One principle I’d like to be enshrined in law:

If you create incentives that reward a behaviour, you can (and will) be charged as an accessory in any case where someone is doing something illegal as a result of optimising for that behaviour. An affirmative defence would need to demonstrate that you had safeguards in place to effectively disincentivise that behaviour.

For example, if you are running a delivery company and you set targets that mean people are paid more if they drive or park illegally, you are automatically charged as an accessory to however many counts of dangerous driving your drivers are charged with. If you are a city councillor and vote to close all of the public toilets so that there’s nowhere for taxi drivers to relieve themselves, you can be charged as an accessory to a few hundred counts of public urination.

@david_chisnall This made me think of those sweeping software EULAs, of all things. One of the reasons [all] software vendors say "This product has no intended usecase; any benefit you find in it is purely incidental" is because they can never know in what environment it will be run, or for what use. Which makes some sense, even though I hate it.
The suggested culpability suffers from the same caveat - how can anyone know what insane sh!t ppl will do to fulfill incentives, regardless of their design?
To me this looks like more lawyertime, only. The rich techbrös will just pay, and everyone else lose.
JM2CW, YMMV.

@subm3rge @david_chisnall
Israeli PEGAUS spy machine.

Meant to track the Terrorist,

Used in [for example Poland] by the ruling party to spy the political opponents.

@Jamoteusz @david_chisnall Not saying there aren't obvious examples, I'm just betting terrorists do their budgeting in Excel, too.

The original idea was about incentives, my software thought tangential to that.

The kernel was: What people choose to do to fulfill incentives is impossible to predict. This destroys two key parts of making a clear case.

Motive - since you can't know the outcome, really and clearly.
Intent - since you can't know the means and ways chosen.

This can be argued against. Which led me to think, only lawyers will get fat and happy about it. And those with most money buy themselves free.