I've seen it said before and I'll say it again. Anyone who works for companies who make products like this in any capacity should be blacklisted in the industry. The missing scruples here could fill several large containers.
We need laws that prevent those things. That's the only way this can be resolved. We're a huge community with an equally huge influence and resources. Let's coordinate and use our power for a good cause, instead of resurrecting witch-hunting practices.
Setting aside that professional licensure requirements are anathema to the spirit of the hacker movement, they would likely have prevented the creation of a massive pool of technology companies, including Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook. Even that proposal would stifle innovation.
However, what's being suggested by the OP is not even a professional licensure system.
It's mob justice.
The difference is that professional licensure organizations follow fixed sets of rules, procedures, and principles. These rules are established, agreed upon, and promulgated in advance of enforcement. Most importantly, the procedures generally allow for the basics of due process.
Mob justice has no set of fixed procedure, and no assurance of due process. Its enforcement is governed by caprice, and subject to a set of arbitrary, inconsistent, and constantly shifting "rules."
The OP is proposing an arbitrarily enforced "refusal to hire" policy people from an ill-defined set of "undesirable" companies.
First, there are no rules for establishing which companies are undesirable.
What fields of technology exactly are undesirable? And exactly how closely did an engineer have to be involved with such technology?
Second, many companies develop "dual use" technology, which has both civilian and military uses. This includes manufacturers of everything from CPUs to jet engines. Is the designer of a gyroscope used on spacecraft and on missiles banished from our ranks?
Third, many of these companies are also huge conglomerates. GE makes jet engines, as well as washers and dryers.
Where do we draw the line?
Should a GE employee be blacklisted under this "system"? One from Intel? How about Facebook for taking money from the CIA? Google for Boston Dynamics?
Most importantly, who decides, and how?
If it's determined by whim and popularity, as proposed by the OP, then I want absolutely no part of it.
And I suspect very strongly that the engineers on this particular project would have clearly violated any standards of professional ethics we could agree on.
Civil war amongst software developers, with utter lack of due process, and ostracism as punishment are not as pleasant to the ear as "consensus," but that's the end result of what you're proposing.
This, of course, misses the central flaw in the proposal: If "good" companies refuse to hire engineers with work history at "bad" companies, you'd be forcing the very engineers who now want to do work you consider "good" back into doing work you consider "bad."
Setting aside the horrific personal implications this ham-fisted approach would have, by its very nature, a refusal to hire policy would have the exact opposite effect that you intend.
The government is made up of it's constituents, we should absolutely blacklist those people to let them know we are not OK with this. You'll never get more transparency from the government, it's not in their best interest to do that, nor is it for them to implement 'better' legislation. Ideally that would be great, but we are WAY past that being a realistic possibility in America.
I don't think you meant what you wrote there. You're saying government transparency is not in the best interest of its citizens?
But also in the same breathe, people in government are also extremely self serving, and it does them no good to provide more transparency when their current paychecks benefit from a lack of transparency.
I can see how that appears to be contradictory but I did not mean for it to be taken in that manner, hope this clears up my statement.
Doing/making something because it is legal is does not make it right. As you're building a team you should hopefully be hiring only people who act ethically and can understand the implications of their work, right?
The problem is if the police is corrupted and are using it outside the law, or not by the intention of the law.
(As this civil case nonsense)
"Bad cops" have committed acts which are illegal; where were illegal acts committed in the story?
Even if organizationally there wasn't a tendency to protect the organization, this would not end the issue.
Blacklisting someone without due process is not the same thing as refusing to produce a drug to kill someone.