Slashdot Mirror


VW Fiasco Puts Ethics In Engineering Under the Spotlight, CEO Steps Down

szczys writes: By now you've heard that VW has been accused of doctoring the software in their small diesel models to sidestep emissions standards. The thing that hasn't been talked about is engineering ethics. An algorithm in the code detects when the vehicle is under test conditions and causes it to perform differently. This couldn't have been accomplished by just one person. Brian Benchoff looks at the conditions leading up to the scandal and discusses the engineering ethics involved. Automotive engineers are held to a higher standard because mistakes and cut corners can kill people. This kind of suspected deceit goes well beyond concerns of environmental damage. Willing ethics violations challenge our trust of the engineering as a whole. Volkswagen‘s chief executive Martin Winterkorn has announced he is stepping down.

569 comments

  1. Finally, we've arrived! by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now we can have the same distrust society affords to doctors and lawyers! We're finally real professionals. Let's start a guild.

    --
    Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    1. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You think lawyers are Republicans?

    2. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're arguing with a new (well, within the past month or two) troll. Not sure whether they're a republican pretending to be a democrat, a democrat pretending to be a republican pretending to be a democrat, or someone who legitimately just thinks the republicans are responsible for everything, but I'm betting it's not the last one.

    3. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once met a lawyer that is a Democrat. Once.

    4. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we can have the same distrust society affords to doctors and lawyers! We're finally real professionals. Let's start a guild.

      Considering both groups are Republican and want us to die, it would be illogical to trust them.

      I didn't know that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and friends, were Republicans.

      The real problem here is that you aren't getting the mental heath treatment that you so desperately need.

    5. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Because after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster there wasn't....

    6. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by OhPlz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Doctors want us to die? Interesting. That must be why so many people die at hospitals.

    7. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Let's start a guild.

      Wait what? I'm pretty sure engineers have guilds all over the world already. At least I hope so since I'm a member of 2.

    8. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      It depends on what kind of lawyer we're talking about.

      Trial lawyers tend to be pro-democrat (think John Edwards, for instance).

      Others, such as corporate lawyers, or especially prosecutor types, often lean more to the right (such as Chris Christie, or Rudy Giuliani). They're not all the most ultraconservative, of course, but they do trend right, especially in the "enforce the law" sort of mentality. See also the Federalist Society.

    9. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people you listed are all DINOs, so yes they are Republicans.

    10. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      If you're trying to be sarcastic... don't. A lot of people that could potentially have died are saved by hospitals, that is true enough, but also a lot of people pick up a few minor side-effects (death among them) in hospitals.

      Hospitals are like a Grand Central Station for germs and doctors are human and make mistakes... Especially when they've been working for 24 hours straight...

    11. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      The people you listed are all DINOs, so yes they are Republicans.

      Everyone is a Republican except me and and three, and sometimes I'm not so sure about thee.

    12. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Did you read the parent comment that said doctors want us to die? Hospitals have their issues, but I mention them only because you're likely to find doctors there.

    13. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Actually unnecessary medical procedures are a serious problem that results in people dying.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    14. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Normally it is a case of pointing the finger down the food chain until someone cannot point any further.
      Engineers are normally the Middle Class people, They don't have the money for a prolonged out of work. So there is only so much risk they would take at their job. It would be nice that everyone would be brave enough to stand up and say "This is wrong, I won't do it!" however with the risk of getting fired, plenty of the power is still in the higher ups.
      Also it is quite possible that the engineers could design something without full realization on what they are doing.
      I need you to code a function when variables are between this range, that returns a value in this range.
      The function is created.
      Then it will go to an other engineer, We have the function to optimize fuel efficiency in place, could you add this function to your code.
      The function is added.
      The higher ups can organize their orders so the engineers doesn't have the full picture of the scope. However when things goes down they will see in the comment that engineer who had made the function and the other who added it. They get canned, for doing their work, and never had an inkling on what they were doing on the grand scheme of things.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    15. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Every single lawyer I know is a Democrat & he can't be the only one ... ;)

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    16. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What soils your point is the simple fact that the most common single place people die is inside a hospital.

    17. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people you listed are all DINOs, so yes they are Republicans.

      Everyone is a Republican except me and and three, and sometimes I'm not so sure about thee.

      But the other 2 are ok?

    18. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most I know are dems.

      Harray Whittington is a Republican. That is why Dick Cheney felt bad about shooting him in the face.

    19. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 1

      Let's start a guild.

      Wait what? I'm pretty sure engineers have guilds all over the world already. At least I hope so since I'm a member of 2.

      Just two? You'd better start another one. Obviously you haven't been through enough pledging processes to know you're under blackmail control yet.

      --
      Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
    20. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People aren't dying there because doctors want them to. FFS.

    21. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by pseudorand · · Score: 2

      Totally agree. But even if we feel what we're being paid for is unethical, only in the most extreme cases is it our decision. The ethics of a particular technology are often tricky issues that are rightly dealt with in the courts and the court of public opinion rather than by each individual involved it a technology's creation. Think of nukes? Their negatives are obvious, but the thread of mutually assured destruction has generally reduced war between the developed countries that have nukes. Is the world really worse off because of nukes? That's very debatable.

    22. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

      Remember the Scrubs episode where they noted that except for births and emergency room visits, one out of three patients in a hospital will die? Then they showed three patients, and all of them died.

      Love that show.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    23. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by asylumx · · Score: 1

      How else does he keep things fair and balanced?

    24. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by lexmarkprinterinfo · · Score: 1

      This is not just a kind of lawyer brother. Its all depends on what kind of democratic society wherever we want live.

    25. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I dunno man, I'm not the same guy. Maybe I only noticed him in the past couple of months. Maybe we're all the same person arguing with ourself. Who knows?

    26. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No correlation due between type of lawyer and political affiliation . Many bias democratic prosecuters here in Ny

    27. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by Cederic · · Score: 2

      "Break the law."
      "I think that might be against the law. Lets discuss with Compliance and Legal, and get their professional guidance."

      "Break the law."
      "Legal say that's illegal"
      "Do it anyway"
      "Hi, is that the whistleblower hotline? My manager.."

      I've never yet needed to go that extra step of refusing, getting sacked, suing for unfair dismissal and getting my professional body to step in to help with legal costs.

    28. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      You mean that's why Harry Whittington felt bad about getting in the way of Dick Cheney's shot?

    29. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go look at statistics, donations, and surveys: lawyers are overwhelmingly Democrats. It's simple self interest.

    30. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by nytes · · Score: 1

      In the USA, most non-doctors die in a hospital or medical care facility, while most doctors die at home.

      The reason is believed to be that doctors recognize when their own case is hopeless, and just choose to spend their final days at home with minimal care. But most doctors have not been trained to have "the talk" with their patients, so the patient is never offered that option.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    31. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by nblender · · Score: 1

      I work in an environment that produces huge tracts of code for military equipment. Much of the code is restricted by various security clearances and so forth. Having said that, there is a sizable number of people with access to the full code (including me) and were somebody to come down with an order to 'write a function that returns this under these circumstances', there would be much discussion and refusal to do so without understanding the framework under which that functionw as going to be used; how often it would be called, and how it is intended to fit into the whole system; etc ... In short, we don't have code-monkeys who turn english into code... If, on the off chance, someone were convinced to do such a thing, it would be found by everyone in fairly short order during code reviews.

      So I would be surprised if that happened at VW.

    32. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there is also the issue that the Dr. Staying at home cant charge himself for his own care, whereas the Dr treating someone in a hospital can.
      Oh, this magical elixir can give you another 5 seconds to live and only costs $5k....

      Palliative care = big $$$$

    33. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we can have the same distrust society affords to doctors and lawyers! We're finally real professionals. Let's start a guild.

      Guild of Calamitous Intent?

    34. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      Dying at home can be quite expensive. constant nursing and care in the home may not be paid for by insurance. I know that hospitals now refuse to allow many patients to die in a hospital bed claiming that hospitals are for healing and that healing is not possible. Yet hospice care can be free or low cost and they tend to have more comfortable conditions for death. In a hospice there is no fussing over restraint on pain medications and they will actually get you beer, whiskey or a pack of smokes if you insist. Home can not equal a hospice when one is passing.

    35. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "But even if we feel what we're being paid for is unethical, only in the most extreme cases is it our decision."

      Well, it's always our decision, we are adults, aren't we? Some people decide not to say "no" to their boss even with full knowledge it should be "no" while others voluntarily enlist to a war thousands of miles away. Letting it go is still taking a decision. But...

      "The ethics of a particular technology are often tricky"

      Exactly that. And we tend to rationalize quite well our decisions also (see yourself above: "it was not my decision" Damn, surely it was!). But let's talk about decisions:

      On one hand, it was Adam Smith the one explaining how specialization was the way to wealth. Among a lot of others, there are the people whose role is taking decisions and there's the role of those making things work. The other day, here, in the first thread about this very issue it was said by more than one "but you can't expect the executive officers to be technically knowledgeable, that's not their job!" Well, if that's true, conversely you can't hold the engineers accountable for the company's decision making since that's not their role either and remember here we are not talking about anything that patently would lead to immediate live endangerment or big financial loses.

      Even more in this case: for all that I know, while "tricking the tests" is something explicitly forbidden in USA it is not in EU and remember VW is German, not American so if the boss says to the engineer team "there's no point in contaminating the atmosphere when the car is idle, so why don't you guys program the ECU so it reduces emissions if, for instance, somebody is "brooming" the car while stopped, uh?" why they shouldn't do it?

    36. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "So I would be surprised if that happened at VW."

      The German boss to the German engineering team:

      -You all know, folks, VW is a company strongly compromised with the environment, so we are going to try to reduce our emissions. OK?
      -OK, boss.
      -But, of course, we still need to sell our cars at a price so what we are going to do is to fine-tune the ECU so, as far as possible it avoids emissions. Only when full throttle is required will let full power. So, if, for instance, someone is throttling at a stop, you know, broooom, broooom, we'll open full the EGR valve to reduce emisions, OK?
      -Hummm... it looks a bit weird, isnt' it? Is it legal? What about the emissions control tests, for instance?
      -Good you ask. Take, this is the European Emissions Standard (we are Geman, remember?), study it and see for yourself. Obviously our legal dpt has already studied the issue and told us it's perfectly legal. I don't ask them technical questions and I shouldn't take your opinion in legal questions either, but if this makes you more confident, please go ahead.
      -Hummm... you are right: there's nothing against your requirement.
      -Go back to job them, boys!
      -Yes, boss!

    37. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "except for births and emergency room visits, one out of three patients in a hospital will die"

      My bet is that all three will die, along with births and visits too.

      It might take a while for some of them, though.

    38. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      "Break the law."
      "I think that might be against the law. Lets discuss with Compliance and Legal, and get their professional guidance."

      "Break the law."
      "Legal say that's illegal"

      Finished in the real world:

      "Ok. Sorry, please continue what you were doing."
      (next day)
      "We are restructuring and you are no longer required, and Bob Jones is doing that thing"

    39. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by tsa · · Score: 1

      I like your sig.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    40. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we can have the same distrust society affords to doctors and lawyers!

      Does that mean that we get paid more? It might be worth the trade-off

    41. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They get canned, for doing their work, and never had an inkling on what they were doing on the grand scheme of things.

      Which is no different than what happens in most of the United States where many states have "at will" employment laws. What this means basically is that in the absence of any other contract, either party can end the employment relationship at any time for any reason or no reason with no obligation to say anything to the other party or tell them anything.

    42. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the world really worse off because of nukes? That's very debatable.

      Nuclear weapons are the only thing that has stood between us and WWIII since the end of the WWII. A nuclear war is by definition a war without winners which is why we haven't fought one, even by accident. For all the hand wringing and sermonizing about the dangers of nuclear weapons they seem to have solved more problems than they've caused. An imperfect solution for an imperfect world if you will.

    43. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Normally it is a case of pointing the finger down the food chain until someone cannot point any further.
      Engineers are normally the Middle Class people,

      So, we should be pointing back up with the middle finger?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    44. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does your analysis reveal about how well capitalism functions? 'Wage slave compelled to act in firm owner's interest or starve.'

    45. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      "Good, talk to my union lawyer".

      Oh, you're not unionised? Well, maybe you weren't that smart after all then, so no great loss to the company.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    46. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why you should not have for-profit hospitals.

    47. Re: Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to stop this misinformation. VW had programmed the ECU to run the car clean during emissions tests. The normal/everyday person driving the car had the ECU dumping 4000% more NOx than the emissions tests allowed.

      They cheated the test, to be able to sell cars in the US that they otherwise world not have been allowed to.

    48. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There's no blackmail about it. In fact one of them exists almost exclusively to get new young engineers through their career development to the licensing and registration phase. It's the cheapest and easiest way of doing it.

    49. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by siliconsmiley · · Score: 1

      This episode stinks of marketing.

    50. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would someone who is smart be a member of a trade union? It might be better elsewhere, but where I live, unions are mostly an extension of left-wing political parties that aim to ruin the economy and put the interest of unproductive people over productive people. Smart people are rarely members.

      That being said, if you're not a union member, you can always hire a lawyer or have your legal insurance company fight out the battle. Chances are they will be of more use than union lawyers anyway.

    51. Re:Finally, we've arrived! by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Why would someone who is smart be a member of a trade union?

      I don't know, maybe because they are literate enough to be able to read a history book, and intellectually curious enough to actually do so?

      Of course, if your measure of smart is parroting propaganda, I can understand why you can't recognise actual intelligence. Dunning-Kruger is like that.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  2. This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This was a financial decision, pure and simple. Someone in a suit decided it would be more profitable to hide non-compliance, rather than spend the resourcing fixing the problem *with* proper engineering.

    1. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, the "proper engineering" fixes available all are some combination of reducing performance and increasing cost. Which is what their competitors had to do to meet the standards. Volkswagen's cheating gave them a leg up, allowing them to offer more powerful, cheaper vehicles at a given emissions level.

      So yes, the cheating was a financial decision, but it wasn't out of laziness - it was out of a well known tangible benefit for doing so.

      And as a result, they've killed people. I know it's not as visible or dramatic as a car going out of control or the like, but the connection between NOx and premature death is well established, both in high-NOx and low-NOx areas. NOx is what makes Beijing air that lovely brownish color. Volkswagen willingly killed people to steal sales from its competitors.

      --
      Crowd: What do we want? Fry: Fry's dog! Crowd: When do we want it? Fry: Fry's dog!
    2. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      To be more specific: N2 + O2 is thermodynamically favorable at lower temperatures and pressures, while NOx is more favorable at higher temperatures and pressures. Combustion of fuel is also more efficient at higher temperatures and pressures. So pretty much whatever you do to get more power and efficiency out of your fuel, also tends to give you more NOx. Now, there's a wide range of things you can do to try to reduce the NOx; the ones with few drawbacks are pretty much universally done, while the others (such as urea injection) come at a cost. But the easiest way to reduce NOx for emissions tests is simply to burn cooler, at lower pressures, for shorter periods of time - aka, hurt your power and fuel economy.

      --
      Crowd: What do we want? Fry: Fry's dog! Crowd: When do we want it? Fry: Fry's dog!
    3. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by kheldan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. There are commonalities all over the world: Your boss tells you to do something, you refuse to do it, you get fired and they get someone else to do what they want anyway. In this case they weren't being told to do something that would (directly, or in the near term) endanger human lives, just to pollute the environment. If they were unwilling to write the code that did what the suits demanded, they'd fire them and get someone else to do it. These guys have families like most people that they have to provide for, and 'honey, I got fired because I told my boss I wouldn't do what he asked me to do' doesn't play well. Of course I'm not saying I know the engineers involved actually had objections, it's entirely possible they didn't even care one way or another, but like what the OP is saying, it was the decision of someone in a suit, not the author(s) of the code in question.

      Additionally, to be fair about it: There might not be a 'proper engineering' solution to the emissions problem. Face it: We're nearing end-of-life for internal combustion engines, due to their exhaust emissions and their impact on the environment. That plus the eventual exhaustion of fossil fuel means we should be moving away from internal combustion engines anyway. But of course your average business animal doesn't give a rats' ass about any of that, all they care about is their near-term bottom line, and how much of it they can put in their own pockets.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    4. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I missed something, but what I understood was the cars computer system detected when it was being tested, and ramped up the emissions standards to ensure it was compliant (during the test). Once taken out on the road it was noted that the car was no where near compliance as it appeared during the tests.

      Unless I'm misunderstanding how they actually test this, this tells me that the car indeed was compliant, but only when being tested. Which begs the question, why not be compliant 100% of the time. I suspect that has to do with mileage and performance issues but I could be wrong.

      It just seems like they did make the car capable of following the standards, but decided to only enable that when someone was actually testing.

      This reminds me of some of the videocard engineering nonsense that led to specifically crafted bios on the cards that fudged performance when it detected it was being benchmarked.

      Do these engineers have no morals or shame? There's no way you can argue that they didn't understand the impact of what they were tasked with designing.

    5. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I see this as a good act on the part of the VW engineers myself, giving their customers a better vehicle, in the ways you've noted, while cheating to meet meaningless standards. I see it as civil disobedience, and I think your notion of it killing people in US vehicles is laughable, as we're so far past the point of diminishing returns on tailpipe exhaust regs.

      But that's the thing about "ethical concerns": we all have different values, different tradeoffs we see as optimal, and both democracy and "might makes right" have proven poor systems for choosing between sets of values.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. Peer reviewed research is "laughable" and giant car manufacturers cheating on emissions tests and lying about is is "ethics". Gotcha.

      --
      Crowd: What do we want? Fry: Fry's dog! Crowd: When do we want it? Fry: Fry's dog!
    7. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The EPA standards are far and beyond what Europe requires to the point of being Draconian. They were forced on the automakers with little to no warning, forcing companies to either design from scratch, or go to other companies and buy something. Had this not been the case, the infamous Ford "6.blow" engine would never have been even considered.

      The sad thing is that after all the EGR/DEF/DPF additions, diesels have lost their reliability factor. Particle filters get plugged, piss tanks get crystals in them so EPA mandated engine DRM will prevent owners from starting their vehicles, and customers have to pay more for unreliable engines.

      Then you get catch 22 items... like vehicles having warranties that void if one runs more than B5 in the tank. Well, most of the US can go up to B20 and the pumps not warnl you. So, just by buying a vehicle and using it, it can foul, throw codes, and then the owner is now having to foot the bill for new injectors, high pressure fuel pumps, and other crap.

      Maybe VW can fight in court and have the EPA's regulation passing at least slowed down so technology can keep up with their imagination.

    8. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is some speculation to be done on how this cheat actually came about. These things sometimes evolve out of something more benign rather than a dictum from above that the car cheat on tests. It could have started as a feature that does some internal checks and performance verifications before a test, then someone added a function that actually ensured certain parameters were in place, and so on. Incremental changes that on their own 'didn't seem so bad'.

      No excuses for what was done. Just speculation on how VW got to this point.

    9. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are nothing short of an evil foolish troll. good luck with that, it will take you far, until it doesn't.

    10. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by alvinrod · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a difference between a substance being bad (which has been empirically demonstrated) and it being dangerous at the concentrations being suggested. There's research that shows drinking too much water is bad for you, but we're not going to start making laws about water consumption for obvious reasons.

      What if we made the current emission standards two orders of magnitude more strict? Obviously that would be even better for the environment and human health, but if the current regulations are already to a point where the amounts being released have a negligible impact on health, pollution, etc. then making them more strict does not amount to much real good, but adds potentially significant costs.

      The point raised is an interesting one as at one point in time it would have been unethical to not return an escaped slave. While it's obvious that there's a gulf of distance between the ethics of vehicle emissions and that of slavery, it cuts to the point lgw was trying to make in that if the standards themselves are meaningless (an open question that neither of you have presented actual evidence in support or contradiction of) then the only reason to stay within their confines is because it is the law, which says nothing about its usefulness in and of itself.

      The crux of the matter is how good the law actually is. If it's a regulation that requires $10 of cost to prevent $1 of harm, it's a poor law and is wasting resources so that someone can satisfy their own sense of morality. If it's a case of $10 of cost preventing $100 of harm, then it's a good law that prevents damage to society or shared resources. If we have a bad law, then it should be broken through acts of civil disobedience because a bad law is more harmful to society than the behavior it seeks to prevent.

      We'd be better served putting aside notions of whether the behavior is ethical, feelings about corporatism, and stances on government environmentalism so that we can objectively examine whether the emission laws that exist are reasonable because they do reduce harm or whether they're simply the result of someone deciding that they get to choose what's best for everyone else. Only then is it fair to answer whether the behavior is ethical, else we're just arguing assumptions or semantics.

