When it comes to something like a "remote kill switch" for software, it's hard to imagine any alternate beneficial use. But generally I assign the blame to the users of software who put it to a malicious use, not to authors.
They didn't tell her the planes were elongated spherical and filled with powerful explosives and the runways weren't flat - at least not before the plane landed on them.
The obvious alternate beneficial use is the ability to immediately disable the hardware in case a serious safety issue (the kind that triggers product recall) is discovered.
This is one of the best parts: many software people have gotten in through circuitous routes, have no formal training, and have done great things despite that.
On the other hand, because of that, we don't have any consensus and ability to shun or disposess companies that act unethically.
Quite frankly, I don't think any board of ethics would step in here. I don't see anything in the IEEE code of ethics that would be clear here. I don't think that professional licensing or better professional organizations are the way to stop this behavior.
And making a Professional Engineer sign on to the software release before the release would be a good way to prevent shit like this.
It wasn't just a faceless and nameless software engineer it was a real human being with a name.
Until it is mandated that public infrastructure is developed in the open so we know precisely who attempts to add features to render a product defective by design we will not be able to fix this.