As an engineering student, I understand that I am expected to perform the tasks associated

with my profession. As a result, I will need to work with and for others, towards certain goals
beneficial to the industry. Therefore, it is important for me to recognize the interests involved
in the industry, and I must learn to know for whose interests my works should help further.
From the news and the group meeting, and various other sources, it is clear to me that the
interest of the producers and those of their consumers, the public, are not always separate.
There are times when a company may share a common goal with that of the people they are
trying to sell their products to, whereas others the company may seek to increase its profits in
spite of public interests. As a part of an industry that provides its service to a potentially
enormous population, it is clear to me that I have an obligation to protect or promote the
properties, health and safety of the people. And as an employee of a company, I also have my
obligation to serve my employers and further their interests.
However, the publics interest may come into conflict with that of mine and my employers, in
my foreseeable career as a computer engineer. The example given during the second meeting
gives great insight to such a dilemma: how can a mere employee go against the will of his or her
employers, if one wants to keep ones job? While as a professional, it would be easier for me to
manage my own interest and keep it from harming the publics interest, or perhaps even
further the publics interest, through self-discipline. The same cannot be said for that of my
employers, as I would likely have no say in what decisions my employers would make. In a
perfect world, all employers would share the same passion of furthering their own gains, while
maintaining their ethical obligations to the public. However, it is all too easy for employers to
try and make cut-backs or worse for a significant enough profit. The example given during our
meeting shows just as much. But what if it was not the only such occurrences? What if there
are more companies out there that continue these unethical practices? What if these misdeeds
are never to be discovered and the culprits, and by association, the engineers who made this
practices possible, go unpunished?
For example: if I were a part of a project to build a social network site that holds private
profiles, itd be a major concern to keep this profiles secured. However, as can be seem from
the 2014 Sony Pictures Entertainment Hack, the Home Depot Customer Database hack of the
same year, and many more similar events from the past decade, the known security methods
are far from reliable. Researching for better encryption/security methods would possibly cost
more time and money for the company. Therefore my employer tells the team to make a
cheap, additional layer of encryption for customer profiles. The employer then go on to
advertise our product as a new, highly-secured social networking site.
While in my opinion, an engineer should recognize the realities of a situation, and design
products for an audience with limited budget options, one should never tolerate nor propagate
willful lies to the consumers. This is beyond that of my own sense of honor or pride. People
can lose valuable personal information if they buy into these lies. And a professional should
recognize the harm one can cause through neglect.

I hereby make such an observation, that the principles of an engineer, to take on the
responsibility of my work and make sure its operations always seek the benefit of the greater
public.
In the case of the UK scandal covered in the meeting, the engineers of that device were initially
made to be the scapegoat they are far from innocent, as it was they who made the deceitful
device, and as a result, had allowed the company to escape prosecution, and the harm to public
health. Yet, if I were one of the companys employees who ended up taking the blame, I would
have been fired and be forever scrutinized by the public. My career would have been ruined
and future darkened. It is a future I am not looking forward to.
Yet, if I had stuck to my observation, under such a situation, I would have spoken to my
superior, seek a better resolution: perhaps there are legitimate measures I could have made to
improve the fuel efficiency instead, perhaps there are tweaks I could have made to reduce the
pollutant in the exhausted gas. Always seek means to abide by the law and to avoid harm to
public interests. And if no legitimate alternatives exist, as life isnt perfect, I would have to
accept that my career with that employer must come to an end. For severe offenses such as the
UK scandal, I would have to have sought legal means to expose the conspiracy against the law,
lest the plot succeeds and I would have failed to protect public interests.
By actively seeking means to keep provide legitimate methods to improve company profits, and
I would have done my duty to my employer; by dissociating myself from an illegitimate project,
I would have maintained my integrity as a professional engineer; and by exposing severe
offenders, I have would protected the publics interest. And therefore, by following these
solutions, I would follow the ethical guidelines as a professional engineer.