Jeg tænker at en væsentlig faktor i denne sag er at der var påbud imod at fortsætte arbejdet. Det var ikke noget de først fandt ud af var ulovligt efter det var gjort. Jeg tænker godt at man kunne begrænse sådan en lov til tilfælde hvor der er handlet i strid med påbud de modtog. Så ved sommerfugleeksemplet ville det kun gælde hvis du fik et påbud imens du var ved at fjerne busken og så fortsatte alligevel. Det ville stærkt begrænse hvornår loven kunne bruges, men ville også sikre at den kun blev brugt i mere seriøse tilfælde hvor der var aktiv afejelse af påbudet.
Jeg ved ikke om sådan et forslag er en god idé, men jeg spiller lige djævelens advokat.
I were unfortunate enough to get an assignment about sending messages to ServiceNow through a REST interface. The company had a team that managed ServiceNow, so I set up a meeting with one of the people there to get read access to the test environment so I could confirm that it worked. The person invited, then invited a coworker who in turn invited the manager of their department. During the meeting we got established how little they wanted my team to do anything that could affect the system due to how easy it was to make mistakes that took weeks or months to fix, how complicated it was and how many years it took to be proficient in. The whole thing was basically a lecture on how unequiped our team was to manage their system and how they didn’t want us to break it with changes we weren’t planning on making anyway. It took a few meetings after that to get credentials and when I got them I got admin access for some reason. That experience left me wondering why ServiceNow was even being used as it sounded like a liability more than anything else.