    11. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... Volkswagen willingly killed people to steal sales from its competitors.

      Nobody died....
      While I don't support these actions as ethical, your statement is a bit grandiose. If you are truly worried about diesel emissions, go after the real problem. The number of these vehicles on the road and their combined emissions pale in comparison to what's already driving around out there. Heavy trucks outnumber any consumer diesel by orders of magnitude, yet the larger the vehicle, the more lenient the emissions requirements are.

      Your worried about VW implementing a work around for their little shitty diesel?, Worry about the fact that the trucking industry is the largest distribution mechanism of good throughout the United states. Everything that goes via plane, train or boat gets to its final destination via truck. The constant threat of increased cost of consumer goods and the lobbying power of the trucking industry will ensure this never changes or does so at an ineffective pace.

      "Volkswagen’s high-mileage, TDI® Clean Diesel models totaled 79,422 units for the year, accounting for 21.6 percent of sales in 2014. In December, 5,348 units were sold, 15.7 percent of sales." -source http://media.vw.com/release/907/

      "How many trucks operate in the U.S.?
      Estimates of 15.5 million trucks operate in the U.S.. Of this figure 2 million are tractor trailers."
      -source http://www.truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.htm

      VW is killing people,...really?

    12. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      ...Volkswagen willingly killed people to steal sales from its competitors.

      Ever wonder what tobacco executives argue about when it comes to their competition?

      Ironically, the race to capture human addiction is the ultimate sales goal when it comes to selling tobacco. Death is merely a side-effect, which a lawyer will likely argue for VW too.

    13. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Face it: We're nearing end-of-life for internal combustion engines, due to their exhaust emissions and their impact on the environment. That plus the eventual exhaustion of fossil fuel means we should be moving away from internal combustion engines anyway.

      Also because electric cars are way cooler.

    14. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >That plus the eventual exhaustion of fossil fuel means we should be moving away from internal combustion engines anyway

      ICE in no way requires fossil fuel to run. It just happens to be convenient. However, you can buy a car right now that will run on nothing more than yeast piss. In fact, most cars are available with that option. Heck, you can take your current car, and, once you're replaced gaskets, lines, etc with ethanol safe items, it'll run on it too.

      And no, this isn't new tech. Cars were modified to run on on wood gas during both world wars.

    15. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a difference between a substance being bad (which has been empirically demonstrated) and it being dangerous at the concentrations being suggested.

      Just like there's a difference between knowing the fact that the health impacts of the NOx emitted at various emissions standards has been quite studied in the peer-reviewed literature, including cost benefits analyses, versus posting about the topic while simply assuming that there hasn't been any study on the topic.

      --
      Crowd: What do we want? Fry: Fry's dog! Crowd: When do we want it? Fry: Fry's dog!
    16. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weirdest definition of "civil disobedience" EVER.

    17. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Volkswagen willingly killed people to steal sales from its competitors.

      Spare us the hyperbole, or would that decrease your self-measured moral superiority too much for your refined taste?

    18. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by nmb3000 · · Score: 1

      But that's the thing about "ethical concerns": we all have different values, different tradeoffs we see as optimal

      Yeah, and that's why we have regulations in place: so that a small group of greedy assholes don't ruin the planet for shortsighted gains. We're trying to avoid things like Bhopal and Love Canal, not encourage them.

      both democracy and "might makes right" have proven poor systems for choosing between sets of values

      Democracy might be a little slow to react sometimes, but it can work just fine.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    19. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the "proper engineering" fixes available all are some combination of reducing performance and increasing cost.

      That's always the case, except where there's a third option - take more time. Iron triangle and all that.

      Did you have anything original to say, for once?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then at least link to some of that literature if you're going to make a counter argument. Sure, I could look myself, but there are thousands of other people who would have to do the same. Since you seem to be aware of such literature existing and that it includes a cost-benefit analysis, then you're also far more likely to know where you can easily find it, as well as pointing out the parts of it that are relevant to the argument you're presenting.

      I don't want to sound like a prick that just wants to argue or someone who's just making excuses not to believe you, but there's been far too much shit passed off as common knowledge that I've only come to learn later was not quite as true as originally purported. I could probably make assumptions of correctness based on reputation, but even people who are right about something the vast majority of the time are still occasionally wrong.

    21. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This. Ever wonder why there is such a dearth of diesel powered vehicles? Because the EPA has screwed up royally. It is nearly impossible to get a diesel engine certified, and when it is, the reliability is worse than gasoline power because of all the emissions crap the put on it. Not only that, but the ridiculously low levels of sulfur allowed require that they start with light sweet crude instead of heavy crude, which drives the cost of diesel up. The acid rain problems were taken care of by putting SO2 scrubbers on coal burning equipment back in the 70's. But the EPA cannot see that. They do zero cost benefit analysis before imposing new regulations.

      I have the last Ford diesel pickup made with no emissions equipment. No cat, DPF, DEF, EGR, etc. I put a chip in it that gives me more power and better fuel economy. This does not break a single federal law. The EPA may not like this, but guess what, *I* own this truck, not them. It passes emissions testing with flying colors.

      I will never trade this truck in. The new ones have horrible reliability problems. For example, many new diesels "make oil". The amount of oil in the engine crank case goes up as you drive. How does that happen? The diesel particulate filter (DPF) in the exhaust pipe gets filled up, so they pump diesel into the exhaust pipe through the injectors/cylinders to burn it in the DPF to make the particles into ash so it will go through the filter. This is called "regeneration".

      Some of that diesel fuel gets past the rings into the crankcase and dilutes the oil. The diesel pumped into the exhaust does nothing to provide motive power. This is only one of many very stupid ideas, brought to you courtesy of bureaucrats who wield the power of government, who you cannot vote for or against, and never have to provide a cost-benefit analysis. We are way, way beyond clean air and water.

    22. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Given VW's relatively small market share in the US they could run on coal and their pollution would be a rounding error compared to what trucks (both the kind that actually deliver things and the kind with 27 lamps on the roof) spew out.

      And you know it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Ly4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... at one point in time it would have been unethical to not return an escaped slave.
      Today's hint: if you have to make ridiculous statements like this to support your point, then you probably don't have a point.

      The ethics argument is not about the level of pollution that the cars were emitting: the bigger issue is that they were *lying* about those levels, thus depriving everyone (consumers, regulators, people who breath) of the information needed to make informed choices.

    24. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Designed by MBAs, sure, but implemented by engineers, and that's the problem. Engineering is a licensed profession whose practitioners are legally required to adhere to codes of ethics that are laid out by the various engineering societies and the licensing bodies for each jurisdiction. While it may have been a financial decision, that no more excuses the engineers than a lawyer would be excused for knowingly shredding evidence after their client asked them to.

      Doesn't matter who made the decision. Ethically, any engineers asked to do such a thing would have an obligation to refuse, perhaps even to blow the whistle, yet no such whistleblowing took place, and clearly not all of the engineers tasked with circumventing the law refused to do so, else this wouldn't be news.

    25. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by userw014 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. The engineers had a choice from the Project Manager (a Business degree) - Make It So or Get Fired.

      It's possible that an engineer suggested cheating as solution. Whether that was a joke solution or an honestly cynical, it had to have been the project manager(s) involved that gave the go ahead.

    26. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      ICE in no way requires fossil fuel to run. It just happens to be convenient. However, you can buy a car right now that will run on nothing more than yeast piss.

      You could also buy a car right now that would run on nothing more than slightly-modified waste restaurant grease. In fact, you could buy such a vehicle from VW until very recently...

      (Of course, actually running one of said cars on restaurant grease would void the warranty because of the EPA-mandated emissions bullshit, which just goes to show how fucked-up this situation is in the first place!)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    27. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Volkswagen willingly killed people to steal sales from its competitors.

      Melodramatic much?

    28. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The governments job is not to keep diesel engines around in vehicles just because. If they can not compete on a level playing field, get rid of them or attempt to restrict their use cafefully so they are not falling into the general automobile use category but still available in segments where they do have a distinct advantage of a non diesel [note 1]. I don't see too many Wankel engines in cars. Should we bend the rules for them too?

      Back in the day, I had a Dodge 2500 pickup that I did fence construction with. I would load that thing up to the point I was occasionally blowing out 16.5in load range D tires on the highway. It had a 318 gasoline engine. This was in the Pittsburgh areas with many long hills. My parents had a 18 foot RV with a 318 gasoline engine. It worked fine even pulling a small trailer in various areas of the Appalachians. I am not a Dodge fan, these are just examples, I am sure the equivalent Chevy 350 and Ford 302/351 was equivalent at the time. They worked fine. Would a diesel be better? Maybe, maybe not. Todays gasoline truck engines have more HP and in some cases more torque

    29. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by rgmoore · · Score: 2

      but if the current regulations are already to a point where the amounts being released have a negligible impact on health, pollution, etc. then making them more strict does not amount to much real good, but adds potentially significant costs.

      But we aren't at that point yet, so you're engaged in sophistry. The best recent estimate is that air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year in the United States, of which about 53,000 come from road transportation- more than any other source. FWIW, that means that pollution from cars and trucks kills more people every year than traffic accidents. So we still have a very long way to go before we can claim we've reached standards that make automotive exhaust safe.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    30. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Which is what their competitors had to do to meet the standards. Volkswagen's cheating gave them a leg up

      How cute! You think the competitors didn't cheat.
      Hint: no other car manufacturer in Germany has said anything about this affair. Wait a few months, and you'll learn that BMW/Porsche/Mercedes did the same. Japanese & American manufacturers probably did too.

    31. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      The issue is a willful violation of law for purpose of profit. Your entire argument is sophistry, an attempt to deflect from the actual violation.

    32. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is another kicker: Regeneration doesn't always work. For vehicles that idle a lot, sometimes you can force a regeneration (basically the ECM revs the engine at higher RPMs then blasts diesel fuel out the exhaust in an attempt to incinerate the particles.) However, this doesn't always work. I read fairly often about the particulate filters getting clogged. These are not cheap, and the ones for cars/light trucks/vans are not really cleanable. They have to be replaced, and a replacement DPF will be thousands of dollars.

      All and all, diesels are getting more reliable. The days of the Ford "6.blow" are behind us (thank $DEITY), although I would take the 7.3 over the new 6.4 just because the 7.3 had such a good reputation, although the 6.4 is a lot more thrifty on fuel.

      We saw the same exact thing in 1973 when the EPA mandated a lot of new emissions. Cars suffered with reliability for many years afterwards until technology caught up with the EPA's emissions laws.

      Hopefully the bar will stay at this level for a while. In general, we need to move away from gasoline to diesel as a fuel, just because diesel is easier to make, safer, and has more energy per unit volume. It also doesn't expire like gasoline (especially E-10) does. However, with the roadblocks the EPA throws in the way, it just means long term acceptance of diesels goes further in the future, making it worse overall.

    33. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's the thing about "ethical concerns": we all have different values, different tradeoffs we see as optimal, and both democracy and "might makes right" have proven poor systems for choosing between sets of values.

      Business Ethics 101:
              "If there is any doubt regarding whether your actions are ethical, then there is no doubt: they are unethical."

    34. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      That's true however there is a more important point.

      Science by definition is amoral.

      And that is the litmus test between scientists and engineers. Engineers do care about moral issues -- because the Science part itself is incomplete; it completely ignores the human aspect and consequences.

      Unfortunately when engineers point out potential problems they have little recourse when upper management ignores them. Whistleblower protection has often failed. Companies that abuse this need to be fined heavily so they understand that morality is important then legality.

    35. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2

      My truck has one of the last 7.3s to roll off the line. Interesting you should mention the disastrous 6.0. *All* of the problems of the 6.0 can be traced back to EPA mandates. Blown head gaskets were the result of two EPA mandates. First it only has 4 head bolts per cylinder (the 7.3 had 6) to make room for 4 valves to meet emissions. Second, the exhaust gas re-circulation cooler was inside that water jacket, and it plugs up, causing the coolant to boil on that side, which takes out the head gasket. Blown head gaskets lead to total engine failure due to overheating and getting anti-freeze into the main bearings. One wonders about the carbon footprint of all the blown EPA-engineered engines and the extra fuel they use compared to the minimal amount of air pollution saved.

    36. Re: This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not many wankle powered cars because the specific fuel consumption is too high - they are relatively less efficient than current piston models.

      However Wankle emissions are superior to piston motors. And wankles can run on 67 octane gas, if it were available would be really cheap and abundant.

    37. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      Do these engineers have no morals or shame? There's no way you can argue that they didn't understand the impact of what they were tasked with designing.

      You are assuming the engineers are seeing more than their little piece of the final product. Complex products are often managed by compartmentalizing the components and sub-assemblies.

      Disclosure: I do software for electronic control modules. Not automotive, but I have friends in the auto industry.

      Like other complex machinary, cars and trucks can have several electronic control modules (ECM). So a questionable requirements manager could insert extra specifications in the requirements for multiple ECMs to implement a cheat. A devious enough manager could even hide the purpose from the engineers writing the requirements documents.

      The engineers designing and implementing the ECMs almost always see only the requirements for the ECM they are responsible for.

      For example, the engine controller engineers would not know the message commanding a "special performance mode" was really a "special status" message from another ECM. And that ECM's engineers would not know their module was sending anything other than a special status message. And the test engineers would not know that any of the ECMs they were commanding to "not interfere with out test" was, in turn, "commanding" the engine controller to use a "special performance mode".

      This would make Mr Gru proud of his protege at VW.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    38. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The governments job is not to keep diesel engines around in vehicles just because. If they can not compete on a level playing field, get rid of them or attempt to restrict their use . . .

      The government's job isn't to favor one type of engine over another by picking winners and losers, either, which is essentially what's been done. It seems the US clean air regulations conveniently favor gasoline engines over diesel engines as does the US fuel tax. Therefore, it's not a level playing field as you claim -- and artificially so.

      Should we bend the rules . . .

      The rules are largely unnecessary and have been abused to protect the US auto industry. If exhaust pollution became a problem in a given area, people would demand cars that pollute less regardless of government regulation. Even if you feel government has a role in regulating exhaust pollution, it seems clear it has over-corrected and over-stepped, at this point, as it almost always does.

      We shouldn't bend the rules -- we should eliminate them and allow people the freedom to make their own decisions about what kind of car they drive.

    39. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Nahhh. This looks very deliberate. There was a widely publicised not-meeting-emissions problem that went on for months and then suddenly there was no problem and they shipped. They haven't even bothered claiming it was accidental either.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    40. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      > Death is merely a side-effect,

      Well that's all right then, carry on that man!

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    41. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Well, the researchers that spotted this also tested a BMW X5; that at least is in the clear, they found nothing out of the ordinary.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    42. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      The same car is used in France and the UK, both relatively small countries where diesel cars are popular, and both have significant vehicle pollution issues; this is going to go down like a lead balloon there.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    43. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by TroubleMagnet · · Score: 1

      Some flavors of Engineering are licensed, many are not. The computer side of ECE (Electrical and Computer Engineering) doesn't have any license required at all, at least in the US. You don't even need a degree, although most have one. Programming is even more of a free-for-all.

    44. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by tibit · · Score: 1

      Maybe, instead of worrying about it, we just accept the reality: small-engine diesel is nonsense. It makes no sense either environmentally nor economically. Just as everyone who should know it knows that small turbines are inefficient and don't belong on passenger cars (but make all the sense on large airplanes), we all know that small diesels don't belong on passenger cars. How much evidence would you need to understand that it's not about the regulation, but about the reality of these engines. They make zero sense when they're small. Sure they are reliable, but almost any car would be more reliable without majority of common emission controls.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    45. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      I've got a tailpipe you can huff on.
      That would be the ultimate civil disobedience!

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    46. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by tibit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dafuck?! EPA does not mandate stupid engineering. The automaker fucked up. What, their ansys or nastran licenses ran out and they couldn't fucking model what was going on, and/or experimentally validate the engine block/head design? This is a noob mistake - whether precipitated by stupid management, or noob designers, or both, who knows. Blaming it on EPA is going full retard.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    47. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by tibit · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt that you have all that many professional (licensed) engineers working on cars. It's simply not required.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    48. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Quite right, but what I recall from a few years back (when I was a Teaching Assistant in grad school for my university's Ethics in Engineering course for three semesters) is that you'll find that most of the state-level boards have carved out specific exemptions for certain engineering practices, including Software Engineering. They're permitted to use the title of "Engineer" (which is a generally treated as a regulated title) without being licensed, are allowed to practice without being licensed, and are not bound by the various codes of ethics and other standards that licensed engineers are held to.

      Which is to say, they're only permitted to use the title "Engineer" and practice an engineering discipline without being licensed because they've been exempted. At least in my state (Texas), however, they're undertaking a long-term approach to bring the practice of Software Engineering into full licensure, since the state offers a P.E. exam for Software Engineering (and have since 2013), and have the intention of eventually effecting a cultural shift that will make it a requirement. We'll see how that pans out for them, though I wouldn't be surprised if Software Engineering is treated as a traditional engineering discipline in a few more decades, once it's matured a bit more.

    49. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I will never trade this truck in.

      Only because the motor will go. The 7.3 DI has the same cavitation problem as the 7.3 IDI (especially if you increase power!) and the numbers are just starting to pick up on that as they reach the age where it happens.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    50. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      I put in the CAT ELC coolant. It has enough SCA to do 250K mi. with no cavitation.

    51. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      I take it you have never been to Europe or Japan. You see small diesels everywhere there. Of course they are not saddled with our wild-eyed envirowackos in the EPA.

    52. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. A manager can't design that level of indirection. It took an engineer.

      They might also be a manager, but don't go pretending that there isn't an engineer at fault here.

    53. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Ravaldy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then what's the point of putting regulations for corporations for them to be overruled by corporations themselves?

      It's irrelevant if there's an industry that pollutes more than another because we always grab the low hanging fruit first. When these regulations are put in place it's usually for many reasons.
      1. It can be reached with a reasonable amount of cost while promoting the economy
      2. Minimal adverse effect or in many cases benefits
      3. It solves a problem

      In the case of the auto industry, regulations in late 70s forced auto makers to be innovative. The result is cars that are twice as efficient and more powerful.

      Want to talk about regulations in HVAC. I can tell you about how the continued implementation of striker regulations has allowed the industry to strive, improve it's product offering and provide better efficiencies for the heating and cooling of buildings all around North America.

      Government regulations are the only mean the little guys have to avoid corporations from shitting all over us.

    54. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I put in the CAT ELC coolant. It has enough SCA to do 250K mi. with no cavitation.

      I ran a precharged Fleetguard bypass coolant filter. My 7.3 IDI died the death of cavitation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    55. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between a substance being bad (which has been empirically demonstrated) and it being dangerous at the concentrations being suggested. There's research that shows drinking too much water is bad for you, but we're not going to start making laws about water consumption for obvious reasons. What if we made the current emission standards two orders of magnitude more strict? Obviously that would be even better for the environment and human health, but if the current regulations are already to a point where the amounts being released have a negligible impact on health, pollution, etc. then making them more strict does not amount to much real good, but adds potentially significant costs. The point raised is an interesting one as at one point in time it would have been unethical to not return an escaped slave. While it's obvious that there's a gulf of distance between the ethics of vehicle emissions and that of slavery, it cuts to the point lgw was trying to make in that if the standards themselves are meaningless (an open question that neither of you have presented actual evidence in support or contradiction of) then the only reason to stay within their confines is because it is the law, which says nothing about its usefulness in and of itself. The crux of the matter is how good the law actually is. If it's a regulation that requires $10 of cost to prevent $1 of harm, it's a poor law and is wasting resources so that someone can satisfy their own sense of morality. If it's a case of $10 of cost preventing $100 of harm, then it's a good law that prevents damage to society or shared resources. If we have a bad law, then it should be broken through acts of civil disobedience because a bad law is more harmful to society than the behavior it seeks to prevent. We'd be better served putting aside notions of whether the behavior is ethical, feelings about corporatism, and stances on government environmentalism so that we can objectively examine whether the emission laws that exist are reasonable because they do reduce harm or whether they're simply the result of someone deciding that they get to choose what's best for everyone else. Only then is it fair to answer whether the behavior is ethical, else we're just arguing assumptions or semantics.

