Isn't it completely unscalable? I work for a big automaker, there's literally people whose only job is to be compliant and inform the necessary leads about it. There's hundreds of countries, each with very specific things. If I study everything, I can't code.

When knowledge arrives at my team, is already condensed to the point of: "in X country, you must tell the prices of a call if you show a phone number for assistance"

Why should I explore every loophole of law to be compliant? That's the companies job, not mine.

For some reason, I've seen a lot of people try to make arguments around FTX that completely miss the scale and malfeasance that occurred. This wasn't a case of "oh, you got some esoteric GAAP depreciation rule wrong". This was an engineering leader putting a ton of special cases in the code saying "For our most beloved partner, none of the rules apply, including letting them take unlimited amounts of customer funds. Oh, and be sure to hide this from the dashboards the rest of the company uses."

This is not hard. Nobody needs to be versed in the ins-and-outs of jurisdictional compliance rules to see this was blatant and egregious.

If any of this looks remotely familiar to any software devs out there, you should really re-examine your morals. Or at least hire a lawyer.

The thing is, the comment I'm answering, is not about FTX. I'm not talking about FTX. The user was making a very broad statement based on this case.

Down to the trivia level for an entire global company, sure, but this is a lot more general and bigger. Like if you have rules against accepting gifts from vendors, maybe you don’t remember if the threshold is $10 or $15, but you shouldn’t need to ask to know it’s not $30k in a suitcase.

Probably yes. What about the Volkswagen diesel emissions cheating that was approved and implemented by engineers?

It also might depend on seniority so you might not be on the hook.

I would say no. They just need to know how to implement what they are asked to implement.

Say you are an engineer working for a gun manufacturer. You need to know how to manufacture the gun. You don't need to know what it is used for or by whom or even how much it is sold for.

If you are aware that a crime is going on you in principle are required to report it, but not doing so is not nearly at the same level of crime as actually doing the crime. So here I think the court will look at two things?

Did the engineer know that a crime was being committed?

Did the engineer personally benefit from the proceeds of the crime more than their ordinary salary?

I am not a lawyer though so don't take my advise.:-)

That is a very bad analogy. Guns are not illegal, what people do with them might be. What these developers made had no lawful use. A better analogy would be if some engineers in a gun factory were making chemical weapons.

There are laws against chemical weapons but I don't think there are laws against producing any kind of software. It's more what you do with the software. Whereas with chemical weapons they are criminalized as such because it is clear they can be used only for one purpose.

What about the laws against helping or enabling criminal activities? There is no need to mention software specifically.

True, depends on the facts of the case.

I’m sorry, what?

That's why I'm getting a MBA.

That's a nice little fantasy. In the real world, competent developers with that level of domain knowledge mostly don't exist at any price. In the healthcare field where I work, not many developers have ever gone to medical school.

would you program the software to allow your friend to obtain drugs from the hospital without deducting it from inventory so nobody would notice?

Different scenarios are different.

But not that different.

You're telling me a software engineer could make a change that allowed spending money a company could not legally spend and he had no idea about it? Come on. That is preposterous. At any respectable company alarm bells would be going off everywhere and fingers would all start pointing to that change. Theres virtually 0 chance that there was not intent.