This is very odd special pleading by programmers. Every industry needs to do this: journalists learn media law in their university degrees, architects have to learn the building regulations. Why is programming any different?
Complete nonsense. This is criminal law. Google "Mens rea".
This is not an argument against programmers, like other professionals, learning the aspects of the law which are relevant to their job. Why should programming be the one profession where this is not required?
You can still get sued in civil court of course, but that's not the state trying to put you in a cage and so the standard goes from beyond reasonable doubt to most likely.
If you're a coder coding shady shit for your shady employer, you most likely know you're doing so and there's typically some trace or record left. But coders are not investment bankers and in fact may not even know anything about investment laws and regulations. And it's completely unreasonable to expect them to know. I worked on many projects, including medical and education... if I had to question and investigate every executive decision impacting my work then I wouldn't get anything done.
E.g. if I take your wallet off of a table because I thought it was mine, I’m probably not guilty of theft. If I took it because I didn’t know theft was illegal, I probably still am.
Furthermore, even in cases where mens rea is required, it gets satisfied if you intended to achieve the prohibited result even if you thought that the result was permitted. "Intent" is not about intent to break the law, it's about the intent to do the thing that happens to be illegal. In this case, it matters if you knew what the thing you're making was going to be used for (e.g. hide some stuff from auditors) but your knowledge or ignorance of the relevant laws and regulations doesn't matter at all - as another poster noted, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat .
That's absolutely ridiculous, and no court would expect it.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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