All this under the auspices of "ethics", which as a reminder, is just an arbitrary set of rules which someone is trying to pass off as having a divine origin.
The article advocates a set of laws intended to prevent certain people from writing software, and constraining how a select few do write software. It doesn't talk about how exactly those laws will be decided on. Although it does say they are "facts", it doesn't tell me about a way to observe them for myself, so I guess the author just looked into the mind of God, and I should take his word for it.
They are arbitrary only in the sense that, sans a religion's God laying down ethics from on high, all ethics are arbitrary human creation.
But we care about ethics all the same. Engineers care about ethics because if they do not, they kill people. Civil engineers care because faulty work kills people. Electrical engineers care because faulty work kills people. Mechanical engineers care because faulty work kills people.
And as software engineers, we should care because our careless work kills people.
And if we do not care, the government will force our hand. And they will not listen to pleas for them to be reasonable.
Software engineers abused people's personal data, the EU's GDPR has outlawed using all but the absolute minimum personal data. Meta has been told in court by the CJEU that advertising is not an acceptable use of personal data, even if needed to pay the bills. Ad-tech is a doomed industry.
So it's your choice. Start caring about ethics. Or the government locks our field in so much regulatory gridlock that you will wish they just outlawed it entirely.
I'm glad that there are building inspectors, and safety standards for consumer electronics. I'm also glad that those rules are written clearly in terms of lbs and amp*hours and volts, and not philosophical terms.
If you want rules, say you want rules, but don't try to hide the fact that some of your rules will have not objective justification, and will be based on the personal philosophies of those in charge.
The "objective" safety standards are often a lot more philosophical than you think. There is no "objective" truth for road design, it is a trade-off between how important you deem the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, versus the convenience and throughput of cars.
But also, just look at fields like journalism. Journalistic ethics exist because without them they kill people.
Not ratting out your anonymous sources isn't some technical requirement laid down in the physics of the universe, it's a philosophical belief.
And yes. Choosing to not take people's personal data is a philosophical belief. But the harm isn't philosophical.