You've made a somewhat strange comparison: > [advocating that police officers be personally liable for their conduct is like] arguing we could make the interne

You've made a somewhat strange comparison: > [advocating that police officers be personally liable for their conduct is like] arguing we could make the internet safer by making programmers personally liable for their bugs. What I like about this comparison: It treats police brutality as a systemic civic problem, like bugs in software that lead to global insecurity on the internet. Police brutality, like internet fragility, is a problem that threatens (at least nearly) everyone. Also similar is that people are reluctant to recognize the peripheral damage - police brutality decreases the quality of government and capacity for civic engagement for everyone, not just the victims. Things I don't like about this comparison: The idea of personal liability for programmers because bugs because internet insecurity is an incredible abstraction. Compared to, for example, police officers who literally break down people's doors and shoot them, it's pretty hard to see the similarity in terms of the connection. Also: a company that decides to deploy a product that contains bugs has an opportunity to audit the software in order to prevent that. There's really no similarity in that respect. These cops know better - nobody thinks that breaking down someone's door in the middle of the night and terrorizing their family is proper behavior for an adult in a free society. But they do it anyway. This is malicious, horrific conduct and it's a stretch to say that liability is improper for the perpetrators.