Comment by ThrowawayR2
2 hours ago
> "...don't understand to be compliant."
Liang got prison time because he _did understand_ that the engine wasn't compliant with regulations and chose to build the system to falsify the emissions output during tests anyway. He was not a scapegoat.
"On 9 September 2016, James Robert Liang, a Volkswagen engineer working at Volkswagen's testing facility in Oxnard, California, admitted as part of a plea deal with the US Department of Justice that the defeat device had been purposely installed in US vehicles with the knowledge of his engineering team: 'Liang admitted that beginning in about 2006, he and his co-conspirators started to design a new "EA 189" diesel engine for sale in the United States. ... When he and his co-conspirators realized that they could not design a diesel engine that would meet the stricter US emissions standards, they designed and implemented [the defeat device] software.'" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
I think you misread the person you replied to.
I read "decisions which they don't understand to be compliant" as "decisions which they don't believe to be compliant"... in other words, they understand that the decisions are not compliant. You seem to have read it as "decisions whose compliance (or lack thereof) they don't understand."
Yes, and that demonstrates that developers are not immune. And so, developers who suspect they're being asked to do something illegal (but aren't sure) are going to act as sticklers who irritate enterprise architects until you take concrete action to reassure them.
Complain about them, denigrate them, upbraid them for performing analysis outside their primary expertise, fire and replace them.... none of that changes the incentive structure that shunts people in the implementation role towards conservatism out of a perceived need for self-preservation.