      You don't get to decide what the value of human life is. Neither do the engineers. When the standards were agreed upon which is not only saving the planet but human life then it's done. Deciding whether it costs $1 to cure someone you poisoned versus $100 is not the company's choice to make. Hell we could pin Terrorism on them while we're at it since you're technically selling chemical weapons to the public without them knowing it.

    56. Re: This wasn't an engineering decision... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Anything can run on 67 octane gas, if it has a 3:1 compression ratio.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    57. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Restaurant grease (filtered) will power a 1980s' diesel at ease but I wouldn't even try it on a modern, high pressure etc. diesel : you're likely to ruin it in bad ways. That's the worst "bio-diesel" - though it's also the best in terms of cheaply reusing something that's already around.

    58. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Having owned a 2l diesel in a family sedan I have to say that I am very keen to own them again in the future. The range that I got out of a tank in that car was amazing (Mercedes E200 CDI) I can't comment on the emissions because I don't have the equipment to test it. There was marginal cost difference between the petrol and the diesel, the fuel is the same cost per litre (+- 10%) and the fuel efficiency is heaps better.

    59. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Little to no warning? The current EPA standards were opened for public comment in 2000, approved in 2007, and put into effect in 2012. If you think that 12+ years is "little to no warning" then you must also think that copyright terms are reasonable.

    60. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your truck does not pass emissions testing. Never has, never will. How does it feel to know that you're increasing your neighbors and grandchildrens risk for lifetime crippling asthma?

    61. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      They aren't going to say anything bad because all the car makers are intertwined. Various parts, engines, chassis etc are shared between the makers.

    62. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Ah, I wasn't aware of that. You probably are right.

    63. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 truck carries enough to deliver many many things that save and extend the lives of many many people, you need to amortize truck pollution in a way that you don't for automobiles.

      And you know it, or at least you do now

    64. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! We should give VW a pass, because they're only one of the largest companies in the world, and there's nothing wrong with expecting people to stick to their word, or tell the truth or anything.

      Fuckers should have said "we can't comply, we're out of here". But instead they lied and lied.

      We trust these assholes to build working ABS and steering systems that we risk our lives on, and they can't even tell the truth.

      VW engineering is joining the increasing list of "poison on your CV" companies.

    65. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I also kill people when I removed catalytic converter from my tuned / pimped up sports car. How about racing, F1, etc?

    66. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least in my state (Texas), however, they're undertaking a long-term approach to bring the practice of Software Engineering into full licensure, since the state offers a P.E. exam for Software Engineering (and have since 2013), and have the intention of eventually effecting a cultural shift that will make it a requirement.

      When I graduated, there wasn't a software engineering-specific P.E exam, you took the standard P.E. exam, and only then could you call yourself an Engineer in the state of Texas. I've been Programmer ever since (I suck shit at thermodynamics and can't tell you which end of the Carnot cycle is up). Looks like I'd still have to learn thermo, materials, and fluid dynamics so I can pass the Engineering Fundamentals exam, so Programmer it is.

    67. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It reminds of the GM ignition switch problem: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/faulty-gm-ignition-switch-linked-to-2nd-crash-death-in-canada-1.2807904

      GM was aware of the problem since 2005 and did nothing to correct the issue. It got many people killed as a result. It is hard to believe that VW is getting so much shit for this. GM got away with murder.

    68. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Same for me. At the time of my graduation, it wasn't offered, and even had it been, I very much so doubt I would have taken it. It is offered now, however: http://engineers.texas.gov/sof...

      And in Texas, there's a particular exemption carved out in the rules and laws that exempts software folks (see: 1001.057(d)). It's what allows us to legally use the term "Software Engineer".

    69. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You don't get to decide what the value of human life is. Neither do the engineers.

      That's what Planned Parenthood does.

    70. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High NOx leads to life time breathing problems and death. Look at LA before and after the Clean Air Act. You are defending the equivalent of a company dumping toxic waste into a town's water supply.

    71. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Civil disobedience is publicly defying a law and taking the consequences. That is far from what occurred here

    72. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Back in the day, I had a Dodge 2500 pickup that I did fence construction with. I would load that thing up to the point I was occasionally blowing out 16.5in load range D tires on the highway. It had a 318 gasoline engine. This was in the Pittsburgh areas with many long hills. My parents had a 18 foot RV with a 318 gasoline engine. It worked fine even pulling a small trailer in various areas of the Appalachians. I am not a Dodge fan, these are just examples, I am sure the equivalent Chevy 350 and Ford 302/351 was equivalent at the time. They worked fine. Would a diesel be better? Maybe, maybe not. Todays gasoline truck engines have more HP and in some cases more torque

      My parents had a trailer probably similar to yours'. They went on a trip one year with some other relatives one year. Both groups had Dodge Ram pickups of similar model year (another uncle worked for Dodge so they could in on the employee discount) pulling similar RVs. My dad's pickup with a Cummins diesel only needed to stop about 1/2 as much as the other pickup with the gasoline engine. So, yes, a gasoline engine does work fine, but it will consume more fuel doing the same job as a diesel.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    73. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you get catch 22 items... like vehicles having warranties that void if one runs more than B5 in the tank. Well, most of the US can go up to B20 and the pumps not warnl you. So, just by buying a vehicle and using it, it can foul, throw codes, and then the owner is now having to foot the bill for new injectors, high pressure fuel pumps, and other crap.

      Maybe you shouldn't buy equipment from a company that voids your warranty if it rains in the country you bought or operate it. If your vendor's warranty terms excludes the conditions that you will expose it to, the maybe they shouldn't be your vendor. Maybe you should look up what a catch 22 actually is too.

      Maybe VW can fight in court and have the EPA's regulation passing at least slowed down so technology can keep up with their imagination.

      Statistically speaking, VW killed people by doing this. It is not as visible as if they had concentrated all of the illegal pollution and melted someones face off with it during Sweeps week, but they've still committed statistical homicide.

      The American people have decided, if only by slim representative majorities, that they prefer their water to be lead free and their air to be free of sulfuric and nitric acid. If you think each car should be allowed to violate those laws "a little" (meaning 40x the legal limit), then let me know exactly how many grams of feces every other American is legally allowed to deliberately slip into your food and water before they should be prosecuted for doing so.

    74. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Exactly! The only question before us is whether the defenders of the sociopaths who run companies are sociopaths themselves, or just simpering morons.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    75. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government's job isn't to favor one type of engine over another by picking winners and losers, either, which is essentially what's been done.

      It did not. Emissions standards have been getting more tight since the early 70's. Diesels have hit their technical limit OR companies are not investing in it to reduce emissions like they did with gasoline engines. Is it fair to say since you have a diesel engine, your limits are 2x higher than gasoline engines? Why not make them the same? The limit right now is diesels, don't bend the rules to make them acceptable.

      If some arm of the government were not involved, we would still be using leaded gas, no emission equipment, and the average gas engine would be getting about 10 MPG. Companies would not be investing in efficiency. Why do you think there was an aluminum F150 this year?

    76. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Love Canal wouldn't have been an issue had the local government not forced the company to sell their waste disposal site so a school could be built on the site and then allow developers to build homes around it. I'm sure the developer(s) and the school board made a mint on land they obtained for $1.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    77. Re: This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....which is to say, that practically nothing actually on the road can burn it.

    78. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm willing to bet not much of that pollution comes from VW diesels, in America.

    79. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So most people are aware "chip" means tuner. Which is only useful if you change tire sizes or fuel grades.

    80. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diesel vehicle scarcity is more directly tied to CARB than to the EPA.

      California's bureaucracy really doesn't like diesel.

    81. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason it is so difficult to build a "clean" diesel engine is because of the very simple fact that they are not clean at all. The fact that they are expensive with all the emissions controls on them is a good thing because it keeps people from buying cheap, pollution diesel engine.

      Diesel is a dead end just like the 2 stroke engine and Wankel engine and for the very same reason - it's dirty.

    82. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Informative
      Basically, this is a tradeoff between global warming (fuel efficiency, but high NOx) and peoples lives, but with black smoke.

      Of course, here in Europe, we have Urea injection (AdBlu) which solves the problem on a test bench, but adds urea to the pollutants in any real life situation. Since Urea injection was introduced, everyone in London is complaining of "hay fever". I don't see a lot of hay in London, but there are plenty of Euro4 and Euro5 trucks (AdBlu), since they have taxed the older ones off the road.

      Since a 40 ton truck can go from burning 5 litres of diesel per minute, to none, and back again in about 20 seconds (gear change while pulling from the lights) there is no way that the amount of urea will be correct. And you may have 16 or 24 gears to go through between 0 and 56MPH (speed limit for trucks). Burning slower and cooler gives longer engine life too.

      It presumably also adds massively to bribes for European commissioners from the AdBlu monopoly.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    83. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same car is used in France and the UK, both relatively small countries where diesel cars are popular, and both have significant vehicle pollution issues; this is going to go down like a lead balloon there.

      Didn't read the article, did you? VW only cheated in the USA, and they did so specifically because the regulations are different here vs. Europe.

    84. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Ever wonder why there is such a dearth of diesel powered vehicles?

      Nope. Everyone I know avoids them because they're associated with being loud. Has nothing to do with EPA, but aesthetics.

    85. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are commonalities all over the world: Your boss tells you to do something, you refuse to do it, you get fired and they get someone else to do what they want anyway.

      Around here that's when you go to the Professional Engineer's association, they pay for a lawyer, and you get a huge settlement because you got fired for refusing to act unethically.

    86. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by lgw · · Score: 1

      You seem you not understand the idea of "diminishing returns". It's not always better for society to reduce emissions further, as at some point the added costs overwhelm the ever-less-measurable emissions.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    87. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by lgw · · Score: 1

      I know you understand the idea of diminishing returns. All pollution is bad only in sufficient concentration. Two maxims from environmental engineering: "the solution to pollution is dilution", and "you can't have too little pollution, but you can have to little production". At some point lower emissions cost more than they're worth, and become a net burden on society. I believe we passed that point some time ago.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    88. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      Reasonable estimates based on the established literature in the area indicate VW's cheating caused or will cause on the order of 100 deaths.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    89. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      True, which is why I qualified my statement with "slightly modified." I'd only try to run anything direct-injected (including my '98 TDI, which itself isn't even all that high-pressure compared to a common-rail) on proper biodiesel.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    90. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Your boss tells you to do something, you refuse to do it, you get fired"

      If that thing is illegal, then:

      1) Your union rep goes to bat for you
      2) You sue the shit out of the company
      and/or
      3) You threaten to blow the whistle

      The engineers had plenty of options. This is Germany, not the US, union members are on the board! They knew what they were doing, and they did it. They're just as guilty. I know it hurts your little engineering brain, but you have to pull your head out of your ass and look around once in a while.

    91. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by rgmoore · · Score: 2

      I'm willing to bet not much of that pollution comes from VW diesels, in America.

      That depends on what you consider to be "not much". There were about 500,000 cars affected by this issue in the US, and they are producing as much as 40 times the legal limit. That would mean they produce as much pollution as 20 million cars that meet the emissions standards, which is a meaningful percentage of the 250 million or so cars on the road in the US. That doesn't make them the dominant source of pollution or anything, but it does mean they're contributing far out of proportion to their numbers. They're certainly not something we can afford to ignore.

      That figure of up to 40x the legal limit also shows why it's so important to catch cheaters. Pollution controls can bring emissions down to far below the level they were before the controls were implemented, but that also means a comparatively small number of cheaters can have a disproportionate effect on total pollution.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    92. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sulfur in diesel caused a ton of problems, particularly for emissions controls in these small car engines. The soot would build up in the intake; and I experienced this firsthand with my 2003 Jetta TDI. Cleaning the intake manifold was a PM item about every year, and it was a bitch of a job. After the changeover to ULSD in 2005, there was no soot build up at all.

    93. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Volkswagen willingly killed people to steal sales from its competitors.

      You make two implicit and unlikely assumptions not backed up by facts:
      - The additional NOx emissions cause more health damage than the PM and CO emissions reduced
      - Other manufacturers are not doing very similar things

    94. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      How cute! You think the competitors didn't cheat.
      Hint: no other car manufacturer in Germany has said anything about this affair. Wait a few months, and you'll learn that BMW/Porsche/Mercedes did the same. Japanese & American manufacturers probably did too.

      Always love the "well, everyone else does it" argument. Especially when it comes w/o any evidence. It usually comes with a plea for sympathy for the accused (a la Lance Armstrong), or an attempt to claim that it's "the system's" fault.

      Sure cheating in certain industries and sports is rampant. But if you're one who's unwilling to punish those who are caught, then you're also part of the problem (pointing at you NE Patriots fans).

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    95. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Your boss tells you to do something, you refuse to do it, you get fired and they get someone else to do what they want anyway.

      Let's try another scenario. My boss tells me to do something illegal, I then I first point that out to him, and if he still insists, I find a way to gather enough evidence to take to HR, or the authorities, or the media...whichever level is necessary.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    96. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately when engineers point out potential problems they have little recourse when upper management ignores them. Whistleblower protection has often failed.

      While that may or may not be true, it's certainly not applicable in this case. Anyone involved here could have easily pointed out the way in which VW cheated, and the company would have had to back down. Every engineer and manager who was aware of this should be fired, and fined, and at least some of them should be doing a little time behind bars.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    97. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Or in this case, I was just replying to the GP that was naively saying it was unfair to the others.
      BTW, Lance Armstrong gets no sympathy from me. But in the cyclism world, "everyone else does it" really is true.
      Who won the 2000 and 2002 Tour de France? You need to look at the 10th place (really) to find a guy that hasn't been caught yet.

    98. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree that there's evidence to prove the case that pretty much everyone in cycling was juicing. I'd still argue that doesn't make it okay, and that those who got caught need to be punished...it's the only way to clean up the sport. Or else, just open it up and be honest about letting the "athletes" do whatever.

      I personally have trouble watching sporting events where a certain amount of cheating is expected, and praised. Flagrant fouls, and pass interference in the end zone, should be automatic scores in my not so humble opinion.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    99. Re: This wasn't an engineering decision... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Can I use a computer analogy? This is like graphics card companies tweak the cards to work better for certain performance tests.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    100. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that line of argument is that some people consider e.g. coal rollers better cars.
      The atmosphere is (and therefore, we are) experiencing a tragedy of the commons and more stringent regulation is direly needed.
      Saying that engineers should be allowed to break the law to provide their customers with ‘better‘ cars is immoral and counter-productive.

    101. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      Of course the EPA shares blame. The 7.3 had a stellar reputation. Then the EPA arbitrarily tightened rules, making the 7.3 "illegal". Scare quotes because this was not a dully passed law, but a bureaucratic edict. The resulting motor, the 6.0, was horribly unreliable because of design changes directly attributable to the new emissions standards. The dots are not hard to connect.

    102. Re: This wasn't an engineering decision... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      urea injection

      We at the National Golden Shower & Watersports Association prefer the term "Diesel Exhaust Fluid" (it gets us less hot and bothered).

    103. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      What we need to do is to outlaw ethics, they get in the way of progress.

    104. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by tibit · · Score: 2

      Sure, but these diesels pollute way more than they should. EPA standards are IMHO not draconian at all. I, for one, like my air clean.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    105. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would mean they produce as much pollution as 20 million cars that meet the emissions standards

      There are probably not 20 million cars in America that meet the emissions standards. We have yet to see a similar study of most of the other 249,5 million cars in the USA. I find it highly unlikely that the VW 2.0 TDI engine is the only (or even the worst) offender.

    106. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      Of course we all like our air clean. The delta between European standards and EPA standards would make zero impact on air quality where many people live. We are way, way beyond the point of diminishing marginal returns. The biggest air quality problem where I live is from wildfires in the summer, which could be mitigated by harvesting timber instead of letting it burn, and inversions in the winter, which nobody can do a thing about. If people in the LA Basin want to have different standards, that is up to them. We don't need a Soviet-style, one-size-fits-all emissions policy.

    107. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      So, fraud is a "good act"?
      You have posted some of the stupidest statements ever made on /. but this is a new low.

    108. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      And none of that has any relevance to your moronic endorsement of fraud.

    109. Re:This wasn't an engineering decision... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Maybe VW can fight in court

      So they are going to argue that blatant fraud is OK?

  3. Finally engineers. by harrkev · · Score: 1

    Finally, engineers get some attention -- for something bad.

    And, in a couple of weeks the attention will die away, and the public will laud somebody who can sing more than somebody who can create devices that make peoples lives better.

    --
    "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    1. Re:Finally engineers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because engineers have gotten no attention in so many years....

    2. Re: Finally engineers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazi engineers have long been in the spotlight, especially with the space race, so you're wrong about this.

    3. Re: Finally engineers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now they are using poison gas to kill us.

    4. Re:Finally engineers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're an engineer, you're in it because you like engineering. Who cares if we get lauded? Leave that shit to the narcissist pop stars.

  4. What ethics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ethics and the consumer market don't quite mix that well. I was actually taught planned obsolescence in design theory lectures.
    Stuff is designed to break down and to deceive. Although it is a requirement to adhere to safety standards. When something breaks down, the consumer is not to be hurt. How else would he or she be able to buy more of your stuff?

  5. Whistleblowing by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One thing is for certain. No whistles were blown. Which is pretty impressive considering how long this has been going on and the extent of who all must have been in the know. I don't think this falls into the category of one software developer tweaking some parameters. I mean the engine was designed without a urea injection system in the first place, which is pretty much necessary to make a diesel engine conform to emissions standards that strict. So it sure leans towards the falsification pathway going way, way back.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Whistleblowing by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      It's clearly not an absolute necessity, since the cars did fine during official examinations.

      I'm surprised they managed to write firmware that correctly identifies the official testing procedure without giving too many false positives.

    2. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So because of this "crime against gaia," I don't have to feed my car horse piss?

      Volkswagen deserves a REWARD of $18 billion, not a fine of $18 billion.

    3. Re:Whistleblowing by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sometimes people don't see things as unethical. It wouldn't surprise me if all the engineers thought, "stupid Americans and their regulations......we know how to make an engine that is clean enough."

      For comparison, it might be unethical to work in the advertising industry. You're mainly just showing ads that annoy people, and you're also giving them malware. It might also be unethical to build weapons of war. A lot of what bankers do is unethical.

      Yet people in all those industries have their own justification to explain why it's ok to work on those products. When I worked in ad-tech, I would ask a lot of my coworkers how they felt about it, and they had different justifications, but everyone had one. I'm not trying to condemn them here, just pointing out that what one person considers unethical, another feels perfectly fine with.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Whistleblowing by sshir · · Score: 1

      Lost opportunity for sure, given that in the US wistleblowers get percentage of the settlement.

      We're talking some serious millions here...

    5. Re:Whistleblowing by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I sincerely don't think Germans think that way. These are the people who turned off all their nuclear plants for solar. I disagree with that action, but I have a lot of trouble believing that they think that the regulations of the US, of all places, are ridiculous. Germans are not known for their dislike of regulations.

      More likely, some engineers either were directed to do that, and preferred to not undermine their company, or they saw it as a challenge which they are proud of because they figured out how to beat emissions tests reliably.

    6. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was allegedly by detecting a lack of steering wheel input. Not a hard "hack" at all.

    7. Re:Whistleblowing by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Funny

      Germans as a group are pretty good at following orders, even when it might be unethical.

      So I've heard.

      --
      -Styopa
    8. Re:Whistleblowing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised the scandal wasn't discovered in the opposite way. If the car was to reduce performance when emissions tested on a dyno, how did it not get picked up that performance was below expectations... when on a dyno?

      There's so many subtle ways this software could have given itself up.

    9. Re:Whistleblowing by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

      One thing is for certain. No whistles were blown.

      "We were only following orders!"

      To unGodwin myself a bit, I get the impression Automotive Engineering is not unlike most other engineering sectors: a lot of job movement between manufacturers, suppliers, consultancy, and back again, with plenty of drama and rollercoaster-like job security, depending on the sales figures and general economy. My point is: people talk - even German engineers. No way they were the only ones cheating, regardless of which continent we're talking about, for both diesel _and_ petrol. I suspect we're about to enter another dark age of more stringent emission controls / crap performance (depending on how much money the auto guys spend on buying politicians).

      On the literally bright side: this may truly help the acceleration (if you will) to EVs becoming the norm. IC's are neat creatures, but I think even now, most modern mass-production cars would get smoked by a Tesla (in Insane Mode) in the quarter-mile.

    10. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing is for certain. No whistles were blown. Which is pretty impressive considering how long this has been going on and the extent of who all must have been in the know.

