[LINK] The Ethics (!) of Dodgy Web Designers

[Ivan Trundle]

On 17/04/2007, at 7:00 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:15:26PM +1000, Ivan Trundle wrote:
>> As for the security aspect, this is also moot: you've not said that
>> the firm claims to deliver *secure* online applications. Whilst any
>> sensible, educated and truly professional web firm would include this
>> as part of their sales pitch and practice, I note that many do not,
>> probably because they are unaware of the importance of security. Or
>> because professionalism is yet to be a key selling point of web  
>> design.
>
> right. and most sandwich shops don't bother to advertise
> 'salmonella-free' either...therefore it's unreasonable for  
> customers to
> expect a salmonella-free sandwich.

Customer expectations vary through experience and knowledge - this  
thread highlights a mismatch between consumer understanding and  
vendor competence.

We've had many years and much publicity to have expectations of food  
that is salmonella-free. Yet if [potentially] 90% of all sandwich  
shops sold salmonella-infected sandwiches, we would expect that  
advertising of salmonella-free food would arise.

As a perfect example of this, consider the UK back in the 80s... (I  
was there then, and mad-cow disease was no laughing matter).

> back in the real world, there are minimum standards which any good or
> service must meet in order to be labelled as such - in the case of
> sandwiches, standards are mandated by law...but not yet for web sites.

Any?

Until the risk to the public is *equal to* that of the consequences  
of poisoning and possible death, I can't see website services being  
treated the same way.

I bought some pillows the other day, and a kite and a set of  
headphones - I saw no labelling to verify any mandated laws governing  
their use, application or fit for purpose. Yet pillows can kill in  
the wrong hands...

>> This isn't a matter of ethics, but rather competency, which I suspect
>> your grievance is all about.
>
> it's about both. it's unethical to claim to be capable of doing
> something which you are not competent to do. that's called lying. or
> deceptive trade practice.

As a business, I can *claim* all manner of things, and offer all  
manner of services. It's up to the astute buyer or client to  
determine if these claims can be verified. The more complex the  
requirement of the buyer, the more that one would expect to be able  
to see proof of the claims before proceeding.

If a company or individual makes claims that cannot be verified or  
proven, then yes, I would call that a deception - trade practices or  
otherwise.

iT