What's wrong with introspection about what you're doing on an ethical level? There's no legal standard involved so you don't have to be a lawyer, just a bit more thoughtful.
The law isn't just ethics. Companies have whole legal teams because laws are so complex. Should a developer be responsible because the cookie banner they implemented wasn't compliant with the laws of 100 countries even though the legal team already told them it was ok?
> Should a developer be responsible because the cookie banner they implemented wasn't compliant with the laws of 100 countries even though the legal team already told them it was ok?
Yes. 100%. "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse, ever - Nuremberg is the obvious extreme example, but it's true everywhere.
In fact, "I was just following orders" often is a valid excuse. It didn't work at Nuremberg because it was an extreme example. The orders there were to do things that could not even conceivably be legal, so those who carried them out were considered to have knowingly acted illegally.
When the orders are to do something that is plausibly legal, and you have good reason to believe that it is in fact so, "I was just following orders" will probably work in most jurisdictions.
Iff they have confirmation from their product lead that what they're doing is perfectly legal and it isn't obviously illegal, I agree that there's no liability.
If it's either obviously illegal or it's clearly at least dodgy and they didn't get explicit confirmation from the project lead, "following orders" is not a valid excuse.
To take the VW case as an example: if your project lead tells you to implement a way to recognise test conditions and adjust the performance to reduce emissions, that is dodgy af and you should at least get confirmation that this isn't illegal (i.e. that it's not intended to cheat on certifications but maybe just for certain internal testing scenarios). In the end the entire chain of command that led to this being implemented is guilty, but if the person implementing that behavior knew what they were doing was illegal or at least suspect and they didn't get confirmation, they're still guilty.
My point is if you err on the side of ethics you likely would never need to worry about the law. I am fully confident the vast majority of people can determine when they're doing something unethical. I am not saying people will not undertake actions they know to be unethical, but avoiding unethical actions will protect that person from exposure to legal liability.
This is a ridiculous example because it equates clearly immoral and possibly illegal actions with legal trivia (because a hypothetical country may simply require a certain wording for compliance and it's trivial to mess that up).
Facebook claims to "value privacy" (and some devs have even told me that they value it "more than any other company") but their actions consistently show either neglect or outright abuse.
Should a developer be punished for implementing something illegal that the legal team signed off on and that wasn't obvious illegal? No, because the legal team is supposed to take the responsibility and if it wasn't obviously illegal the developer had no reason to assume the legal team was lying.
Should a developer be punished for implementing something obviously illegal even when the higher ups say "don't worry about it"? Yes. If your boss tells you to rob a bank, you still go to prison for bank robbery.
For everything in between: whistle blowing is a thing. If you suspect something fishy is going on, document everything, raise concerns and report what is happening.
Also if you are a well-paid employee in a position where you can easily find another job in the industry, speak up to your superiors and refuse to be complicit. Organise.