      If we apply the assumptions that most people around here make, the real question is why didn't VW's competitors blow the whistle since they must have known too? They would have no incentive to hold back, and would indeed gain by VW being exposed, and yet they did nothing. The only people this should be news to is us, if we apply the "Russia/China/dog/world already knew all NSA secrets, Snowden was just telling us only so no harm/no foul" standard to the VW situation.

      Why didn't all of the other auto companies blow the whistle on VW? Wasn't there at least one engineer that took a job outside of VW that spilled the beans? Why wasn't it obvious they were cheating just based on science and engineering?

      I'm quite disappointed in VW. I had long admired their products and reputation. Too bad.

    11. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The cars were put into dyno mode for testing. That's a pretty easy way to separate "I'm rolling down the road" vs "I'm being tested".

      http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/volkswagen-emissions-cheat-exploited-test-mode.htm

    12. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be too certain about that. Not to mention VW is large enough to effectively hide what the implementation was from engineers ("it's a trial we want to test"), and spread out over several continents, it would be difficult for even the most dedicated employee to piece together.

      Not to mention instances like this (albeit on a much smaller scale) happen in EVERY business/government, where regulations are ignored against the protest of employees, and nothing changes short of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit.

      Place I work at is in clear violation of standards, and employees have made clear as such to management. The appropriate crediting agencies have been notified, and five years running... nothing changes. Of course there was a recent death that might have scared some sense into management, but I'm not holding my breath.

      And we've been through this before. Some "rogue" underling will be blamed and fired. The agencies in charge of overseeing compliance will listen aghast as management details how such systemic corruption could take place without their knowledge, complete with 5 Star, Blue Ribbon committee plan to retrain employees in compliance.

      And the whole thing will be rubber stamped, shoved into a drawer, and... nothing changes.

      Exactly who do you complain to when the whole system is corrupt?

    13. Re:Whistleblowing by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      how did it not get picked up that performance was below expectations... when on a dyno?

      Because performance wasn't what they were measuring. They didn't have any performance expectations because that's not what they were there for. It was figures they didn't even look at.

    14. Re:Whistleblowing by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      These are the people who turned off all their nuclear plants for solar.

      Except they didn't actually do that. They're still running eight of their largest and newest reactors and these supply over 10,000 MWe to their grid today. They "plan" to shut these down. We'll see. If they back-peddle because the alternative is more coal they won't be the first European nation to do so.

      It is amazing how well hype and propaganda work. Your "reality" is a fiction created by solar advocates.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    15. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's so hard about that?

      If(DriveWheels==turning && NonDriveWheels==stationary)
                UseEmissionTestMAP();
      Else
                UseCheatingMAP();
      EndIf

      Wow! Real difficult

    16. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't build weapons of war, foreigners roll in and kill you. If you DO build weapons of war, you don't have to use them.

      It is perfectly ethical to build them. The real ethical conundrums surround their use.

       

    17. Re:Whistleblowing by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Germans are not known for their dislike of regulations.

      You can't imagine they thought, "We are environmentally friendly. Our own regulations are better than the American's?"

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has worked in the automtive industry in Europe, let me tell you that the fact that they did cheat surprises exactly no one. It was well known for years that everyone cheats in all kinds of tests, be it fuel consumption or a variety of emmisions, and there were plenty of newspapers that reported about it.

      The surprising part is that someone actually does take a stand against this kind of cheating, and Volkswagen is just unlucky that they were caught cheating at this exact time. Every rule that isn't enforced is bound to be ignored sooner or later, and these kind of rules have been ignored by everyone for so long that it's even kind of unfair to single out one particular manufacturer.

    19. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that Germany is a nation of over 80 million *individuals* with free will and different morals and values, not a Zerg hive controlled telepathically by a single Overmind... yes?

    20. Re:Whistleblowing by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      On the literally bright side: this may truly help the acceleration (if you will) to EVs becoming the norm. IC's are neat creatures, but I think even now, most modern mass-production cars would get smoked by a Tesla (in Insane Mode) in the quarter-mile.

      So what? Wake me when a Tesla can win at [24 hours of] Le Mons.

      And that's why ICs aren't going away any time soon. Even the most speculative electricity-storage systems (exotic battery chemistries, hydrogen) pale in comparison to the combination of energy density, ease of handling, reliability and ubiquity of plain old liquid hydrocarbons. Even if we wanted to synthesize fuel from solar energy, using said energy to combine CO2 and H2O into hydrocarbons (perhaps by biological processes) is the most viable way to do it!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    21. Re:Whistleblowing by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      There have been rumors of manufacturers cheating in exactly this way (detecting the patterns of an emissions test) for years.

    22. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter how you justify an act, the act itself is either ethical or it is not, based on the outcome and situation leading to the act.

      In this case, they decided to deliberately circumvent pollution regulations so as to gain a competitive advantage (and therefore more $$$) over their competitors.

      Everyone from the person who first decided to do this all the way down to the engineer who implements acted in an unethical manner, based solely on the fact that they were effectively lying about what the car produced in the form of pollution.

      Maybe if this was done to save the planet (because they had reason to believe more NoX is better) it would be a different story.

      But lying to customers for profit is NEVER ethical.

    23. Re:Whistleblowing by Solandri · · Score: 1

      One thing is for certain. No whistles were blown. Which is pretty impressive considering how long this has been going on and the extent of who all must have been in the know.

      I don't think many people in VW actually knew about it. VW's behavior in disclosing this is consistent with a company which didn't actually know it was going on. The EPA was investigating this back in May 2014, and VW issued a recall for a software update related to this in Dec 2014. Now, if you knew your cars were cheating on the emissions tests, and you knew the EPA was actively investigating fishy behavior in your emissions, what would you do in the recall? Obviously wipe the complicit software and replace it with new software which made the cars compliant. But that didn't happen.

      Look at how this was disclosed. At first VW admitted about half a million cars in the U.S. were affected. Then a couple days later they stated about 11 million cars worldwide were affected. If this cheating was widely known within VW, the cat was out of the bag when they made the announcement about their U.S. cars. They would've acknowledged how many cars worldwide were affected at the same time.

      The way they're acting is consistent with a company which genuinely didn't know their engines were cheating. Their attempted software fix in Dec 2014 didn't fix it (probably because they were testing the emissions in a garage and not on the road), nor did it try to cover up any evidence of their cheating. And their announcement is consistent with a company which detected the problem in their U.S. cars, then needed some time to test and confirm the problem also existed in their cars sold elsewhere.

      All this points to either an act of deceit committed by and known to only a few if not a single employee. Or even a genuine error which wasn't detected until recently (maybe operating parameters which were supposed to be in effect all the time were erroneously only made active in test mode).

    24. Re:Whistleblowing by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      They could certainly say that their regulations make more sense, but I'm not sure that would be enough for them to evade them. If anything, they'd be like: "stupid American regulations. Let those Americans choke on their shitty performance."

      There was a financial and marketing component to this. Their business plan was supposed to be "clean diesel" as opposed to electric or hybrid. What happens when "clean diesel" makes your cars underperform? You fake it to make it.

      I don't think they care one way or another about our regulations except they needed to make those regulations to execute on their strategy. I think they have a business and marketing plan that their engineering couldn't deliver on. They could have clean, or they could have performance, but they couldn't get both.

    25. Re:Whistleblowing by jwdb · · Score: 4, Informative

      I sincerely don't think Germans think that way. These are the people who turned off all their nuclear plants for solar. I disagree with that action, but I have a lot of trouble believing that they think that the regulations of the US, of all places, are ridiculous. Germans are not known for their dislike of regulations.

      Except that the regulations for small diesels are far stricter in the US than in Europe, so the Germans probably have good cause for thinking the US regulations are ridiculous.

    26. Re:Whistleblowing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      the act itself is either ethical or it is not

      Problem is everyone has their own definition of ethical.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A false positive would result in limited performance for some amount of time. I guess most drivers either didn't notice them at all or forgot about them when the engine started performing again.

    28. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, both the newer Euro 6 and older Euro 5 rules are more lax. As are the even older Euro 4. Nevertheless, VW's 2.0L TDI fails emissions requirements for ALL THREE STANDARDS. You literally have to look back to regulations from the 90's to find a rule set under which these engines could pass while operating "normally".

    29. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No whistles were blown because everyone thinks the EPA mandates are BS.

    30. Re:Whistleblowing by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      Given most modern cars have built in GPS receivers for the navigation software in their infotainment systems I doubt that detecting EPA tests on a dyno is hard: if (WheelVelocity > (GpsVelocity+10)) then Use(EpaMap) else Use(PowerMap).

    31. Re:Whistleblowing by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Sometimes people don't see things as unethical. It wouldn't surprise me if all the engineers thought, "stupid Americans and their regulations......we know how to make an engine that is clean enough."

      Initially I also thought this might be the case, as US regulations only consider emissions per gallon of fuel burnt, so making the engine burn less fuel to produce less emissions does not help pass the tests like it does in Europe. But later information that came out suggests that they were cheating on the European tests too.

    32. Re:Whistleblowing by jrumney · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Stricter isn't really the right word. US regulations are based on a fixed amount of fuel, so the key to passing them is to burn the fuel inefficiently in a way that doesn't produce the pollutants they are looking for. European regulations are based on a fixed distance, so the key there is to burn the fuel as efficiently as possible as less fuel input translates to less pollutants output.

    33. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . except that every other German manufacturer has no problem producing diesels that comply with US standards.

    34. Re:Whistleblowing by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I sincerely don't think Germans think that way.

      Disclaimer: I'm not German, though my grandparents came from there, and I spent six years living there.

      I sincerely don't think Germans think in the stereotypical manner to which you've referred. I've personally had many discussions with German nationals in regards to topics on American ethics (or lack thereof) and laws. Most often it came with a hint of arrogance because the German way must be better, right? Things like, how can an actor (Regan) run for president, why is the 38.5 hr. work week and six weeks off superior, and even about Hitler (with my great Aunt, who was alive during WWII, and thought he did great). It takes all kinds, and Germany has them in enough abundance that I don't believe your conclusion can be backed by any statistical evidence.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    35. Re:Whistleblowing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No I mean when emissions control system is in full force the performance of the car falls short of advertised levels. This is my point. The system would not only have to be written in a way to detect it was on a dyno, but specifically that while on the dyno they were checking for emissions and not performance. Otherwise the complaint would be "Hey why is this 20kW short!"

    36. Re:Whistleblowing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Exactly my point. So that would result in the car not reaching the advertised power output while on a dyno. The complaint would instead by "VW has bad gas" to "my VW doesn't generate the torque advertised"

    37. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That must be why they offer only a handful diesel engines in the US, all with additional urea injection systems that are not required to meet standards elsewhere in the world.

    38. Re:Whistleblowing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for a sound analysis and a voice of reason in the ongoing witch hunt.

    39. Re:Whistleblowing by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Yikes, so they really screwed up everywhere then. Wonder how they got away with it that long.

    40. Re:Whistleblowing by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      And the answer is that software cheat didn't kick in on ordinary dyno tests. VW wrote the software specifically to cheat only when the EPA tested it. They didn't just test to see if they were on a dyno...the EPA has a rigid testing protocol and the software tested to see if that protocol was being followed. If it wasn't, the cheat didn't kick in. So ordinary performance testers never saw the power loss.

    41. Re:Whistleblowing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, hence my comment that there's so many subtle ways that the software could have given itself up.

      It really is a feat how they avoided false positives. They may be unethical bastards, but the engineers behind this can be commended for their skill.

    42. Re:Whistleblowing by me3head · · Score: 1

      You sure? "These standards specifically restrict emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), formaldehyde (HCHO), and non-methane organic gases (NMOG) or non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC). The limits are defined in grams per mile (g/mi)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  6. That's not an ethics issue, just plain fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But since VW is a foreign company, this is going to be blown completely out of proportion. When American companies are caught cheating, it's just fierce competition, and it gets them a slap on the wrist. That is an ethics issue.

    1. Re:That's not an ethics issue, just plain fraud by codeAlDente · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The issue is probably not foreign vs non-foreign. I think ZeroHedge probably gets it right: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

      --
      He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
    2. Re:That's not an ethics issue, just plain fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has some of the toughest environmental and consumer protection laws in the world, far tougher than Europe.

      I mean, think about it: these cars actually meet European emission standards without a problem. They only run afoul of US emissions standards.

    3. Re:That's not an ethics issue, just plain fraud by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      I mean, think about it: these cars actually meet European emission standards without a problem. They only run afoul of US emissions standards.

      No, they do not, according to the testing that revealed this conspiracy (it's large enough to be a conspiracy).

      consumer protection laws in the world, far tougher than Europe.

      And where did you get that asinine idea?

    4. Re:That's not an ethics issue, just plain fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be sarcasm.

    5. Re:That's not an ethics issue, just plain fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has some of the toughest environmental and consumer protection laws in the world

      Sorry, no trust in a claim by the propaganda state, for the propaganda state like that without proof.

    6. Re:That's not an ethics issue, just plain fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is, Volkswagen wrote the regulations in Europe (since they couldn't manage to keep the emissions low, while french and italian manufacturers could).

    7. Re:That's not an ethics issue, just plain fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I clicked on this because I said to myself, "Of course ZeroHedge didn't get it right. They aren't right about anything!" So to satisfy my curiosity I checked and you are correct, they are spot on.

      For those who don't want to click through, it basically goes to opensecrets and find out that GM gave almost 10x more to lobbyists and about 200x more to politicians than VW did. QED.

      Posting anonymously because you definitely deserve the mod point more than this reply.

    8. Re: That's not an ethics issue, just plain fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you just look it up instead of making up your own "facts".

    9. Re: That's not an ethics issue, just plain fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you just look it up instead of making up your own "facts".

      (VW could sell these diesels in Europe in large part because they wrote the regulations.)

    10. Re:That's not an ethics issue, just plain fraud by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      But since VW is a foreign company, this is going to be blown completely out of proportion. When American companies are caught cheating, it's just fierce competition, and it gets them a slap on the wrist. That is an ethics issue.

      This is a couple years old, but the list refutes your claim.
      http://www.businessinsider.com...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    11. Re:That's not an ethics issue, just plain fraud by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      More like BMW and Mercedes wrote that regulation, but yes, there even used to be a quite protectionist VW law.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  7. rationalizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I imagine the European engineers rationalized this "it's good enough for environmentally conscious Europe, why shouldn't it be good enough for the US? The US environment is shitty anyway, with all those SUVs and no trains! The EPA is just trying to make life difficult for European importers!"

    Of course, the two problems with that way of thinking are that European environmental regulations are not as strict as American ones, and that VW is so important to the German economy that it gets a pass on pretty much everything.

  8. High tech equals 3 things by floon · · Score: 0

    At this point high tech is like Wall St in the 1980's. It is:
    1. greed
    2. hubris
    3. incompetence

    1. Re:High tech equals 3 things by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure about #3. They were certainly competent enough in their engineering when it came to evading the inspections.

  9. It's Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's engineering. Just the facts/physics. INTJ

    Ethics is a management issue. ESTP

  10. high tech is 3 things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greed -- hubris -- incompetence!

  11. No I haven't heard of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprisingly (or perhaps not so much) my Facebook and other feeds are full of people complaining about Trump or some other political or moral outrage of the day.

    I bet I could poll most of my friends and acquaintances, some very intelligent, and the majority will have never heard about this. I guess that says a lot about our society and none of it good.

  12. I hate to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate to equate it, but this sound very similar to malware detecting a VM environment and refuse to run or or do its intended payload in order to thwart researchers from analyzing its behaviour.

    1. Re:I hate to say it... by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you don't like the comparison, it seems rather apt.

    2. Re:I hate to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I meant to have included that I work for an Audi dealership.

  13. I said "No, I won't put that code in." by BoRegardless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the manager said, "You're fired."

    1. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. The basic problem is a lack of management ethics. Management considers it perfectly acceptable to cheat like this, knowing they're cheating and breaking the law while doing so, and they expect everyone in the organization to follow along. Management also considers it perfectly acceptable to lie about why they let someone go, rather than simply fire them for disobeying orders (which would leave the employee free to say exactly what orders they disobeyed) they find some other innocuous excuse and leave the employee no real way to respond when asked by a future employer why they were terminated. Until management ethics is fixed, it won't be possible to do anything about engineering ethics.

    2. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you kill someone to keep your job? Would you shorten the lifespans of untold numbers of people to keep your job?

    3. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Too right. Someone in management signed off on this plan. I'm sure someone fairly high up used the words, "I don't care how you do it as long as it gets done." That person wanted plausible deniability.

    4. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be willing to fire your boss over requiring you to do criminal things. Also, because you'll have fired them for a reason, there will be a fat severance package to negotiate. Which is what must've happened here. The people who knew have been paid of, handsomely.

    5. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I said, "20% of 18 billion is a lot more than you ever paid me, suckers!"

    6. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then your union rep and engineering trade guild backed you up.

      Oh wait. Sorry. Programmers are invincible Ryandian supermen with no need for anything like that.

      Seriously. Listen up. The bubble is burst. The free ride is over. Two decades ago you were hot and you had talents not available anywhere else.

      This is no longer the case. The management goons have figured out how to exploit and commoditize your labor. You're no longer irreplaceable. Soon you won't be able to pick up contracts elsewhere either. (Black lists are real. They're a tool of tyranny as old as writing itself)

      If you don't stick up for yourself, and more importantly stick up for what is right, they will walk all over you. Unions and trade guilds don't just help you, they help you when you're standing up for something more important to yourself.

    7. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VW has set aside half of last years profits to fix this but they cheated for 6 years. I Imagine that still makes for good margins.

    8. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Yes!

      This is why it is very important to punish the engineers who stayed on and didn't get fired. Their punishment must be more severe than merely being fired, otherwise we create incentive to perform the crime. If the punishment for saying "no" is being fired, but the punishment for saying "yes" is continued employment, that's not good.

      I do wonder if this really happened though. Did anyone try to quit over this?

    9. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by pr0nbot · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The basic problem is a lack of management ethics.

      And, perhaps, unions that would let you stand up to this sort of unethical command.

      For example: http://flashbak.com/the-sun-at...

      Of course, since then the print unions have been reformed and modernised (read: neutered and excised) and we get "I was just following orders" phone hacking.

    10. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There is another way it can happen. Management demands that new cars meet the US emissions standards, but still perform well. Engineering can't figure out how to make that happen legitimately, so they cheat. Could be just a small number of developers.

      The management diktat is a more likely scenario, but I've seen some really dodgy hacks that clearly no-one else knew about in code before.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Now allowing management to fire staff for refusing to do unethical things would be a good start. Where I live if I refused such a request and was fired I could claim significant damages for wrongful dismissal.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      If the engineering work was done in any country other than the US, they probably didn't break any laws. Whoever was involved with certifying the vehicles as being compliant would probably be the criminal, but you'd have to wonder if they were even aware of this "feature" in those vehicles.

    13. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And the manager said, "You're fired."

      Well in some countries this results in: And the registration board said, "Thou shall not engineer again. Oh and have this massive fine."

    14. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      to pay the mortgage, yep and i'll make sure to keep some proof around in secret places in case it goes to court

    15. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Looks like they failed at that. If the CEO has to step down, you can be sure that people down the line will have their heads handed to them too.

    16. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Would you kill someone to keep your job? Would you shorten the lifespans of untold numbers of people to keep your job?

      Ironically, you ask these questions as we speak of the conveyance that also happens to kill over 30,000 humans every year in the US.

      On top of that, entire industries would cease to exist if these kinds of questions were actually raised. Tobacco executives legally kill hundreds of thousands of people every year, and have for decades now.

      Perhaps we just stop with this bullshit questioning altogether. Gun manufacturers come to mind as the ultimate WTF response.

    17. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by nerdyalien · · Score: 1

      I worked for software industry in far east -- a small city-state popularly known as 'the little red dot'.

      The firm I have served there had the terrible conflict of interest, where development team delivers rotten products to clients, which will be fixed to a barely operational state later by the maintenance team for a hefty price tag.

      Developers always had to ship code, regardless how many bugs or security loop-holes in the product. As you could imagine, project timelines are always half of what it should need. Managers are micro-managing to the point, developers have to report progress every 4 hours. As long as half-baked features are there in a barely demonstrable state, project/product is declared complete by the manager, and the senior manager is happy. Otherwise, developers are forced to admit that they were lazy and incompetent.

      Still, none of our clients was happy. Some clients even went bust. The only reason why we had a clientele was, they invested too much that they can't do a U-turn. It was frustrating! Despite being registered as an IT service company, we gave middle finger to the clients far too generously and openly.

