally someone shouldn't be able to say they are a "Engineer Registered with the Institute of Engineering" unless they actually are.

      "Doctor" is the precedent here. Doctor's of geography, mathematics, art, even are all over the world. But you wouldn't expect them to be able to work in a hospital performing surgery without being appropriately qualified. You wouldn't expect them to be able to misrepresent their doctorate (e.g. by saying "it's okay, just take your top off and show me, I'm a doctor"). You also wouldn't expect them to be fined to oblivion for booking a restaurant table in the name of Dr Smith, either. Because that's what they are and referring to that title isn't compulsory or indicative of a specific qualification at that point.

      The judge has called this right.

      And if you want to protect something, protect the qualification. Which you can certificate, number, provide a searchable list so anyone can verify that Fred Bloggs is actually the Dipl.Ing. that he claims to be and it hasn't been rescinded in the years since. And which anyone who relies on them actually BEING a qualified engineer (e.g. skyscraper building firms, aircraft manufacturers, etc.) is required to check before they rely on their work.

      • by jabuzz ( 182671 )

        You mention Part P so clearly are in the UK where the term "Architect" has lots of legal protection, yet the fuck wits that are "Architects" who will all be first against the wall when my revolution comes get away with manslaughter.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e... [bbc.co.uk]

        Let me incompetently design a building that if there is some wind blowing will generate gusts at street level that blow vehicles over crushing pedestrians to death.

        Personally I would put the Architect responsible for that building behind bars for

      • Stop.

        "Doctor" is the precedent here. Doctor's of geography, mathematics, art, even are all over the world. But you wouldn't expect them to be able to work in a hospital performing surgery without being appropriately qualified. You wouldn't expect them to be able to misrepresent their doctorate (e.g. by saying "it's okay, just take your top off and show me, I'm a doctor"). You also wouldn't expect them to be fined to oblivion for booking a restaurant table in the name of Dr Smith, either. Because that's what they are and referring to that title isn't compulsory or indicative of a specific qualification at that point.

        Doctor comes from the latin "I teach", and the association of physicians with the term is both a modern trend and mostly limited to the US. A doctorate is not supposed to be a professional distinction but an academic one. The idea is that you have added to the sum total of human knowledge in some way, which take note is not what medical students actually do. In the UK and related countries the initial degree would be a Bachelor of Surgery and an M.D. would be a research degree.

        Your overall point may be

  • by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @05:34AM (#54524065)

    Not meaning to offend any 'official' engineers here - I understand the work that goes into an engineering degree, and I understand the legal and ethical need to protect the title from pretenders. What I really don't get is that people automatically place more trust in the opinions of an engineer, (or a doctor, etc), than people who don't hold the title, yet have similar or greater accomplishments in the field.

    I've spent my life working in the electronics field. I once worked for a degreed electrical engineer whose idea of heatsinking a component on a PCB was blobbing some heatsink compound on it. (No, I'm not kidding). This same engineer casually implemented some resistor-diode logic between 74HC logic inputs and the outside world, without so much as a couple of protection diodes from the inputs to the supply rails. In this case the 'outside world' happened to be various points in the noisy, spikey electrical system of a large military vehicle. The design was being field-tested just prior to production. 'Nuff said. A bit later in my career, I worked for a guy who, (thankfully), actually merited his engineer's title. But he told me about an engineer who once worked for him, who couldn't understand why trying to start his car with a 12-volt lantern battery wasn't working.

    There are smart, knowledgeable, competent people, and there are incompetent fools. In my experience, a degree, (or lack thereof), is no kind of an indication of which category a given person falls into.

    • by ameoba ( 173803 )

      It's not just the degree, it's passing your professional engineer exams & getting certified that allows you to take a protected title. Just like you can go to law school but you're not shit until you pass the bar & med school grads aren't shit until they've done a residency and passed their boards.

      • med school grads aren't shit until they've done a residency and passed their boards.

        That's not entirely true. I dated a doctor and she said that they could easily enter into the pharmaceutical industry as a research doctor without any residency. They can also work under the supervision of any licensed doctor (like a glorified PA) without residency. They just can't get their own license to practice on the general public without a residency. She also suggested (though I cannot verify the veracity of this statement) that most medical directors at research clinics were doctors who had lost

    • by dj245 ( 732906 )

      Not meaning to offend any 'official' engineers here - I understand the work that goes into an engineering degree, and I understand the legal and ethical need to protect the title from pretenders. What I really don't get is that people automatically place more trust in the opinions of an engineer, (or a doctor, etc), than people who don't hold the title, yet have similar or greater accomplishments in the field.

      I've spent my life working in the electronics field. I once worked for a degreed electrical engineer whose idea of heatsinking a component on a PCB was blobbing some heatsink compound on it. (No, I'm not kidding). This same engineer casually implemented some resistor-diode logic between 74HC logic inputs and the outside world, without so much as a couple of protection diodes from the inputs to the supply rails. In this case the 'outside world' happened to be various points in the noisy, spikey electrical system of a large military vehicle. The design was being field-tested just prior to production. 'Nuff said. A bit later in my career, I worked for a guy who, (thankfully), actually merited his engineer's title. But he told me about an engineer who once worked for him, who couldn't understand why trying to start his car with a 12-volt lantern battery wasn't working.

      There are smart, knowledgeable, competent people, and there are incompetent fools. In my experience, a degree, (or lack thereof), is no kind of an indication of which category a given person falls into.

