Sorry @Triggaaar, just thought that may be down to incompetence from the system architect, but equally it may be User Requirement, cost prohibitive or any number of other reasons.
I'm not sure what you mean?
But I can't imagine it was designed and done for the criminal purposes for which it was eventually used.
Obviously not, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. The article said that software engineer's (or whatever his title was) testimony was an important part of convicting people. Was the software engineer honest in court, or did he commit perjury (other people on the side of the PO did)? I obviously don't know, but I wouldn't want to rule anything out, and I don't like the idea that he can be asked about it and also be given immunity from anything he may have done wrong.