      I have complained through official and unofficial channels (i.e. in meetings with senior managers behind closed doors) about this unethical practices. Reply was, "This is how we work, we don't care about our clients. If you don't like how we work, the door is open for you to leave".

      2 months ago, I was fired. Though they have given ã different reason for the dismissal, their hidden message is "You never played by our rules. Just go away".

      As long as corporations operate by the mantra "money over all else", nothing would change. Its a dystopian future after all.

    18. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      That's why we need to be able to say "no, I won't put that code in and neither will any of the other licensed engineers, which means the designs won't get stamped, which means you have no product to sell."

      If engineers need leverage in order to maintain ethical standards, well, we know how to get it. We just have to collectively (gasp! shock! horror!) demand it!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    19. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      In Germany no on just runs in and says "You're fired". Doing something like that often results in an incredible expense to the company and frequently forced re-hiring of the employee.

      Many places in the world have a concept of unfair dismissal and firing an employee for refusing to do something that could be deemed illegal ranks pretty close to number on on the list of reasons firing is unfair.

    20. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Did (whatever part of) VW do this? No, they most certainly did not. Absurd hyperbole does not serve to make any sort of valid case.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    21. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      If you work for a company that tolerates these kinds of management ethics, you should pack your bags immediately. There are good managers and good companies that do the right thing, thinking otherwise and working for said corrupt company is simply a rationalization and coping mechanism out of not making the hard and right choice of leaving the company.

      Case in point: We recently got a benefits decision for a closed location. After looking at the numbers, we noticed they were 10% lower than they should be because of a decimal error on step 3 of the calculation. What do we do? We tell them, fix it, and pay more - the correct amount for the rules in place. This comes on top of discovering a tax mistake not caught by the gov't for 3 years. What do we do? We fix it and pay more.

      Dirty companies are not the norm. Working for a dirty company plays tricks on your mind, and makes you think they are the norm because there is no other way to cope in that shitty job.

    22. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by Highway_Tramper · · Score: 1

      That might work in the US but you certainly CAN'T fire someone in the EU "just like that" ! There's an entire disciplinary procedure you HAVE to go through that involves "intermediates" (Workers Representatives). As I said on "The Reg"... /Tinfoil Hat time Makes you wonder if the former ousted CEO of VW didn't drop a sneaky heads up to the relevant testing authority as a "Kiss my Hairy Arse" payback ?

    23. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm sure that absolutely no unethical things happen where you live.

    24. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by gnupun · · Score: 1

      And the manager said, "You're fired."

      Plausible, but this is also plausible. The manager said, "I'll give you a big, fat bonus of 50,000 euros if you sneak this code in. No one will ever know such code exists." And the outside world did not know for over 5 years.

    25. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      You aren't a programmer and you don't know what you're talking about.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    26. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now allowing management to fire staff for refusing to do unethical things would be a good start. Where I live if I refused such a request and was fired I could claim significant damages for wrongful dismissal.

      Ignoring your strawman, wouldn't it be better to allow staff to fire management for doing unethical things?

    27. Re: I said "No, I won't put that code in." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're a whore.

      Got it.

    28. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo! Truly spoken by someone that have no idea what management is!

    29. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      And the manager said, "You're fired."

      And the (former) employee said, "See your ass in court"

      The fraud in this case is so easily proven that the manager wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Is that so difficult to see?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    30. Re:I said "No, I won't put that code in." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, perhaps, unions that would let you stand up to this sort of unethical command.

      Trading one set of unethical masters for two sets of unethical masters is a bad deal now matter how you slice it.

  14. The problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the entire world economy is in trouble, and it's mostly China's fault. They have devalued their currency for so long that a large portion of production job of any kind have been moved there, or other countries with similarly "valued" currencies. This has caused virtually every other free market country to struggle to compete while companies like Walmart, Target, Apple, etc. reap the benefits of selling their products at crazy margins because they were made for pennies an hour. So, other countries have no other choice but find "creative" ways to compete like cutting proper engineering costs by cheating the system with a software hack like this one. The real problem is China, is not being held responsible for their actions. Their poor treatment of their citizens, lack of labor laws, and sweat shops that force workers to work for pennies a day. The entire world needs to unite against China, and take them to court for the damages that they have done to the rest of the world by falsifying the value of their currency! Even the recent value increase was still no where near on par with the real value. I mean think about this China until this recent "down turn" had been buying gold up like crazy, and they also laid more concrete over the last three years than the United States laid in the entire 20th century. They are pulling the wool over the entire worlds eyes, and everyone is just laying down and letting them do it. I DON'T BLAME VW AT ALL I BLAME CHINA!

    1. Re:The problem is... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That's right--Timmy cheated on his history test, and that makes it perfectly okay for me to lie to Mom about the five dollars I stole from her purse.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:The problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stealing from a crack whore doesn't count. That's the German position anyway, besides, if you can bear the shame of the holocaust, can this really bother anyone? You Americans are gullible and stupid, which wouldn't really be a problem if you would just keep your presidents at home.

  15. deliberately shitting up our air IS unethical by Ionized · · Score: 1

    FTFY

  16. Happens in All Industries by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 2

    GPU's (and their drivers) have often been written to specifically perform well on the benchmark tests.
    ISP's and mobile carriers have structured their bandwidth to perform better in 'speed test' situations then they do under normal usage.

    The way it's always been explained to me is that a corporation has no responsibility other than to the share-holders. "Maximize Profits" is the defining ethos. Perhaps this question is aimed at a lower level. When you're the specific programmer/engineer that is told, 'make the system lie' do you do it, or do you resign?

    I'm often in that situation when writing analytics software. "These numbers aren't what we want to see can you work around this set of data that doesn't conform?" I'll explain my position about how I need to represent all the data, and if you think it's incorrect, fix the data rather than having the program lie. However, they are never that interested. Polite refusals aren't enough.

    --
    --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    1. Re:Happens in All Industries by Jumunquo · · Score: 1

      Not a good analogy.

      The regulations explicitly define what a defeat device is, that's illegal, and the fines associated with using one. This was a clear violation of the law.

      When the requirements of the benchmark are clearly violated, the numbers are similarly revoked. What you are talking about is optimizing for benchmarks, and that's different than outright violating the requirements.

    2. Re:Happens in All Industries by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The way it's always been explained to me is that a corporation has no responsibility other than to the share-holders

      This wasn't even advocated until the late 1970's. The guy who started that line of thinking (stockholder supremacy) was at GE (as CEO).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  17. The difference between a software engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and a real engineer is that the latter goes to jail for fucking up.

    1. Re:The difference between a software engineer by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I believe there was at least one mechanical engineer that designed the motor and found that it didn't meet emission standards.

      Also "real" engineers that screw up do not necessarily go to jail. The one who caused the GM ignition switch problem hasn't even been charged. Some go to jail, some don't and when they do it is usually for directly causing death or injury.

    2. Re:The difference between a software engineer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you know what they say - there's a "real engineer" born every minute.

  18. Those Bastards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Improving the mileage, performance, and longevity of their cars. How dare they!

    Hang the bastards!

    1. Re:Those Bastards! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      You missed the part about breaking emission laws and causing additional pollution which effects the environment and people's health.

    2. Re:Those Bastards! by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      And you missed the part about demonstrating that they have done anything even remotely significant WRT "affecting people's health."

      VW's rule-exceeding engines are, in fact, not significant contributors to the overall levels of the pollutants that are relevant to this. So you are barking up entirely the wrong tree here. We're pretty much all living longer, and better, than yesterday here in the developed countries. The problem -- and there is a problem -- is something else entirely, and that is the system for testing for emissions can be gamed, which opens up the potentiality for many more vehicles to test one way, and operate another, which is a lot more likely to actually result in serious consequences.

      If you actually want this fixed, what needs fixing far more than anything else is the testing regime itself.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  19. Ethics don't exist in corporate slaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing what you'll do if you want to keep your job and continue to feed your family. These decisions come from on high, and the engineers are really just hostages to a corporate environment. If you push back, you're out the door. The ones held responsible should be the managers who mandated this. They're the ones who typically have the most trouble with ethics. Maybe if we started holding managers accountable we'd stop seeing stuff like this.

    1. Re:Ethics don't exist in corporate slaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, some truth. Engineers are, on the whole, kind of autistic and unaware, they honestly think they have some kind of special status, but they don't.

      It's not a new problem, it goes back to at least the 19th century. I recall a book discussing the status of early engineers, and how they weren't considered on the same level as other professions like doctor or lawyer. I remember reading quotes from early engineers how they're not as valued as other members of companies.

      Engineering has always been the red-headed stepchild of professions, and some delusional engineers think they have the weight of the world on their shoulders. They aren't paid like they are, that's for sure.

      Universities sure don't mind to play the whole prestige card when they sucker in young people to take on student debt, though.

      -Bitter, disillusioned engineer

  20. Ethics in engineering???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would imply engineers have some sort of power. Most engineers are just powerless peons who do wha they're told.

    How about ethics in management or accounting? How about that? These assholes are the ones with the prestige, the job security, the salary, and the golden parachutes.

  21. It's just software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just software created by "software engineers", who have no licensing requirements, no central governing body, no code of ethics, etc.

    There are no credentials that can be withdrawn, no licenses, no penalties, but all the "engineering" salary and respect.

    1. Re:It's just software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WAAAAAH WAAAAAAH I envy software engineers for being smarter than me and making more money WAAAH WAAAAAH

      It's alright, sometimes I don't even think I need all the money I get paid to basically have no responsibility and tell managers whatever I feel like since they don't know any better anyway. Then I tell myself, these people are too stupid to have all this money themselves; they're so stupid it's dangerous, and the whole world will be better off if I have it, since at least I'm not an idiot.

      Maybe that's what your boss tells themselves when you get your meager sub-cost-of-living "raise". Seriously engineers, building bridges, planes and IC engines are solved problems. Do something useful for a change.

  22. Re: It's dumb to expect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're more socialist than Nazi. They were founded by a national socialist labor union.

  23. real engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    real engineers would have resigned.

    real engineers would have blown the whistle.

    real engineers would have had some ethics, integrity.

    software engineers on the other hand say, if it compiles, and passes unit tests, ship it. don't look at the tests, dont look at the data, ship early, ship often.

    1. Re:real engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True Scotsman would use better reasoning.

  24. Rubyists and JavaScripters are NOT engineers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A couple of college dropout (assuming they even attended at all in the first place!) Ruby on Rails or JavaScript weenies throwing together a shitty, unmaintainable, unreliable, poorly-performing web site are not "engineers" in any sense. They may use that term to describe themselves, but it doesn't mean that there's any truth to it. They're just hipster hacks pretending to be something they aren't, and never could be. They have to misuse such terms because they don't have the skills or credentials.

    1. Re:Rubyists and JavaScripters are NOT engineers! by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Skills, yes. But credentials do not an engineer make, kiddo.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:Rubyists and JavaScripters are NOT engineers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely wrong.

      In many jurisdictions the use of the word "engineer" is restricted. Only those who have been certified as professional engineers are allowed to legally use the term "engineer", to portray themselves as engineers, and to act in the role of an engineer. This certification typically requires extensive study at the university level, within accredited programs. It also often involves additional testing, proof of experience, continuing education, and other requirements.

      The GP is right. Most Ruby on Rails users are not engineers in any sense.

  25. Re:If you found it would you snitch? by Yunzil · · Score: 1

    Gaming a test is not unethical.

    Yes, it is.

    If you found this kind of clever hack, would you tell?

    You bet your ass.

  26. Developing an in house spam system? by Mahldcat · · Score: 1

    I remember reading (way back) where a system engineer/developer was told to implement a system that would allow the company to partake in spam campaigns. His way around the dilemma (do it or get fired)? He went ahead and implemented it, but made sure that any of the traffic this thing generated was properly blacklisted in the majority of the spam filters (before turning it on).

  27. Re: It's dumb to expect... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    TomAto, Tomato.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  28. Just VW? I'm sure at LEAST one other dose this too by denis-The-menace · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We must be naive to think only one car company does this.

    The mileage I get from my car are not as good as what my dashboard say and I don't have a VW.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  29. Engineers did the deed by sjbe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This was a financial decision, pure and simple.

    The engineers did the dirty deed. It wasn't ONLY an engineering decision but the engineers do not escape culpability here. Management cannot make this happen without the cooperation of engineering. I don't doubt for a moment that this was ordered by an executive somewhere but "just following orders" isn't a valid defense. The Germans of all people ought to know that by now.

    Someone in a suit decided it would be more profitable to hide non-compliance, rather than spend the resourcing fixing the problem *with* proper engineering.

    And someone with a pocket protector decided it was ok if they committed fraud. There will be plenty of people with their hand in this cookie jar. The real question will be how high up the food chain this reaches.

    1. Re:Engineers did the deed by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      They should have asked the engineers to come up with a solution that they could not be held accountable for. Such as open sourcing the system and leaking a performance upgrade.

    2. Re:Engineers did the deed by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      The trouble is all the vagaries. Consider this situation which I suspect is quite common. $CEO tells head of $[Region Operations], make are numbers this quarter or else?

      $[Region Operations] asks $[Marketing Director] what will take to beat the competition and sell $X cars?
      $[Marketing Director], we would need to be able to advertise economy $Y on models $A, $B, and $C.

      $[Region Operations] tells $[Engineering Team lead], we need the following cars to $Y make it happen or else!

      Eventually $Engineer looking to get noticed "makes it happen". Nobody ever said, "go forth and flaunt the law" maybe $Engineer did not even realize what he was doing violated the testing rules. Get enough people involved and suddenly nobody is responsible for anything.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:Engineers did the deed by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Nobody ever said, "go forth and flaunt the law" maybe $Engineer did not even realize what he was doing violated the testing rules.

      Ok... read this:

      Specifically, VW manufactured and installed software in the electronic control module (ECM) of these vehicles that sensed when the vehicle was being tested for compliance with EPA emission standards. For ease of reference, the EPA is calling this the "switch ." The "switch" senses whether the vehicle is being tested or not based on various inputs including the position of the steering wheel, vehicle speed, the duration of the engine's operation, and barometric pressure. These inputs precisely track the parameters of the federal test procedure used for emission testing for EPA certification purposes. During EPA emission testing, the vehicles' ECM ran software which produced compliant emission results under an ECM calibration that VW referred to as the "dyno calibration" (referring to the equipment used in emissions testing, called a dynamometer). At all other times during normal vehicle operation, the "switch" was activated and the vehicle ECM software ran a separate "road calibration" which reduced the effectiveness of the emission control system (specifically the selective catalytic reduction or the lean NOx trap). As a result, emissions of NOx increased by a factor of 10 to 40 times

      You are trying to seriosly tell me an engineer responsible for this didn't know exactly what he was doing here? That he could design, impement, and test a clean running profile that was activated when and only when the vehicle thought it was running on a dyno under the conditions of an EPA test?

      And that he also had sufficiently large rocks in his head to fail to suspect this would somehow be against the rules?

      Give me a break.

    4. Re:Engineers did the deed by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      Nobody ever said, "go forth and flaunt the law" maybe $Engineer did not even realize what he was doing violated the testing rules.

      Ok... read this:

      Specifically, VW manufactured and installed software in the electronic control module (ECM) of these vehicles that sensed when the vehicle was being tested for compliance with ....

      You are trying to seriosly tell me an engineer responsible for this didn't know exactly what he was doing here? That he could design, impement, and test a clean running profile that was activated when and only when the vehicle thought it was running on a dyno under the conditions of an EPA test?

      And that he also had sufficiently large rocks in his head to fail to suspect this would somehow be against the rules?

      In one ECM, or across multiple ECMs?

      Designing complex machinery, such as cars, is often managed using compartmentalization. The engine control ECM need not have been the only module involved with the cheat.

      A single requirements engineer or manager (not all managers are stupid) at VW could have manipulated the requirements for several ECMs. Each piece of the cheat would be innocuous on its own, but together, when interacting with each other, accomplish the cheat.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    5. Re:Engineers did the deed by tibit · · Score: 1

      There was a guy somewhere higher up who could orchestrate the specs so that nobody below them knew what was going on. In complex systems it's fairly easy to engineer emergent behavior even if no subpart of the system shows that behavior alone. Source: wrote plenty of "easter eggs" in large systems that were there to detect hardware/firmware copying. No single part of the system would show the easter egg behavior, but when the pieces were all together in a particular fashion, you'd get the revealing behavior that wouldn't occur if the system under test wasn't a copy the protected design.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    6. Re:Engineers did the deed by Cederic · · Score: 1

      it's fairly easy to engineer emergent behavior

      QED, it was an engineer.

    7. Re:Engineers did the deed by vux984 · · Score: 1

      There was a guy somewhere higher up who could orchestrate the specs so that nobody below them knew what was going on [long example of copy protection system]

      Sure, but that's an even more complicated thing to do; and it certainly wasn't something done by mid-level MBA.

    8. Re:Engineers did the deed by vux984 · · Score: 1

      A single requirements engineer or manager (not all managers are stupid) a

      First, a manager who could do this would likely be an experienced and educated engineer, even if his business card currently said "manager".

      Second, at the end of the day, there existed a "road profile" that was active whenever emissions test gear wasn't attached. There's some major explaining at all levels of the chain.

      Really, there was no engineer who ever once validated which profiles were actually active during regular driving? Or that it matched what they were for? I mean, by your logic, VWs might have been running around in hill-climb towing-a-trailer...

      Conversely, during testing, with all the monitoring all hooked up nobody noticed there wasn't the expected torque (since the vehicle was thinking it was on an emissions test and...)

      Seriously there should have been red flags all over the place; for anyone paying attention and responsible for validation to find. The only plausible explanation, short of extraordinary evidence to the contrary, is that they did it on purpose.

    9. Re:Engineers did the deed by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      but "just following orders" isn't a valid defense. The Germans of all people ought to know that by now.

      Nonsense, that is a perfectly valid defense... only people who are armchair judgmental nuts who don't understand that the world doesn't always work like they want it to say that.

      SS officers in WWII who refused to carry out some orders that were crimes against humanity were shot themselves.

      If the defense of "following orders" is because your other option was to have your brains blown out, or worse, your family killed, then you can't fault the person for doing it.

    10. Re:Engineers did the deed by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I think my point remains though. Somebody somewhere along the line does have a fairly holistic view of the engine management system being built. That person would be in a position to make decisions to design in a cheat maybe with people doing the work below them being aware maybe without.

      Then it all comes down to specs and interpretation. Does it have release no more than X amount of NOx in all conditions? normal conditions? be capable of operating within that constraint but not normally so? The guy building the ECU profile might not know the answers to that and might not need to.

      Maybe he was told design a profile that meets this "spec" because the North America market requires that. Its completely common for slight changes to exist across models for different markets. If I am just creating a profile, I might not know or not be responsible for the other conditions that trigger its use, why I think that someone who asked me to developer a lower performance profile to meet an emissions requirement is doing something wrong?

      Ditto for someone who is told hey build this wheel speed sensor to recognize unusual conditions like fronts are spinning but rears are not. That type of detection etc is often needed for things like traction control etc, it might even be a requirement to recognize such a test condition to disable features like that so the dino test can run properly. Again being asked to implement just that part might not raise any red flags with someone, especially if a credible false reason for it is given.

      So in an organization as large as VM its easy to imagine a situation where a mixture of people that don't have a large enough view of the situation to know what is going on gets combined with a number of people acting on vague instructions and directives they from the business side who also might only see part of the picture. In the end nobody is clearly responsible for anything.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    11. Re:Engineers did the deed by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I think my point remains though. Somebody somewhere along the line does have a fairly holistic view of the engine management system being built. That person would be in a position to make decisions to design in a cheat maybe with people doing the work below them being aware maybe without.

      Yes, potentially, but THAT person is going to be an engineer. So the question of engineering ethics is still pertinent.

      And further, it still falls apart in a proper validation testing environement. Where you need a holistic view again... someone should have been saying:

      Ok... I'm driving down the test track at residential speeds and the expected emissions control profile is not active. Or... I'm on the dyno at the emissions testing lab, and for some reason the emissions profile that was active during the road test isn't active? And the engine temperature doesn't match. And looking at the logs, this profile wasn't active at any stage during any road test... ?!! Even if its a different person, that did the road/track torque testing and emissions testing, they should still be x-referencing the results.

      It's a no brainer to validate that emissions testing done in a road test simulation (dyno) environment is done against the profile that is actually active during the applicable road test conditions.

