My gut reaction was "eww" but the more I think about it, the risk of losing my license to help sales team meet their goal gives me more incentive to say no to short cuts and forces me to build a better product.

I don't know about this in every industry or product. I would hate to require every dev out of college to now be required to pay for a license to get a job. However, some areas I could see this being a real good thing and ultimately benefit consumers.

Is it the licensing that results in mostly safe engineering? I don't know, but I'd guess not -- it's probably more about liability. If a bridge or a balcony or a car or whatever fails, the responsible parties can be held legally liable. That's a strong incentive to get it right.

If companies were similarly liable for security bugs, we'd see much more of a focus on that.

And this is not an easy problem! It's sort of unsolved, in fact; almost all available software is riddled with security flaws. (And constantly being patched, if the company cares.)

So getting this right for e.g. an online security camera, would probably necessitate a completely different approach to engineering. There's no way this would happen just by engineers being "diligent" imo w/o the backing of the company itself.

> A professional license comes with ethics. If you release a product that you certified was good to go but later comes out that you effectively skipped corners, you're out a career.

And since there is no professional license there is no need for whatever you call "ethics". You want what, a license to fucking deploy a php script on a server? some html file with javascript in it? fuck that shit.

Every time there is that sort of scandal in the news you come here pushing for that stupid idea. The "The Shock Doctrine"...