The main point of this article is absolutely completely wrong. The product owner is responsible for every product feature specification that happens in their product, not the engineer. The engineer is just a tool you use to construct the product. He follows the spec to the letter. He's no more guilty than a hammer would be. It's not up to the hammer/engineer to know what or what shouldn't be implemented, they're not the ones making the judgement call. They're job is to execute the roadmap/product specification as it's written. They can provide feedback, make suggestions and inform the owner of any risks both moral and technical, but ultimately it's not their decision and not their responsibility.
Now, if the engineer were the product owner, then of course, he is responsible.
I think this author doesn't fully understand how software is developed and doesn't understand or differentiate between the roles of product managers/product owners and software engineers.
There are, of course, systems that can be used in both good and evil ways. But when your boss says 'just write code that detects when the car is being tested, and when it's being driven normally', you know it's sketchy, and you should refuse.
I know this is easy to say and hard to do. But it's still something we should talk about, and that programmers should think about, before we get asked to do something, not after.
There are limits of course. An engineer shouldn't program a printer to explode and kill anybody. But, the volkswagon disaster is still firmly within the realm of product owner responsibility.
Now, if the engineer were the product owner, then of course, he is responsible.
I think this author doesn't fully understand how software is developed and doesn't understand or differentiate between the roles of product managers/product owners and software engineers.