[bakhy]

good point. although this actually crosses the line from "just unethical" to straight up "illegal", which makes the question perhaps less interesting. developers who wrote that code are accessories in crime. and the defense of "just following orders" might only be considered for soldiers, not for civilian workers.

[pjc50]

This isn't the military. One of the side effects of corporate "personhood" is that the crime was committed by Volkswagen. Sale of illegal products is not usually attributed to any individual in the process, unless the company is a single person.

[bakhy]

your idea actually sounds more like the military ;) since, according to that vision, individual people nor their personal responsibility do not even exist there.

can a person really just knowingly take part in any illegal activity, and as long as they're not the only employee, the company is to blame and they are free? even if that were true, and i doubt it is, it would need immediate changing.

[pjc50]

This depends on a lot of things, such as what the illegal activity is, whether they were told to do it, whether they knew it was illegal, and so on.

In this case, it's a product sale regulation. It's not illegal to manufacture non-compliant engines, but it's illegal to sell them. So in a world of individual-only responsibility, that would make the individual sales agents who performed the transactions with customers liable. I don't think that's an improvement.

(This answer may change if the sales agents know or should have known that the product was not legal to sell; this definitely applies to e.g. sales of alcohol to minors)

[bakhy]

thank you for the clarification! one issue still remains - a developer writing that software knows that it will end up in cars which will be sold. even if they will not sell them themselves, they are certainly in the know about the illegal practice. if not before, than at least when those cars start getting sold, the developer knows laws were broken. not blowing the whistle at that point must make the developer accessory to the crime. i think that is inescapable. or, should be..

[icebraining]

It's not certainly not always true, and the recent Yates memo shows that, in the US, the DOJ is actually pushing for more individuals convictions.

That said, it may be true in VW's case, I don't know.

[pc86]

It's typically not even considered and excuse for soldiers, is it? Just because someone may be immune from civil prosecution does not mean there are not equally (or more) severe consequences in the military justice system.

[ni-hil]

I find it hard to believe you could be punished in the military system if you followed your superior orders.

Edit: my bad, in fact you can, if the order is illegal, and it has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases. But, considering what you risk when you don't follow orders, it seems like a tought decision to take. If you don't follow orders, you are done and will probably be punished. And if you follow and you get caught it's on you and you will have to assume full responsability...

Here is more info on this subject: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders....

[SideburnsOfDoom]

I used the phrase "just following orders" knowing that it referred to military history.

You don't have to work on the basis of belief, there's a lot of history on this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

[bakhy]

i think it is, but to some very limited extent. it is not desirable for soldiers to question commands too much. even the most human rights obeying, peace loving government typically does not want its soldiers to think too much. (i think that may even be part of the reason why they have a separate court system, no?)