-
Differing consequences of the same actions is tricky - but its all about the checks and balances to prevent it.
Write bad code on your raspberry pi - it doesnt work.
Write bad code for your self driving tesla - someone dies.You'd hope the checks on the latter mean that the software folks themselves are not liable.
I always think back to the ferry that sank because they didn't close the door properly. Forget to close the door on your warehouse because you were having nap - some stuff might get nicked. Forget to close the door on your ferry because you had a nap- 192 people die.
Scrabble-
Is it any different to the engineers who design the (non-automated) cars, boats, planes or buildings? Incorrect calculations (cf code) can and do cause accidents and deaths.
-
Then the QA/QC functions need to carry a lot of weight and sway (and be regulated as such). Maybe mirror the pharma industry, which (despite some glaring problems in certain areas - e.g. lobbying, etc.) does cite a person responsible for signing off safety of products - i.e the Qualified Person/QP, who can go to jail for signing off bad batches of product.
I would bet the industry will lobby for and get the responsibility to be with the 'driver' though.
-
The Therac-25 is one of the most-cited examples of where operators killed people but the blame could justifiably be placed on the manufacturer.
Liability is a complex topic, even if you can convincingly pinpoint the key causes of an incident and especially if the parties involved are companies rather than individuals. Just look at Grenfell.
leggy_blonde
c00ps
rhowe
That idea that you could go to prison for manslaughter if your code isn't perfect is troublesome as a software guy. I'd turn that job down