[BizarreByte]

When that cost includes possibly losing everything your worked for and your kids suffering it ceases to be so clear cut.

If the society you live in won't look out for you in these situations, why should you look out for it? Take care of you and yours first.

[JohnFen]

> it ceases to be so clear cut.

I think it's still clear cut. Losing everything is a lamentable disaster, to be sure, but that doesn't change the ethics of the situation.

> If the society you live in won't look out for you in these situations

It's not some faceless "society", it's actual people, including the specific people you know. If you're willing to do things that are harmful to others, you're actively working to make the world worse for everyone -- including yourself and those you love.

[generic92034]

For me that is a bit too simple (no offense meant). If you are threatened you have to balance the harm you would be suffering by not complying with the harm you would be causing by complying.

[JohnFen]

I wasn't really saying differently. What I'm saying is that if you choose to do something you know is wrong -- even if it you feel there is no other option -- you're still doing wrong and are responsible for that.

[generic92034]

True, but sometimes you are caught between a rock and a hard place. While it does not change the responsibility for your decision, it changes the ethics.

[evantbyrne]

Gross negligence can have serious consequences. Software developers aren't immune to litigation.

[__MatrixMan__]

It seems to me that killing off organizations that do harm in your community goes right along with taking care of you and yours first.