      We're talking here about a state-issued engineering license for the title of Professional Engineer, not simply a degree. In the US, this involves taking a grueling 8-hour test with a pass rate of ~70% for first-time takers and ~40% for repeat takers [ppi2pass.com]. Most states require a degree to take the test, plus experience, or non-degreed applicants can take the test with longer experience. It is generally open-book, but the problems are numerous and complex enough that there is no time to learn how to do them duri

    • by jbwolfe ( 241413 )
      Proof that a degree in engineering is just proof of a broad and general set of technical skills. Practical knowledge carries a great deal of underrated value as does a healthy dose of intellectual curiosity.
    • Not meaning to offend any 'official' engineers here - I understand the work that goes into an engineering degree, and I understand the legal and ethical need to protect the title from pretenders

      The title is 'licensed Professional Engineer', as I understand it.

      I don't expect the guy who drives a train to build an artificial heart, and nobody else does either.

      The State was just punishing this guy to shut him down - they were doing no protection of the public (in fact, that's what *he* was trying to do).

  • by GerryHattrick ( 1037764 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @06:09AM (#54524155)
    Earnest trainspotters in Britain (and we are many) mostly would have preferred in another, steam-age, life to have been long-apprenticed 'engine-drivers' (Brit-English), but have always understood that that function in the USA has been called 'engineer' for a century. How do such (esteemed) USians describe their job-title today?
  • I don't remember anywhere that Jarlstrom was banned from talking about traffic lights. What he was fined for doing was using the term "engineer" to describe himself while doing it. In this particular case, the State Board told Jarlstrom very early in his complaint that the traffic lights in question were under the control of the city (I think it was Beaverton) and that he needed to bring the issue up with them.

    Something less reported was that Jarlstrom was interested in an upcoming seat on the State Board;

    • by olau ( 314197 ) on Thursday June 01, 2017 @09:38AM (#54525071) Homepage

      What he was fined for doing was using the term "engineer" to describe himself while doing it.

      No, it is much more sinister, the board wouldn't tolerate that he was using methods used by engineers.

      You don't believe that, did you? I didn't.

      But there was a thread about this on a Danish engineering forum some time ago, and someone dug up this:

      "By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon 's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b).

      By doing so through the use of algorithms for the operation of traffic control systems, and through the use of the science of analysis, review, and application of traffic data systems to advise members of the public on the treatment of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom engaged, specifically, in traffic engineering under OAR 820-040-0030(1)(b) and (2)(a).

      By engaging the practice of engineering (specifically, traffic engineering) without registration, Jarlstrom violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)"

      From the correspondance: https://motherboard.vice.com/e... [vice.com]

  • Back when I was a kid my parents had a player piano and one of the rolls was "Ramblin' Wreck From Georgia Tech" which was probably the one we used the most.

    Despite not having attended Georgia Tech my father taught my siblings and me the words....

    "I'm a ramblin' wreck from Georgia Tech and a hell of an engineer"

    He did have an engineering degree but never worked as an engineer. I did eventually earn an engineering degree not from GA Tech too, but also never worked as an engineer.

    We totally got away with it

  • I'm an Engineer who specializes in Traffic lights.

    They go Green, Amber, Red. Then in America they turn Green again. (other more sophisticated countries they go red and amber together before turning green).

    Suck it Oregon!

  • The letter Mr. Jarlstrom received stated he violated two laws. The first was claiming to be an engineer without being registered as an engineer in Oregon or any other jurisdiction in the USA. The second was "practicing engineering" without a license. By writing his letter stating he did a study on traffic patterns and the layout of the roadway he "testified" or "investigated" on matters concerning "public utilities, processes, works, or projects" as defined in 2007 ORS 672.005.

    What is worse is that the law defines such acts on private property as "practicing engineering". Practicing engineering without a license is a violation of the law. So, you measure a room and compute the wall area so that you can make sure you buy enough paint to cover the walls you are "practicing engineering" under the law. If you take those calculations to the hardware store to buy paint, and you are not a licensed engineer in Oregon, then you have violated the law.

    If you measure out your yard so that you can buy enough fertilizer for your grass then you have done "surveying to determine area or topography" or "surveying to establish lines, grades or elevations, or to determine or estimate quantities of materials required, removed or in place" as defined by the law. Even on private property this applies. Since Mr. Jarlstrom did some surveying on public property, the intersection in question, and stated so in his letters to the various government agencies then he's been "practicing engineering" without a license.

    The $500 fine he paid was for claiming to be an engineer when he was not, under the law. What got him in trouble in the first place was showing expertise in engineering and using that knowledge to complain, or "testify"", to the government. It seems they thought they could not get him on that law, or they didn't want to bother arguing that to a judge. I lost where I saw it but it seems there is a statute of limitations of two years on this violation. Since he keeps talking about the problems with the traffic lights to anyone that asks him about it the clock keeps getting reset on this violation and/or he is committing multiple violations of this law. Each violation carries a possible fine of up to $1000.

    After receiving these letters the Oregon state government could have done one of two things, fine him for violating the law, or shut up and listen to what he was telling them. If they didn't fine him then others would have got the crazy idea in their head that they could use devices that measure time and distance, and "apply special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences" to check the work of government "engineers". I suspect the government wants him to shut up so that they can keep collecting fines on people running red lights.

    He's paid his fine, can the government come back and fine him again if he doesn't stop talking? I guess that's why the federal courts are now involved.

"Yes, and I feel bad about rendering their useless carci into dogfood..." -- Badger comics

Working...