Should professional software engineers be licensed by state, provincial, or national
governing bodies as are physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, other engineers, etc.? Why or
why not? Do you think a record of academic dishonesty in college or graduate school should
disqualify would-be-engineers from PE ("Professional Engineer") certification/professional licensing
when such certification is required?
Should professional software engineers be licensed by state, provincial, or national governing bodies as are physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects, other engineers, etc.? Why or why not?     Wikipedia states that an engineer, as well as having particular training and being authorized, has commitments to general society, customers, bosses, and the calling—just as a code of morals that engineers vow to maintain.  While the programming local area doesn't have a formal administrative body, there are associations like the British Computer Society, the Association for Computing Machinery, and the IEEE Computer Society. Be that as it may, these are not administrative associations, and just few individuals I've met all through my vocation are really individuals.  We collaborate with advanced administrations on various occasions each day and uninhibitedly unveil data to individuals and associations concerning which we know very little, and we have no clue about how they will manage that information. Indeed, even real sites and administrations can miss the mark regarding steadily securing the information; we've all known about WikiLeaks and the Panama Papers.  Would we be able to trust individuals who configuration, work, and keep up with admittance to these frameworks? Do we require formal guideline in the product business?  I plunked down with Robert Youngjohns, chief VP and head supervisor of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Software, who says we should believe individuals chipping away at our frameworks yet, simultaneously, should utilize state of the art observing and investigation innovation to ensure the association and the information.  Formal guideline of computer programmers is unrealistic  The way that programmers are disseminated across various nations makes accreditation more troublesome.  "Living in California, on the off chance that you have electrical work done on your home," said Youngjohns, "you by and large need to recruit a California-confirmed electrical expert, in light of the fact that there's genuine actual work that should be finished. Obviously, you could get a noncertified one, however overall, the dangers of doing as such offset the expenses of getting a nearby guaranteed project worker. In the product business, there's no region any more. An electrical expert or a handyman needs to actually appear at your home. A programmer, then again, could be anyplace—Bangalore, Shanghai, or Ulan Bator. That makes it's far harder to make a typical administrative structure, since you'd nearly by definition must be worldwide."  "The history of making worldwide certificate or guideline isn't acceptable, without a doubt. During my profession to date, I have seen different endeavors to build up global norms, regardless of whether it's a norm for record move, mail, or something almost identical. Normally the standard lingers behind the market by 10 years, and when it finishes, it can essentially be insignificant, much more so in the quick universe of innovation."  Trust individuals to tackle their responsibilities  Since formal guideline of programming experts isn't sensible, we need to discover individuals on whom we can depend and give them the scope they need to take care of their work.  "Right off the bat in my profession, when I joined the British Civil Service, it had a totally different way to deal with security from the US same. The British methodology was to talk with many individuals to see if you're a 'respectable chap,' of good upright fiber. In case you will be, you were allowed in. Whenever you were acknowledged or cleared, there was restricted control forced on how you managed your work. The US at that point, notwithstanding, would direct polygraph tests and force tight security, including looking through representatives each opportunity they came in and went out. They would likewise screen worker calls. The British methodology was to accept that insofar as individuals are chosen as reliable, they can be trusted going ahead. The US approach was to expect that everybody required progressing, thorough observing."  Living in California, on the off chance that you have electrical work done on your home you by and large need to employ a California-affirmed circuit tester.  "Nonetheless, people have an astounding capacity to sidestep controls. It's regularly done not out of mal-purpose; it's done out of accommodation. An exemplary model is admittance to classified information. In a past work, we needed to utilize advanced freedoms the executives (DRM) trying to control archive dispersion through email. We found that individuals got so disappointed by it that they would wind up taking the report and putting it onto a DropBox-like help and sidestep the control framework totally. That made the report definitely more helpless than it would have been had the control n ... See the full answer