[DrJokepu]

I think a better approach would be requiring that developers (and their managers and testers etc.) working on software that could kill or injure people if it malfunctioned have some sort of a professional license, that would be granted and revoked similarly to how medical and engineering licenses are granted and revoked.

[st0p]

I'm not opposing this idea, but I'm not sure it would have helped in the VW case. There were some people (engineers? Managers?) who were cheating and they knew that what they were doing was wrong. I don't believe a license would have changed that.

[acdha]

Other people have raised the question of how well the prospect of losing a license would act as a deterrent.

One other aspect which might be even stronger would be if the professional organization had a role not unlike a union in protecting its members’ professional decisions. Imagine if you worked at VW and your boss told you to make a change which affected safety, emissions, etc. – how different might your reaction be if you know that if you refused or reported it to the appropriate regulators and there were repercussions the Bitpackers Guild could provide legal representation and expert witnesses for you, stage a strike where no licensed engineer would work for an irresponsible company, or simply ensure a lot of publicity? Suddenly it's not “go lean on Sally until she gives the engineering sign-off. She can't afford to quit until her kid's out of college” but “do we want a team of professional engineers to hold a press conference saying we're cutting corners over our experts' judgement?”

There are certainly potential downsides but … anyone who drives a car, uses medical equipment, etc. might reasonably conclude they're worth it, particularly if the system was structured to focus on transparency and due process rather than the pathology some unions are prone to where members are always defended even when they're in the wrong.

[michaelt]

If a developer is asked to do something obviously wrong they might not feel they can refuse, because they can be replaced with someone willing to do it.

If an architect is asked to design a bridge that isn't safe they can refuse, secure in the knowledge they can't be replaced with someone willing to do it, as no licensed architect will knowingly design an unsafe bridge.

Of course, a licensing scheme would probably have a bunch of disadvantages.

[mtbcoder]

Perhaps the threat of having their license pulled, thereby nullifying potential future employment might have caused them to think twice about wilfully cheating emissions controls?

[thomnottom]

While the FDA may not be a great regulatory group, if someone at a pharmaceutical were found to cheat like this they could potentially be barred from working in the industry again. This works in some cases, at least in theory.

[ehvatum]

Perhaps the angle is that this would constitute ethical turpitude sure to cause loss of license and ejection from one's specialty.

[cuckcuckspruce]

While I don't agree with the license requirement the least we could require is publication of the source code and validation by an industry body made up for subject matter experts for safety critical code.

[redcalx]

> some sort of a professional license

Sure, as per the construction industry.

Or perhaps simply the threat of being prosecuted for manslaughter or bodily harm, etc?