      That's quality control and validation 101.

      I work with quality control systems, both in physical and software situations. If this 'cheat' got through undetected it represents a serious failure of the QA/QC team to validate essential assumptions about what they were validating.

      Specifically: is the profile we are testing for regular road driving emissions the profile that is actually active during regular road driving.

      This is essential.

      Because "What is the point of an emissions test that tests a profile that isn't active except during an emissions test?"

      And hypothetically, if they did some regular driving, with profile monitoring equipment attached, and that tripped the emissions profiles into being active..yes that would mislead them into thinking they'd validated that. HOWEVER, in that case, the performance testing guys would be red flagging all over the place because the torque levels and fuel efficiency wasn't up to spec...

  30. The obligation of an engeer by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting
    In Canada, at least, Engineers are required to take an oath, not unlike the requirement for Doctors.

    I am an Engineer.

    In my profession I take deep pride. To it I owe solemn obligations.

    Since the Stone Age, Human Progress has been spurred by the Engineering Genius. Engineers have made usable Nature's vast resources of Materials and Energy for Humanity's Benefit.

    Engineers have vitalized and turned to practical use the Principles of Science and the Means of Technology. Were it not for this heritage of accumulated experiences, my efforts would be feeble.

    As an engineer, I, (full name), pledge to practice Integrity and Fair Dealing, Tolerance, and Respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making best use of the Earth's precious wealth.

    As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good. In the performance of duty, and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give the utmost.

    1. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an engineer, I shall be paid much less than other professions and be the first on the chopping block, even though my university degree is much harder to get.

      As an engineer, I enjoy this kind of professional masochism because I do even more engineering on the weekend at home.

    2. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also took the same oath, which does not have any legal bite.
      I am also a licensed professional engineer in Ontario, but have never been asked to seal or sign off on any of my software.

    3. Re:The obligation of an engeer by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Software engineers have always been treated differently than other engineers. I wasn't even aware that software engineers participated in the Iron Ring ceremony at all.

    4. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada, at least, Engineers are required to take an oath, not unlike the requirement for Doctors.

      So what? Most engineering in software and embedded systems these days is not done by licensed Engineers. I have yet to meet one in person and I've worked on $10M-$100M systems for a couple decades.

    5. Re:The obligation of an engeer by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Then they shouldn't be getting called "engineers" in the first place.

    6. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, I mean all engineers...

    7. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. In a lot of the US the term Software Engineer is applied to anyone who writes code. I have a CS degree but I don't call myself a Software Engineer because I'm not one. We have some 12 week "bootcamps" around here (Nashville) that teach Javascript etc. and I saw someone who graduated recently say "before I did this no one would even look at my resume but now that I can put "Software Engineer" on there the phone is ringing off the hook. I don't really think software development has progressed to the state of engineering anyway. If bridge building were at the same level of development as current software we would still be hacking down trees and hoping they fell across the river. I did have one "Software Engineering" class in school and one of my classmates said "this is the most well organized bullshit I've ever seen".

    8. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Engineers should do as doctors, lawyers, teachers, real estate salesmen, and virtually every other profession has done: form a guild, require professional licensing to limit entry to the trade, and thus create artificial scarcity in order to demand higher compensation. Why haven't we done this? Personally, creating products that benefit people is more important to me than money. From a capitalist perspective, that makes me pretty stupid.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    9. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they shouldn't be getting called "engineers" in the first place.

      Way to miss the point, sport. Let's say they were renamed from "software engineers" to "code monkeys", a change I would agree is entirely appropriate in the vast majority of cases. What would change? That's right; nothing.

      Hardly anyone uses actual licensed Engineers to do engineering, so their existence and the fact that that take an oath means zilch.

    10. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even understand why people call them engineers.
      There are none of the protections and obligations in place that most other engineering disciplines have.
      Software programming isn't even as rigorous as other fields.
      I tested this switch with 3 different voltages isn't good enough for an electrical engineer.
      I tested this software with some different inputs is pretty much all the guarantee you have software will work.

    11. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the hell did you get this???

      This isn't even CLOSE to the Obligation (it isn't an oath) which leads me to believe you don't know WTF you're talking about.

      Also, the world runs on software. Software Engineers write that software and are trained to put out better software that the shit you peddle.

    12. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see - this is the US ripoff of the Canadian "Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer" - very suitable in a discussion of ethics

    13. Re:The obligation of an engeer by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I'm a software "engineer" and an actual civil engineer (licensed by my state as an engineer-in-training, at least), and I agree with you completely.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the groups you cite are packed with worthless assholes who only have their jobs because of artificial barriers to entry.

    15. Re:The obligation of an engeer by MountainLogic · · Score: 1

      Indeed. And now if you put software designer you can often get HR to pay you more because designers are more important than engineers in "technology" companies.
      The time for Professional Engineer Licenses (P.E.) in safety critical applications may have come. The preliminary test known as the Fundamental of Engineering (FE) was really designed for structural engineers, but one might argue that if you can understand and pass it you have no business writing software for ABS brakes, emission controls, railroad switch, x-ray therapy equipment, elevator controls or other safety critical applications. Of course it is easy to miss that everyday IT applications can have life/safety impact. Consider an everyday ERP (inventory) system that spits out a BOM (Bill Of Materials) for a power supply to be built with the wrong fuse and causes homes to burn down. Now some Java intern is writing life safety code without a clue for the impacts and rules for parts substitution.
      Texas seems to have started this process.

    16. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software engineers are not true engineers. There is not EIT or PE designation for people who develop software.

      Consider, most real engineering projects get completed relatively close to their scheduled timelines and things work. What would happen if the real engineering fields were staffed with H-1Bs of the quality prevalent in the software industry? I don't think they'd be able to construct a building taller than 2 stories before the whole thing collapsed.

    17. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Jumunquo · · Score: 1

      But then they might have to pay us overtime.

    18. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As an engineer, I, (full name), pledge to practice Integrity and Fair Dealing, Tolerance, and Respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making best use of the Earth's precious wealth."

      And do your military engineers take that oath?

    19. Re:The obligation of an engeer by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I've met a few.

      but that's because back in my home country 'engineer'(translated, loan word style) is a title you get from what is essentially community technical college(I wouldn't blame you for mistaking it as university if you were visting).

      if you're in a proper technical university you would end up as "diploma engineer" in the local language (equivalent to msc).

      neither title makes you competent automatically though...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    20. Re:The obligation of an engeer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because writing Software isn't engineering. This is not trolling.

      That it isn't engineering doesn't make it less valuable, or diminished. People who write software are Developers. It's a rare and valuable skill, but they are not engineers, unless they happen to be engineers from one of the branches of engineering also. This should be what Developers want, for one reason because engineering comes with regulation, and most would be out of their jobs if it were applied to Software Development. That engineering comes with regulation is by in large a good thing (see the history of the Iron Ring ceremony for one reason why).

      Perhaps a consequence of this might be for certain (more?) classes of safety critical Development, software will now legally require certs also.

    21. Re:The obligation of an engeer by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      What exactly what you be attesting to if you sealed and signed off on your software.

      Let's assume your software is reasonably large and complex (non-trivial).

      Therefore, it is a given that your software has unknown bugs.

      It is a given that you do not know in advance the effect of those unknown bugs on the system that the software will be operating.

      Software is just like that.

      The only thing I can think of that you would be signing would be that you had gone through:
      Some sort of design process
      Some sort of design review
      Some sort of code review
      Some sort (there are many possible sorts and scopes) of testing

      Therefore, your non-trivial software will have unknown bugs, of unknown consequence.
      Heck, it is probably even theoreticall impossible for you to know if your program will halt, given the inputs it is getting, never mind for you to know what value it will output when/if it 'halt's.

      Good thing you didn't sign and seal that your program was correct and safe.

      The arbitrary novelty and complexity, and exteme brittleness and fragility, of each unique piece of software, is why software engineering doesn't sign off on its work.
      It would be a silly game from the start.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  31. Re:resignation by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Actually, she's no longer Secretary of State ('natch).

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  32. It's a _management_ ethics problem... by sarguin · · Score: 1

    .. not an Engineering one!

    1. Re:It's a _management_ ethics problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazis were "just following orders" also. Oh wait. VW is a Nazi company. So I guess this makes sense.

  33. When you exempt corporate engineers from licensing by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is what happens when you exempt corporate engineers from licensing standards. There are no repercussions, no sense of proper conduct, and no accountability?

    Would you allow your doctors to skip board certification but still practice medicine if they worked for a healthcare company?
    Would you allow lawyers to skip the bar but still bring court cases if they worked for a corporation?

    Why do we allow engineers to practice engineering without a license if they work for a corporation? As with all the professions above, engineers must be registered and licensed to perform engineering work for the public - why does this change if there is an intermediary corporation who takes than work and then sells it to the public?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  34. Re:If you found it would you snitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gaming a test is not unethical. Tests were made to be gamed, rules were made to be broken.

    So, basically you're a sociopath then?

    Sorry, but deliberately sidestepping regulations by building something to pretend you're in compliance with those regulations is a seriously unethical thing ... in fact, it's a widespread bit of fraud, committed by sociopaths who felt it's OK to game the test and break the rules.

    This is precisely why we can't trust corporations to police themselves, because collectively corporations are ran by people who make decisions entirely bounded by "what can we get away with". This isn't the Ferengi rules of acquisition.

    I think you will see people in prison over this.

  35. This is fraud by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Gaming a test is not unethical.

    This is almost the very definition of fraud. I wonder who raised you if you think fraud is in any way ethical.

    Tests were made to be gamed, rules were made to be broken.

    This isn't some child's game where nobody gets hurt. You seem to have a profoundly broken moral compass if you think this was in any way justifiable.

    The ethical question is: If you found this kind of clever hack, would you tell?

    Yes I would. What they did offends me on a variety of levels. They profited through a deliberate deception and realized unlawful gains.

  36. Re:If you found it would you snitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I didn't know Tom Brady had a Slashdot account. Weird.

    Volkswagen should totally use the Tom Brady defense. "No one told us cheating at emission tests was punishable, so you can't punish me!"

  37. And if VW were an American Company... by tekrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All they have to do is buy a Senator or Presidential Candidate to rail against "job crushing regulations within the industry", and immediately propose removal of all regulations for cars.

    Hell, cars can come out of the factory without even seatbelts. Or wheels. Because it would stimulate the economy.

    Either that, or they would work hard to get the law changed so that what VW did was perfectly legal. After all, that's how the financial industry works. Credit Default Swaps? Still entirely legal.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:And if VW were an American Company... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Some of the regulations are corrupt. For example, cars are not required to reduced emissions to those produced with a catalytic converter, instead they are all required by law to install a catalytic converter which is only made by one company! Nice business, if you can get the government to mandate use of your product! Catalytic converters are by their nature extremely expensive because the catalysts is platinum -- the most expensive metal out there.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  38. Engineers were just as guilty by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The basic problem is a lack of management ethics.

    The engineers who did this were equally lacking in ethics as any management involved. This was a deliberate fraud and there is no way they did not know this was wrong and illegal and harmful. Any engineer who went along with this is every bit as guilty. The engineers assisted in the commission of a what they had to know was a crime. "Just following orders" is not an acceptable defense and the Germans better than anyone ought to know that.

    1. Re:Engineers were just as guilty by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      Can you afford to walk away from your job right this minute? Knowing you'll get no unemployment compensation, no welfare, no assistance of any kind? It's one thing to voluntarily follow orders, quite another when the person giving the orders is holding the welfare of your family hostage against your good behavior. In my book people who refuse to recognize this are complicit with management in the act, they directly help management perpetuate the conditions that let management get away with these crimes.

    2. Re:Engineers were just as guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I can walk away from my job right this minute. The only time in my life that I could not afford to do so was when I was just starting out...and so back then I lived with my parents. The first thing I did once I had a job was save up emergency money.

      Anyone who doesn't do this is an idiot.

    3. Re:Engineers were just as guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you afford to walk away from your job right this minute?

      Yup, anytime I damned well please. If you can't and you're as well paid as the average programmer then, barring extraordinary circumstances, you've seriously fucked up your life.

    4. Re:Engineers were just as guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Can you afford to walk away from your job right this minute? [...] welfare of your family

      Yes. Developers are paid well enough that as long as they've practiced financial responsibility in their lives, they can go without employment for the amount of time it will take to find another job - which, with their skills being in high demand, won't be long. There is no excuse for breaking the law.

      Deliciously coincidental captcha: arrests.

      That captcha just made me consider a different line of rebuttal to your question: how will you and your family cope while you're in prison? How will you and your family cope when you get out, and aren't able to get another programming job?

    5. Re:Engineers were just as guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowing you'll get no unemployment compensation, no welfare, no assistance of any kind?

      That's not how it works in Germany (and other civilized european countries). Unemployment benefits are something you pay for in your taxes/insurance and how you lose your job is irrelevant to whether you can claim them.

    6. Re:Engineers were just as guilty by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      Can you afford to walk away from your job right this minute?

      That's a terrible excuse for committing fraud. Especially for a software engineer who is in a high-demand field and is making enough money that they should not be living paycheck to paycheck.

      We cannot allow a financial incentive for fraud: If crime pays, we are screwed. We should make sure that the engineers who did this are penalized sufficiently that it would have been better for them to be fired than to commit fraud. To do otherwise actually incentivizes the crime. We would not want one engineer saying to another "Remember that viral code you refused to write? So while you got fired, I wrote it and now the CEO and our boss got canned! Ha ha! Now I get a promotion and you are on the street for your morals!"

    7. Re:Engineers were just as guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to know what planet you live on.

      Or maybe you're just a management shill. Either way, what you're saying is so far out of reality, I'm trying to imagine what kind of drugs produce this kind of mental malfunction.

    8. Re: Engineers were just as guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. I cannot.

      And I still would refuse to something so profoundly unethical - because I may have to sleep in a cardboard box, but at least I'll be able to sleep.

      And before you ask, yep, I have a family. What kind of father would I be if I cheated in sych a way? What kind of example am I setting? "Anything goes, as long as I get to keep my comfortable suburban lifestyle"?

      You sir, are a whore.

    9. Re:Engineers were just as guilty by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Can you afford to walk away from your job right this minute? Knowing you'll get no unemployment compensation, no welfare, no assistance of any kind?

      Even right out of school (35 yrs ago), I could have answered yes to that question in the middle of the early 80s recession, when it took me months to find a job.

      Plenty of people had to be aware of this. And knowing that it would be simple to prove to authorities, or the media, there should have been little fear. I wouldn't have walked away, I would have made them fire me, and then sued their asses. Sure, they have the deep pockets, but is such a blatantly provable fraud that they'd have no chance of winning.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  39. Cost of Doing Business by nairnr · · Score: 2
    Conformance to the required emissions regulations was the cost of doing business. Claiming that it was so much better than it was was truly unethical. Who knows if we will be able to figure out who knew what and how this fraud was structured. Diesel engines already had a black eye in NA until better solutions appeared to come forward. This really calls in to question the future of said engines.

    With the complexities of the of system design it may have been possible to shield some of the knowledge from those implementing it by breaking down components and expecting certain outcomes. However at some high level this was fully known and authorized. VW is going to take a real beating on this and rightly so.

  40. Re:If you found it would you snitch? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    They didn't game the test. They violated the rules while nobody was looking.

    It would be like letting the air out of the footballs so that the ball was more grippable and throwable for only one team in a championship game. And we know how that turned out. Oh, wait...that's a bad example.

    To put it in a car analogy way, imagine if you calculated your fuel economy numbers but only took data when you were headed downhill on at least a 1% grade. You would technically be calculating the fuel economy of the car, but it wouldn't represent the actual average fuel economy. That's pretty much what they did. And is both unethical and illegal.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  41. OSS ECU Code needed by trevc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If their ECU code had been Open Source and so reviewed by millions this would not have happened.

    1. Re:OSS ECU Code needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Herpa Stallman derp. Honestly fuck off with that. OSS isn't some magic bullet. Car companies need to stay competitive or else what is the point. The Koreans will just undercut them with their far cheaper labour costs.

    2. Re:OSS ECU Code needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it had at least been legally examinable, too - pesky over-used DMCA was applied to prevent that. Which is ridiculous, and needs to change.

    3. Re:OSS ECU Code needed by trevc · · Score: 1

      Herpa Stallman derp. Honestly fuck off with that. OSS isn't some magic bullet. Car companies need to stay competitive or else what is the point. The Koreans will just undercut them with their far cheaper labour costs.

      Woosh

  42. Two wrongs don't make it right by sjbe · · Score: 1

    GPU's (and their drivers) have often been written to specifically perform well on the benchmark tests.
    ISP's and mobile carriers have structured their bandwidth to perform better in 'speed test' situations then they do under normal usage.

    All of which are examples of fraud and which should result in lawsuits if not criminal charges.

    The way it's always been explained to me is that a corporation has no responsibility other than to the share-holders.

    They also have a responsibility to follow the law. Their fiduciary duty does not extend to the point where breaking the law is acceptable.

    When you're the specific programmer/engineer that is told, 'make the system lie' do you do it, or do you resign?

    If you have an sort of ethical backbone then yes you resign. Personally I would consider gathering evidence to become a whistleblower.

    1. Re:Two wrongs don't make it right by yodleboy · · Score: 2

      You really need to tone it down a bit. Your black and white, absolutist, perfect world assertions are starting to undermine some of the points you're making. We don't know, yet, whether there was an official directive, threats of termination, a group of engineers slipping one past management or what. It's very easy to sit back and say "resign" without understanding the situation that the engineers were in. In the more nuanced world of reality, people have to make decisions that impact careers and families. Decisions that they may not like, but may have little option making. Despite utopian dreams of impartial justice, there are very real levels of culpability under the law.

      Also, the comparisons to Nazi Germany, and other examples of "just following orders" coming from some posters are way out of line. If you can't tell the difference between genocide and a fraudulent product, you need to get help. To suggest that the punishment should be the same is beyond ridiculous...

    2. Re:Two wrongs don't make it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grow up and get a backbone. Seriously. Those are the excuses I'd expect someone to stop using by their early twenties if they aren't a sociopath. Next you'll be telling us it's okay because everyone does it!

      Take a look in this thread and you'll see how far out your idea of ethics is. You'll see actual engineers saying that this could only be fraud. Any engineer doing this knows full well that they are commuting a crime. Shades of gray my ass. This is fraud and it has been showing that NOx products increase deaths. Just because those deaths are abstractly created doesn't mean profiting from intentionally killing people is gray.

  43. The question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will you Americans apply the same punishment when inevitably one of your car companies is discovered to have been fiddling the figures as well?

    1. Re:The question is by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Oh sure... The only difference is that if the US company get's in too much trouble, the company just heads to bankruptcy court and reorganizes. If it's bad enough and the company has Union workers, the UAW will demand and get a government funded bail out of said company to keep the union membership employed under the guise of being "too big to fail"....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:The question is by rnturn · · Score: 1

      ``The only difference is that if the US company get's in too much trouble, the company just heads to bankruptcy court and reorganizes.''

      Bring back the corporate death penalty. If memory serves, no state has used that option since the '50s. Used to be that corporations were were required to act in the public interest in return for their being allowed to form in the first place. Nowadays, when you listen to some people, their only obligation (widely parroted by the major media outlets) is to make money for the shareholders. I say it's time -- heck, way past time -- to bring back the requirement that corporations be accountable to the public that granted their charter. Can't live up to that as a corporation? Goodbye charter.

      (Corporate apologist? Go ahead and flame away. I'm outta here.)

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    3. Re:The question is by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Where is that in the constitution?

      Not there? Then it's up to the states who grant their charter.. I'm guessing few states will sign up for this for fear of running off business and economic activity to tax and the ones that would, are in serious trouble with businesses departing for greener pastures anyway (Here's looking at YOU CA and IL).

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  44. Tip of Iceberg? by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Now begins the testing of all vehicles' claims; it makes you wonder what will be dug up in the next few months. Odds of this being isolated to VW, low.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    1. Re:Tip of Iceberg? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If VW was faking their emissions tests for 6 years, you can bet there is a bunch of people who thought about this too. Some will have yielded to temptation...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  45. Anticapitalists by radarskiy · · Score: 0

    One of the requirements of a free market is symmetric information. Volkswagen perpetrated a fraud about their products, thus distorting the market an subverting capitalism.

  46. moderators don't know history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VW was founded by the Nazis.

