You'd need some insane malpractice insurance if you agreed to some of the things in there. The first rule alone is way too broad "Accept full responsibility for their own work."
That's an interesting point. I wasn't reading this as a binding legal framework. That would be a recipe for disaster. This document is full of sound ethical advice. It's not unreasonable to say that you're morally responsible for the code you write. If you work for a bad company that does bad things, I'm going to judge you for that, just as I expect to be judged. And this document sets up a reasonable standard by which we can judge software developers.
But legally? That's a whole other can of worms. Giving this document the force of law would just make it easier to shift the blame in a crooked organization onto the people writing its software. At most, I could see affirmation of this document and an oath to abide by it as the basis for membership in a voluntary professional organization.
Yes, but who is doing the judging, and how? What does taking "moral responsibility" mean?
Laws are not perfectly correlated with morality (regardless of your ideology), but they at least provide a methodology of implementation and disciplinary action.
If I stand to gain from unethical software, and the worst thing that happens to me is some vague entity with no power holds me in disrepute, why do I care? It's not an effective code at all, it just feels good for its proponents.
