In English courts, there’s some debate about a defendant’s ignorance of the law.

In this Chancery case from 2021, the judge mulls over what it means that a defendant is “unaware”. He considers the distinction between someone who knows about the relevant law and misunderstands it vs someone who doesn’t know at all. And the judge briefly wonders whether someone working in regulated activity (like finance) and completely unaware poses the most risk to the public.

The judge left the issue unsettled, but it raises the possibility that ignorance might count against a defendant. The Chancery Division handles business disputes, though, and I imagine the criminal courts have their own rules.

Paragraphs 22-25 are most relevant: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2021/995.html

They won't until they do. When it's something seemingly egregious like this, it has the potential to be something that makes an example and changes curriculum for CS students across the country for decades.

I expect other engineers to know laws when creating things (not like having a JD). Accredited business schools in the US teach business law to their undegrads. It's absolutely not ridiculous or a stretch to have a similar expectation.

There's a big difference between the HN crowd shouting "they should know the laws!" vs. licensed and controlled professionals like architects and structural engineers that "follow the law" via established codes, which have clear boundaries that can be evaluated and prosecuted when violated.

> When it's something seemingly egregious like this

You don't even know what "this" is. So the BI engineer that stitches together data for a report should have known that combining these two values was illegal? What silliness.

‘clear boundaries that can be evaluated and prosecuted when violated.’

Have you ever looked at media law or libel law? It does not have clear boundaries, but journalists are still expected to follow the law. Journalists are not absolved of the responsibility because it’s complicated.

You just need to not break the law. It’s how it works. If you don’t want exposure to liability, you need to acquaint yourself with relevant law.

> It does not have clear boundaries

They absolutely have boundaries that a lawyer or prosecutor can use to make a case in a court of law. How do you think the law works? Interpretation of laws is a big part of how the common law system works.

If there are clear boundaries, there would be no need for interpretation. Interpretation is needed to resolve questions that arise because the boundaries are not clear.

> If there are clear boundaries, there would be no need for interpretation

You can't prosecute someone for murder just for insulting you. You can't prosecute someone for robbery if all they did was jaywalking. Media laws have clear boundaries sufficient for legal professionals to do their job. Building codes have clear boundaries sufficient for legal professionals to do their job.

Interpretation is exactly where the boundaries become fuzzy.