  47. Ethics? Ha ha ha ha by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Oh yes, by all means, lets discuss the ethics of lying, cheating, and stealing, not to mention willfully polluting the shit out of the atmosphere we all breathe.

    Anyone that could possibly defend what VW here did is an idiot or a VW executive. This was corporate wrong-doing on a massive scale, and the fact that this made it into production means that it wasn't the work of some rogue engineer or even a rogue group.

    This had to have been approved at the highest levels within the company- there is simply no other way this could have occurred.

    It makes me long for the old days when all we could criticize Volkswagen for was building vehicles for the Nazis.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:Ethics? Ha ha ha ha by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      Reminds me of a song:

      "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
      That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  48. Employees mostly have no ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy who dreamed this up got a promotion. The engineers who wrote the code were following management orders. The upper management team approved this because they got away with it. Sounds awfully similar to Germany 70 years ago. Admit it!
    Many studies have shown that most people will go along to get along, especially if their order come from someone with a rifle or a payroll check. Whistleblowers are a very rare breed and most get their lives ruined for their trouble.

  49. Just as guilty as management by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Too right. Someone in management signed off on this plan.

    So did the engineers that implemented said plan. There is no way the engineers involved are not equally guilty as any management who ordered this fraud. Just because the mastermind orders the bank heist doesn't mean the guys who carry it out aren't just as guilty. This was a fraud and any engineer involved damn well knew that what they were doing was both illegal and unethical.

  50. Ethics in Management, not Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the news is accurate, this is likely a problem with corporate management. Engineers were just the tool.

    1. Re:Ethics in Management, not Engineering by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      That's ironic; usually it's the corporate management that are complete tools!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  51. Re:When you exempt corporate engineers from licens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Presumably because the company accepts liability if the individual screws up. If we started holding corporations accountable enough, the corporations would probably start requiring employees be licensed. If VW sold 500,000 cars with fraudulent software, they are guilty of 500,000 counts of fraud and would need to pay 500,000 times the minimum applicable fine and have the corporation "jailed" (bank accounts frozen?) for 500,000 times the minimum applicable jail time. If that bankrupts the corporation, or means the corporation can't do business again until after the heat death of the universe, that probably means they don't need to be doing business anyway.

  52. What happens to the existing cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1) Do they put in a software patch that makes the cars go SLOW? Do they buy them all back?
    2) NO it is not done in all industries. It is especially avoided where governments are testing products, not just a magazine doing benchmarks.
    3) the Engineers SHOULD have blown the whistle. VW is a BIG company, the code had to have been tested by several teams.
    You have the Project specs team that finds out how the US tests, the coders, the QA team that tests the cars under testing scenarios.
    Then management gets reports on how all these teams have spent their time. The CEO knew about it, so everyone between him and the engineer that thought up the change knew about it.

    1. Re:What happens to the existing cars? by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ostensibly: The offending ECU code will have to be removed and it'll probably mean that they'll have to add a urea injection device meaning you'll have another tank to fill up and a limp mode (like 10mph) if that tank runs out of fluid. All of this creates financial problems for VW but it also creates a dilemma for customers who have the cars; your new efficient eco-friendly car is a dud. When I tested a Blue TDI a couple of years ago the salesman touted not having the Diesel fluid issue and the high efficiency and if I'd bought one I'd cerainly be looking up a lawyer right now to argue to VW to buy the car back.

      From what I've been reading the disabling code increased MPG so the trade-off of lower CO2 emissions isn't a saving grace for higher NOx emissions. That means if you own one of these, your mileage will go down and Diesel fluid will most likely be in your future creating less contentment with the vehicle you purchased.

      It'll probably be one of the biggest class action suits in recent memory.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:What happens to the existing cars? by Sorny · · Score: 1

      Sounds like VW disabled EGR when not on a dyno. I know exactly why they did it.. EGR is pure evil on a diesel engine.

      EGR lowers NOx emissions by lowering combustion temperature, but the downside is that they gum up the valve stems in the heads on a diesel due to the soot. Eventually the sooty crap hardens in the intake and then chunks break off and go into the combustion chamber and act like sandpaper or rocks, scoring the cylinder walls, worsening everything.

      EGR works well on non-direct injected gasoline engines because they "wash" the soot with fuel before it can cake the valves, but is very hard on diesel engines from a longevity standpoint since no fuel touches the valve stems. EGR lowers power, and increases fuel consumption to lower NOx.

      I've got a "small" diesel, in my pickup, and it has DEF (urea) injection on it. VW owners should not fear DEF. I fill the DEF tank on my truck about every oil change, from bulk dispensers at the truck stop, for a whopping $16 every 8k miles. I average about 1500MPG on DEF, and about 24.5 MPG on diesel fuel (full tanks, not pure highway). Pretty good numbers for a 6000 lb 4x4 pickup truck.

      --
      OSX pwns.
  53. SOME programmers should be licensed by davidwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SOME computer software should be "signed off on" by a licensed professional who is subject to the same kinds of professional sanctions as engineers are if they behave unethically.

    I'm mainly thinking pacemaker- and other medical-device-firmware but I would throw air-bag and other auto-safety-system software in there as well. You sign off on pacemaker software where corners were cut and someone dies or their health is endangered, YOU should get your license sanctioned or revoked, even if you did it at your employer's behest, just like if a civil engineer signed off on a sub-standard bridge design or inspection because his employer pressured him to do so.

    As for software engineers who write engine pollution control software, where nobody gets seriously injured or killed (at least not immediately *coughwheezegaspithoughtwewereinkansasnotbeijing*), they should certainly behave ethically but the purpose of professional licensing is to protect the public safety and the client (in this case, the car company) from financial abuse by the professional (in this case the employee). It is not to protect the car-buying public from being ripped off by the car company lying through their teeth. We've got other forms of government regulation and civil and criminal courts to address those issues.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:SOME programmers should be licensed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Engine controller software is signed off to be ISO26262 complaint for "Functional Safety". However that safety is to the driver, occupants, and nearby pedestrians. It does not cover safety to the population at large..

    2. Re:SOME programmers should be licensed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've seen this coming across a lot as if it'd solve anything. Around where I live, there's a P.E. who signs off on any plan submitted to him if you pay him enough. This gets the plans through all regulatory requirements. Here's the rub, the guy is old. He figures if anything goes wrong with any of the plans he rubber stamps, he'll be dead before any consequences. Now, legally, you have to have proof of corruption to stop him from practicing. Simply because he has one foot in the grave doesn't mean he can be required to stop, since that's age discrimination.

      Certifications do nothing. They're nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling for the ignorant masses.

  54. A mistake versus a fraud by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The one who caused the GM ignition switch problem hasn't even been charged.

    The GM fiasco was at core an engineering mistake which was later (apparently) covered up. The mistake isn't worthy of charges. Nobody at GM set out to make a defective part. The cover up that (maybe) happened later might be worthy of charges depending on whether it was deliberate or not.

    The VW case however was a fraud right from the start. They clearly did this intentionally and it clearly meets the definition of fraud. People at VW should go to jail for this.

    1. Re:A mistake versus a fraud by rnturn · · Score: 1

      ``The cover up that (maybe) happened later might be worthy of charges depending on whether it was deliberate or not.''

      How does one ``accidently'' engage in a cover up?

      I seem to recall that GM was/is in hot water because there was some internal communication that pointed out the cause of the problem but that management chose to `downplay' (nice way of saying `cover up') the problem. Recalls cost money, ya know.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    2. Re:A mistake versus a fraud by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The difference between a software engineer and a real engineer is that the latter goes to jail for fucking up.

      Isn't "mistake" a synonym for "fuck up"? I am just refuting that statement.

    3. Re:A mistake versus a fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between a software engineer and a real engineer is that the latter goes to jail for fucking up

      while the software engineer admires the beauty of the EULA he engineered

  55. Re:EPA standards by presidenteloco · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not condoning the cheating, but there is another issue. Many Americans drive, as their family vehicle as well as work vehicle, "light" trucks (e.g. Dodge RAM 3500) and SUVs which have much larger Diesel engines in them than the ones being discussed in these VW cars.

    What I've been told about the structure of the EPA regulations is that driving a much more polluting large Diesel pickup truck as your personal vehicle is allowed, but driving a relatively much more efficient and less polluting small European Diesel vehicle is not allowed.

    Something is seriously messed up there.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  56. Re:Just VW? I'm sure at LEAST one other dose this by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

    FYI, Kia got burned for doing that a couple of years back, especially on their 2012 Soul models.

    They tried to play it off as "human error", but that 2-6 mpg 'error' cost Kia $300 million in fines (and in not-insubstantial checks written to a lot of Soul owners, my wife being the recipient of one of them).

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  57. Re:When you exempt corporate engineers from licens by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    When you can strip a corporation of it's right to operate in it's current market segment, and put the corporation in jail (mothball all assets for, say 10-50 years), or kill a corporation altogether (forfeiture of all assets, permanent ban of the reuse and licencing all corporation names, trademarks, IP, and assets, banning of the current registered corporate officers from ever being a registered corporate officer in the future), then we can talk about being accountable as a corporation.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  58. A license does not make people honest by sjbe · · Score: 2

    This is what happens when you exempt corporate engineers from licensing standards. There are no repercussions, no sense of proper conduct, and no accountability?

    You think a license makes people honest? There are plenty of doctors and lawyers and other licenses and bonded professionals that behave unethically and even criminally. A license doesn't solve this problem. All a license does is attempt to ensure a base level of functional competence. It doesn't ensure honesty one bit.

    Why do we allow engineers to practice engineering without a license if they work for a corporation?

    Well, speaking as an engineer, it's probably because for most types of engineering a license would serve no meaningful public interest and would not improve the quality of engineering. It simply doesn't matter for what I do. Certain types of engineers (notably civil and sometimes in areas like aviation and others where bodily harm can result) ARE required to be licensed and have to pass appropriate examinations. For others like the type of engineer I am (industrial) it doesn't matter at all. The worst thing that happens if I screw up is the company makes less money. My wife is an MD and if she screws up, people can die. See the difference?

    1. Re:A license does not make people honest by MountainLogic · · Score: 2

      A license is something to lose. If you risk losing your ability to make a living you might be less willing to do something wrong. It is also easier to stand up to an employer if you are standing behind a license.

    2. Re:A license does not make people honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what happens when you exempt corporate engineers from licensing standards. There are no repercussions, no sense of proper conduct, and no accountability?

      You think a license makes people honest? There are plenty of doctors and lawyers and other licenses and bonded professionals that behave unethically and even criminally. A license doesn't solve this problem. All a license does is attempt to ensure a base level of functional competence. It doesn't ensure honesty one bit.

      Not by itself it doesn't. But if a license is a legal requirement, and granted by the state instead of any company, then YOU are responsible for protecting YOUR license, just as a doctor is. If your boss orders you to violate the law and YOU bear the risk for losing YOUR license, you will be a lot less cavalier about it than if the only thing at risk was an employer granted credential.

      Do you think people would go through medical school if they could just get hired by an HMO who would them be legally able to call them a "doctor"?

      I'm not advocating that it be required for software guys, but you should be reasonable and not pretend that it doesn't provide an incentive for the employee to be more diligent in the face of a nefarious employer. You are being dishonest by doing so. And you know it, which is why you changed the argument from accountability to honesty.

    3. Re:A license does not make people honest by Alan+Shutko · · Score: 1

      You think a license makes people honest? There are plenty of doctors and lawyers and other licenses and bonded professionals that behave unethically and even criminally. A license doesn't solve this problem. All a license does is attempt to ensure a base level of functional competence. It doesn't ensure honesty one bit.

      The license does two things: it gives the individual more of an incentive to be honest (to avoid revocation) and it gives them leverage against pressures from management. If an engineer can say "I'm not doing that, and if you try to make me, the state board will hear about it and you won't have any (legally mandated) engineers to approve your designs" there is a lot better change they'll get people to back down. It won't stop a dishonest engineer, but it can help an honest engineer who is in a tight spot.

  59. Re:It's dumb to expect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A Nazi organization to have ethics.

    Asymptotically approaching Godwin's Law...

  60. This would never happen in the US... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    No, I mean the CEO of a US corporation would've never stepped down over something like this... s/he would've threw one of his (disposable) underlings under the bus instead.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:This would never happen in the US... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      No, I mean the CEO of a US corporation would've never stepped down over something like this... s/he would've threw one of his (disposable) underlings under the bus instead.

      Oh, you mean like the CEOs of Ashley Madison, United, Sea World and Reddit?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  61. Alternative title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The title could very well be "VW Fiasco Puts Ethics In Management Under the Spotlight, CEO Steps Down", but that would just make for a good laugh, I suppose.

    1. Re:Alternative title by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      The Engineers had to willingly participate in this scheme in order for it to ship. It's the same thing we say about Kim Davis: if the job you're being asked to do violates your personal ethics, then resign! The engineers deliberately chose continuing to receive a paycheck over doing the right thing. Although, I can't say I would have chosen any differently.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Alternative title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there is the whole prison thing...

    3. Re:Alternative title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, if I had been the engineer I'd have come up with the idea and pitched it to management.

  62. Re:Just VW? I'm sure at LEAST one other dose this by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    We must be naive to think only one car company does this.

    The mileage I get from my car are not as good as what my dashboard say and I don't have a VW.

    You are probably also not driving as fast as the dash boards says. Without GPS a car has to assume the largest wheel size your car can fit, but if you are using standard wheels this means miles are overestimated, typically by around 10%. The alternative would be showing too low speeds causing the drivers to get regularly fined.

  63. Good thing Software Engineering doesn't exist by plopez · · Score: 1

    Or numerous people in this forum would have been sued numerous times.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  64. They knew what they were doing by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody ever said, "go forth and flaunt the law" maybe $Engineer did not even realize what he was doing violated the testing rules.

    I have spent a good portion of my career as an engineer in the automotive industry. There is NO WAY the engineers doing this were not fully aware that what they were doing was in violation of the law. To program this they would have to be aware of what the rules were and so they cannot argue that they didn't realize what they were doing. They weren't stupid, they weren't naive. They knew exactly what they were doing at the time they did it.

    No, this was a deliberate fraud. Probably ordered by management but executed and carried out by engineers who damn well knew or should have known what they were doing was illegal as hell.

    1. Re:They knew what they were doing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Probably ordered by management but executed and carried out by low cost programmers in INDIA."

      FIFY

    2. Re:They knew what they were doing by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      Probably ordered by management but executed and carried out by engineers who damn well knew or should have known

      You seem to be assuming the cheat was implemented entirely in the engine controller.

      Not all managers are stupid. Some are even very devious. It's very possible that a manager in VW's requirements department could have inserted extra specifications into the requirements of several control modules, each piece of the cheat seemingly benign and reasonable.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    3. Re:They knew what they were doing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would an engineer in Germany know what American law is?

    4. Re:They knew what they were doing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good that you write "probably ordered by management".

      I'm both an engineer and a manager of engineers (as is Mr Winterkonr, VW's now ex-CEO, and as is a very large part of VW's management - I know that first hand, working for a direct supplier to them),.I have seen non-manager engineers come up with illegal proposals and arguing that their idea "would make a better product" and that "the regulations about this topic are insane". I had to block one such proposal myself no less than 4 weeks ago. The guy even was right: what he wanted to do was technically better, cheaper, not polluting anything, not interfering with anything, ... but still illegal. If I would not be an engineer myself I would not even have known that what he wanted to do was a cheat. Our CEO is not an engineer. He would never have understood the consequences.

      It's far too easy for engineers to say "it's all the fault of our management".

    5. Re:They knew what they were doing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, I keep trying to invent a hypothetical scenario where this could have been done "accidentally"; but for a DME to have a complete separate "stealth map", and switch over from one to another, seems like it was way too clever a feature to have been something like "an extra test-mode left in production by mistake".

      What I can't wrap my brain around is how they were clever enough to do this, and not clever enough to be certain they'd be caught. This "hack" was going to be living "in the wild" on 11 million + cars, for 10-15 years at least. There's virtually no chance that someone wouldn't have eventually stumbled on this. In fact, I'm shocked that it took so long to find out.

  65. Speaking as an engineer... by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems to me that at least some of this finger pointing should go towards the idiots who created the circumstance where the item under test was informed it was under test. That presumes an atmosphere of trust that the very idea of "testing for compliance" does not, and should not, incorporate.

    I'm not saying VW is blameless in this, or making any statement about the consequences to society or lack thereof. I'm just saying someone, or more than one someone, is culpable as having set up the circumstances where this could even happen.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Informative

      It seems to me that at least some of this finger pointing should go towards the idiots who created the circumstance where the item under test was informed it was under test.

      It doesn't actually work that way, i.e. the EPA doesn't tell the car that it's being tested now. What happens, though, is that the tests are under carefully controlled conditions in the interests of reproducibility. The car is placed on a chassis dynamometer and run at a constant speed. VW programmed their engine computer to look for a combination of constant speed and zero steering input, which would never happen during normal driving, and switched into low emissions mode when it detected that combination.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    2. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      It amounts to exactly the same thing. If you make the test trivially detectable, then your test depends entirely on trust, and if you actually have that kind of trust, you don't need the test anyway. If you don't have that kind of trust, then your test is ridiculously inadequate.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

      If you make the test trivially detectable, then your test depends entirely on trust

      I don't think they thought it was trivially detectable.
      The people designing these test are not software engineers, and they're also government workers. Having an imagination for ways to defeat the test using software just isn't in their DNA.

      Let's see if they change that after this. If they start doing actual road tests and hiring software people, we'll see that they've been incompetent, not overly trusting. There is a difference.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    4. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      Evidently it had a pretty simple decision tree. Are the front wheels spinning? If yes, are the back wheels spinning? If no enable all emissions controls. I assume for a RWD the tests for front and back wheels are swapped.

    5. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by werepants · · Score: 1

      Ok wise guy - how would you design the test?

      Anything that involves a dynamometer and a connection to the exhaust is going to be detectable. You could have something like those side-of-the-highway detectors that evaluate the exhaust of cars as they drive by in actual operation, but that isn't going to be nearly as accurate. It seems to me that the desire for a controlled test and the desire for an undetectable test stand at odds to one another in many ways.

      Society operates on trust and the assumption that people will act ethically the majority of the time. Expecting corporations to act ethically isn't unreasonable, even if it is currently unfashionable.

    6. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It seems to me that at least some of this finger pointing should go towards the idiots who created the circumstance where the item under test was informed it was under test. That presumes an atmosphere of trust that the very idea of "testing for compliance" does not, and should not, incorporate.

      The car needs to know it's under a test. Emissions tests are usually run on a dynamometer. If you don't tell the car it's being tested, its traction control / anti-skid system will go nuts trying to compensate for the drive wheels spinning at full speed while the other wheels are stationary.

      The conditions which allowed this to happen go far, far beyond VW. A test by definition simulates the actual driving conditions. The cheating was detected by measuring emissions under actual driving conditions. That raises the question - why not just measure emissions under actual conditions? See, pulling each car off the road and testing it only makes sense when a large number of cars are not in compliance or in borderline compliance (i.e. might drift out of compliance before the next test). If a test costs $45 and 90% of cars are in compliance with emissions standards, you're paying $400 to detect each car out of compliance. And the test is worth it.

      Now what happens when 99.9% of cars are in compliance? You're now paying $40,000 to detect each car out of compliance. At that point (actually long before it) the testing isn't cost-effective anymore. California reached this threshold where the testing was no longer worth it in the early 1990s. Most cars were in compliance, and most of the air pollution was caused by about 1 in 1000 cars (mostly older models) which were spewing out hundreds or thousands of times more emissions than a compliant car.

      The companies which make the emissions testing equipment suggested a much more elegant and cost-effective solution. Stop testing each car every year. Put the emissions measuring equipment at various chokepoints on the road like free off-ramps. The equipment would then sniff the air as each car drove by, and when it detected an excessive amount of emissions it would snap a picture of the violating car's license plate. If a certain set of plates was flagged by multiple measuring stations, the State could then send the owner of that car a letter requiring its emissions be tested.

      Sounds great! It would've caught the cheating VW cars immediately. So why didn't it happen? The emissions testing itself had become a billion dollar industry. The gas stations and auto mechanics lobbied heavily to keep the mandatory testing in place. For them, a billion dollars a year were on the line. The companies making the detection equipment only stood to make a few tens of millions of dollars selling it to the state. You can guess which side won. So we ended up with testing which wastes money and isn't as effective at detecting cheating as other solutions.

    7. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe the device under test was "told" it was under test. It checked for certain parameters that strongly hinted that it was under test including, "various inputs including the position of the steering wheel, vehicle speed, the duration of the engine’s operation, and barometric pressure.”

      I'm assuming something along the lines of driving for 10 minutes with the steering wheel holding dead centre. Add in the barometric pressure (no road is perfectly flat) and it's easy to figure out that it's in a test facility.

      So the EPA would have to find some way to hide the fact that the car is being tested. The West Virginia University group made a set of test equipment that could monitor the car as it was being driven so those indicators didn't fire.

    8. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      If I was designing the test regime, I'd do exactly what the government does; but add a random real world driving spot test on top. Just pick a few cars from different manufacturers each year and drive them around with an emissions collector attached to the exhaust, and make sure the results were within reasonable agreement.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    9. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      The test doesn't rely entirely on trust; it also relies on there being a substantial penalty for getting caught cheating. That's an important reason not to reduce the fines VW is facing. They and other car companies need to know that trying to cheat the emissions tests has real consequences.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    10. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by tibit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The especially egregious aspect of that is: this fundamentally flawed testing regimen isn't free in terms of resources either. Not only it costs us, the car owners, money, but that money, and everything it's spent on downstream, is pure waste. The energy used to perform the tests? You might as well run the same number of kWh through a heater into the sea. The personnel costs, and the amortized resources they need? You could just dump those into the sea with the same overall benefit to the society.

      The make-work tests are worse to the environment than none. All the resources and productivity they consume could be better spent elsewhere.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    11. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by werepants · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I actually like that idea pretty well. Although I still think that corporations will be able to cheat if they really want to, so part of the answer is that we should expect companies to behave ethically and punish them if they don't (exactly as is happening in this case).

    12. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Expecting corporations to act ethically isn't unreasonable

      I completely disagree. It IS unreasonable. Corporations are sociopathic by nature, and are run by sociopaths. Expecting them to act ethically is pure lunacy; it's like expecting a hungry predator not to eat its prey. The only thing you can do to counter this is to have a legal system that harshly punishes corporations for actions which society considers "unethical". Expecting them to do it on their own, out of the goodness of their hearts, is ridiculously naïve and downright insane considering corporations have proven over and over that they do act unethically.

    13. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am guessing that VW diesels would probably actually pass that test. Diesel engines are cleaner than ever.

    14. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by werepants · · Score: 1

      Expecting them to act ethically is pure lunacy; it's like expecting a hungry predator not to eat its prey.

      I'm not saying that we should trust corporations with our wallets. I'm talking about standards - there's a fine line between saying that we expect them to behave this way, and excusing that behavior. The idea that a company ought to take a calculated risk and weigh the profitability of unethical behavior against the cost of fines is reprehensible. It's also a relatively recent development - corporations weren't historically thought of mindless beasts that would pursue profit at all costs. The recent narrative *describing* them that way is dangerously close to setting that *standard* for them.

      So I think that you and I likely agree in intent, if we might be expressing the concern differently. Blaming the government for not preventing unethical corporate behavior is like blaming a retail store for shoplifting. Although there might be better ways to prevent offenses, ultimately the responsibility to act ethically lies with the corporations, and when they break the law through intent or negligence the people responsible ought to be punished legally for it.

    15. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying that we should trust corporations with our wallets. I'm talking about standards - there's a fine line between saying that we expect them to behave this way, and excusing that behavior.

      I think we should absolutely expect them to act as awfully as possible, whenever it means more profit. In short, we should expect them to do whatever maximizes profit, without regard to ethics or repercussions.

      Accordingly, the only thing we can do as a society is enact regulatory legislation to constrain their behavior, and structure our legal system to further constrain it and provide a disincentive to actions we consider wrong.

      So whenever the legal system or regulation fails to have this effect, it's really government's fault, and by extension, the voters' fault.

      The idea that a company ought to take a calculated risk and weigh the profitability of unethical behavior against the cost of fines is reprehensible.

      Yes, but that's the way we've designed the system. We don't have legal judgments that are punitive enough. When something reprehensible like that is found, the individuals responsible should be rooted out, and punished in a draconian matter, because of the damage they've caused. Since managers and executives are the ones in charge, they're the ones who should be punished harshly, including public executions when their actions result in deaths, as they did with the GM ignition switch fiasco and the Ford Pinto fiasco. If all we're going to do is slap a minimal fine on them for these things, then we shouldn't be surprised when they do weight the cost of settlements and risk of being caught against the cost of properly engineering something or the cost of fixing an issue correctly (recall costs).

      Blaming the government for not preventing unethical corporate behavior is like blaming a retail store for shoplifting.

      Similar, but not exactly. The retail store is indeed negligent if it does *nothing* to guard against shoplifting, because shoplifting happens a lot, however it's probably impossible to prevent it 100% without resorting to measures that are either illegal or will kill business (like strip-searching all customers). But the retail store does not represent society at large; government does, because it's elected by the people. However, a parallel can be made: just as the retail store can see that it's losing too much to shoplifting, and alter its tactics to reduce that loss (taking into account legality and not pissing off paying customers too much or getting bad press; an example would be keeping small but high-ticket items locked up behind the cash register), government should see that its current methods aren't working at keeping corporations acting right, so it needs to change its methods. But the government doesn't, because it's corrupt. I'm not really sure what the answer to this is, because the people are so dumb they keep electing the worst people possible.

    16. Re: Speaking as an engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, you aren't paying attention, are you?

    17. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't fuck with compliance, EVER. You will be shut down and you facilities sealed with nasty red tape. It doesn't matter if its the EPA, Health Department, Consumer protection, air quality board, nuclear inspectors or your local municipality checking if you water your lawn too much. Once they are on your ass they own you. Their power isn't omnipotent but Germany is concerned about the ramifications for their GDP for christ sakes.

    18. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "It amounts to exactly the same thing. If you make the test trivially detectable, then your test depends entirely on trust, and if you actually have that kind of trust, you don't need the test anyway."

      It's even worse than that: the EPA certification process basically ends up with the car manufacturer being the one doing the certification while the EPA only reviews that all the paperwork is in place.

    19. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Ok wise guy - how would you design the test?"

      It is so damn easy it hurts. In fact, the EPA is doing such an AWFUL job there that I'm almost glad car manufacturers cheat it.

      What you don't seem to understand is that certification covers a whole car model, not each and every car out of the production line. A different issue is the test you pass to your car to ensure it is still in working conditions.

      For the certification to be basically uncheatable you just need to do the obvious thing: take one car, put all the required logging machinery in the trunk and the probe into the exhaust pipe and go wandering over there 1.000 miles. After that, each year you randomly buy a car and repeat the test.

      Try to cheat that.

    20. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Blaming the government for not preventing unethical corporate behavior is like blaming a retail store for shoplifting.

      Similar, but not exactly."

      In fact, quite exactly. But the parent says it as if it were a bad thing when it isn't.

      Shoplifting can happen only under one circumstance: the goods are at customer's reach. You can have either an "old-fashioned" shop with your attendant, your counter and your goods pretty protected on the back of the counter under the attendant's watch and then you won't suffer shoplifting, or you can have an open shop, where you require less employees per unit sold and the customer will be able to easily reach the goods making your sell easier and then suffer shoplifting. It is a calculated decision based on risk and financial outcome.

      It's only that after the trade-offs calculated and the decision taken, then, when the shoplifting happens, the owner will cry wolf and require my taxes to pay for their extra protection.

    21. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Sounds great! It would've caught the cheating VW cars immediately. So why didn't it happen?"

      Two things:
      1) Do you think fumes go at lightspeed? I'd want to see the bibliography demonstrating that you can single out cars' fumes by the roadside.

      2) You are conflating model's certification with cars' compliancy. EPA certificates a model in whole: "yes, VW Passat 2.0 TDi is compliant". Here comes the big mistake: *Here* is where EPA should take a car or three, drive them for 1.000 miles and test emissions as they run (just like the guys that find the problem did) and then, every year buy anonymously and randomly some other car or three and repeat the test. A different thing is to know if *your* car, from a model already certified, is still apt to be in the road: this can be a much simpler test, just like it is now, in the knowledge that you can't cheat the system so easily. As and added bonus, the emissions testing lobby has no problem with that, since the mandatory tests on the individual cars are still in place.

    22. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

      >

      The car needs to know it's under a test.

      And this is where the problems begin. Software which needs to be in a special mode when being tested ? You are just asking people to cheat.

    23. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by werepants · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing: ultimately, as long as the punishments for wrong behavior are mainly financial, that encourages a risk calculus to be made and there's a point where it is more rewarding to behave wrongly. So I don't think an "arms race" between government fines and company profits is the answer. Criminal charges against individuals is the answer. Hell, when it's a matter of engineering, designs, etc ought to have review and approval by a host of engineers that includes a formal signoff. That's a great place to begin your investigation.

      It's much like the "boys will be boys" argument. We shouldn't act as though it's inevitable that corporations break the law wherever they can. They should be expected to follow the law, reasonable measures should be taken to monitor compliance, and then when they do something unethical the people responsible should go to jail. Regardless of what incentives might exist, or a lack of oversight, or whatever, unethical behavior by corporations is the fault of the individuals making up those corporations.

    24. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by werepants · · Score: 1

      For the certification to be basically uncheatable you just need to do the obvious thing: take one car, put all the required logging machinery in the trunk and the probe into the exhaust pipe and go wandering over there 1.000 miles. After that, each year you randomly buy a car and repeat the test.

      Try to cheat that.

      Agreed that this is an improvement - although it can still be defeated. Figure out what the probe hardware is like, and try to detect if something is attached to the exhaust pipe - if it offers any kind of airflow resistance, or clips on to the exhaust pipe, you could use a flex sensor, a simple conductivity switch (assuming that the device is metal), or something other pretty cheap and easy to determine if the car was under test or not. For that matter, to do the test properly they likely would want to be monitoring fuel consumption/mileage based on ODB port output - detect if something is connected there. And/or misreport fuel consumption, etc.

      Cheating is always possible, so I think improving the test is only part of the answer. If there are some things that are pretty cheap to do and make falsifying results substantially harder, then that's a good move, but ultimately, the fault for non-compliance lies with the offending corporation/management/engineers, and they ought to face criminal charges for it.

    25. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by werepants · · Score: 1

      The "open store" model would never be profitable if you truly expected all customers to try to shoplift. The expectation is that the vast majority of people are upstanding and have enough integrity to do the right thing, even if they could steal something and get away with it.

      You've basically got the Ferengi model, where profit is the highest good and theft is the fault of the owner for not protecting their goods well enough. It's a bankrupt moral system. I don't ascribe to victim blaming - even if you leave your wallet sitting out on the table I am still in the wrong for stealing it.

    26. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      It is a common principal of civilized society that "you get punished for breaking the law".
      How easy it is for a law to be broken is utterly irrelevant.

    27. Re:Speaking as an engineer... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      And they are asking to be put in prison.

  66. *All engineers* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Automotive engineers are held to a higher standard because mistakes and cut corners can kill people."

    Uh, no. All professional engineers are held to this standard. The fact the submitter even had to say these words demonstrates perfectly the difference between real engineers and all the people wandering around using the title without earning it. Sadly, it seems professional engineering societies all over North America have given up trying to protect the title. As a reminder: it is illegal in most jurisdictions to use the title "engineer" where professional engineering is implied, if you're not a licensed engineer. Alarmingly, many areas of software cross this line and very few people calling themselves engineers in the software industry are professional engineers. The VW scandal demonstrates the need for this title to be protected.

    1. Re:*All engineers* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software Engineering has existed for less than a hundred years. People have been building bridges for hundreds of years. Software will get there.

  67. Illegal orders should be refused. by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your boss tells you to do something, you refuse to do it, you get fired and they get someone else to do what they want anyway.

    If your boss is ordering you to do something that you damn well know is illegal then you should refuse. If they want to fire you for that then so be it. This is not a complicated scenario. Having a family to feed is not adequate justification for fraud and frankly weren't not talking about the sort of workers who cannot ever get another job. These are well paid engineers with options.

    it was the decision of someone in a suit, not the author(s) of the code in question.

    Bullshit. That's the "I was just following orders" defense. The order may have come from up high but the decision to execute that illegal order makes the engineers every bit as culpable. The guy executing the crime is just as guilty as the guy who plans the crime.

    There might not be a 'proper engineering' solution to the emissions problem.

    That's not an excuse to commit fraud even if true.

    1. Re: Illegal orders should be refused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone with no family or small children?

    2. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having a family to feed is not adequate justification for fraud and frankly weren't not talking about the sort of workers who cannot ever get another job. These are well paid engineers with options.

      bullshit. spoken as someone who has never been on the 'blacklist' and been denied jobs and been near the brink of homelessness.

      I have direct experience in this. been out of work for 9 months now, still no job offers and I'm nearly broke. the insensitive among you will blame me and say its all my fault for not being 'good enough' but I'm not going to feed the trolls. suffice to say, many people, not due to their own faults, are denied jobs and if you have rent to pay, its an incredible amount of stress to face being out of work long enough to lose your home and all your savings.

      unless you have done this at least once, you have NO RIGHT to blame others for keeping an income going. jobs are NOT 'just around the corner' for every skilled person who wants one; that's a stupid republican talking point that has long since been untrue (since the fall of our economy, post-clinton days).

      I have tons of sympathy for those who try to find work and can't get it. its being in that position that has increased my humanity and empathy. I suspect your life-experience is void of this; but don't worry, as you approach 45 and older, you WILL find out what I've been rambling about. but by then, you will be one of the 'struggles to stay employed' guys. will you feel any sympathy for your future self, now? or do you need to actually live thru that to get what I'm saying??

      we all need to be more understanding of the realities of being a working class guy who simply wants to keep working and have the bills be covered. the attitude of blaming the worker has to stop. the bosses are trying to change the dialog and, for many of you, you have bought into his lies and deceipt.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by tibit · · Score: 1

      This. This a 100 times.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    4. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was the decision of someone in a suit, not the author(s) of the code in question.

      Bullshit. That's the "I was just following orders" defense. The order may have come from up high but the decision to execute that illegal order makes the engineers every bit as culpable. The guy executing the crime is just as guilty as the guy who plans the crime.

      Thank you. If we were to agree with the person you replied to, we would have let almost all of the Nazis get off scot-free as they were only following orders from Hitler.

      It should be clear to any competent engineer that the "feature" in question only existed for the purpose of committing a fraud. If they are unable to distinguish right from wrong in a case as clear as this, they should have their engineering licenses revoked because it is clear that their ethics are for sale to the highest bidder.

    5. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Listen, buddy: Neither I nor anyone else knows precisely who ordered this thing be done. All I'm pointing out is that blaming the author of the code in question may be incorrect. Could it be an entire group responsible? Yes. But if you're saying that being coerced or plain-old bullied into doing something you don't want to do makes you just as guilty as if you willingly chose to do it, then I'll have to disagree with you.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    6. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by kheldan · · Score: 1

      All-or-nothing thinking from anonymous bench-warmers on an Internet discussion forum

      Unless you were there, in the room, preferably involved in the situation, nothing you or anyone else says (myself included) really means much of anything. The truth (such as it is) is still forthcoming, I am speculating, everyone speculating, and that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, so you (and everyone else!) can stop acting like we're the ones 'deciding' anything here.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit on anyone who doesn't even weigh up the pros and cons bfore committing his family to the dole.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
    8. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Call yourself an engineer and don't even think ahead?

      I don't just know what my response in that situation would be, I know I can afford it because I planned for it. I also work with my managers, their peers and other professionals at my company to prevent a situation even reaching that sort of impasse.

      So sure, weigh up the pros and cons. Just don't wait until it's too late, and don't go breaking the law just to avoid being sacked.

    9. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia, at least, if you were fired for refusing to break the law, you'd be able to sue the company for unfair dismissal, and the boss who made those orders would be ruined.

    10. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doesn't meant that the job isn't available.

      What, you think Starbucks wants to hire the guy that tattled on his last employer? I bet you think all sorts of corporations just line right up to hire whistleblowers since they are shining examples of fine upstanding citizens that they want to have work for them, what with how they don't go around bending rules and breaking laws and covering it up.

    11. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either that, or maybe you just got zapped by the "this guy doesn't even understand conventional capitalization" technique for pruning the pile of applicant resumes.

    12. Re: Illegal orders should be refused. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      They hung and imprisoned Nazis and Japanese for "following orders". Behaving ethically and morally is not optional. Period.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This. This. A thousand times this.

      I was unemployed for a period of time; I won't say how long, only that it was as a consequence of a contract coming to its end. I looked for work. I couldn't get work. I watched my savings slowly dwindle as time progressed.

      I ended up taking the first job I could get, and moving to a different country, so I could get back on my feet.

      That has left me with some serious long term mental health scars; I'm forever wondering, "am I doing enough to keep my job?" Even when I demonstrably am.

      Now, let's have a look at a few figures. First, over here: 778,400 unemployed persons in my country as of August this year (the latest figures available at the time I wrote this comment.) Now have a look over here: 155,700 jobs advertised in May this year (again, the latest figures available; the August figures are due out in a week, and should be readily accessible at that URL, or with a Google search).

      Having verified those figures, I would like you to tell me: how can 778,400 people all get a job, when there are under 200,000 jobs advertised? And remember: unemployment figures do not include underemployment (somebody working, say, five hours a week who wants to work forty), nor people that are not actively seeking employment for some reason. Also remember that this paragraph assumes anybody can take up any job - even somebody who's trained as, say, a carpenter taking up a surgery position at the local hospital.

      It's very easy to say, "Quit the job if it violates your ethics" when it's not your job, and your life on the line. (Never mind your family.) It's a lot harder to actually do it when you have people depending upon your income. I may not agree with somebody's decisions in such circumstance - but I certainly wouldn't condemn them for it out of hand.

    14. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case of getting fired, how long are you (or your local Indian engineers) allowed to stay in your country?
      Where I live, I get five days to pack my things.

      Getting fired can be worse than just losing your income.

    15. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Just because you don't want to work in Starbucks doesn't meant that the job isn't available.

      Spoken like someone who has never had to make that decision. Do you even have a professional career? Do you have any idea what it does to your professional reputation when a prospective employer sees that you resorted to working a low-paying service job like Starbucks? Also apparently your math is poor, since you don't seem to realize that Starbucks would pay less than unemployment would pay, so why would you waste your time working there when you can get paid to be looking for work in your field? Even the EDD will tell you NOT to take 'any job' unless it's in your field.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    16. Re:Illegal orders should be refused. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I've had a 9 month career break before, and didn't run out of cash. If I'd run out of cash, I'd have taken some shitty job so that I could avoid having to rely on state aid.

      Even shitty jobs pay better than unemployment in this country.

      Does working for Starbucks look good on my CV? No. Does bitching about the lack of work earn money? No.

      The person to whom I was replying clearly needed income, and if you're not willing to prioritise that above career then don't go expecting my sympathy, and don't prioritise either of them above telling an employer to fuck off if they want you to break the law.

  68. Re:When you exempt corporate engineers from licens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you allow your doctors to skip board certification but still practice medicine if they worked for a healthcare company?
    Would you allow lawyers to skip the bar but still bring court cases if they worked for a corporation?

    Would you allow your doctors to skip board certification but still practice medicine if they worked for a healthcare company? Maybe
    Would you allow lawyers to skip the bar but still bring court cases if they worked for a corporation? Absolutely

    Would you go to a private healthcare provider if you knew they hired unlicensed "doctors"? Probably not....therefore, it's not a sustainable business model. Maybe that changes for people near the poverty line. Maybe this would be a good thing? It makes good business sense to use people that are adequately equipped to do these functions, regardless of whether they pay an annual fee or not. If you hire poor engineers, you will get an inferior product, and people will stop buying from you. Same goes for lawyers.

  69. Upset for different reason by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    What bothers me most about this is the implication that the diesel engine cannot be designed to provide both good fuel economy and low emissions. This hack is a tacit acknowledgement that those two goals are mutually exclusive. Why should reducing emissions make the engine less efficient?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Upset for different reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because lowering NOx emissions requires a lower combustion temperature with less oxygen supply. This reduces efficiency and increases PM, CO and CO2 emissions.

  70. Cover up or just incompetence? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    How does one ``accidently'' engage in a cover up?

    It's not actually clear if it was a cover up or merely incompetence. You can argue that the difference shouldn't matter and I might agree with you but it isn't clear that anyone acted with deliberate fraud in mind. Maybe they did but the point is that the initial engineering wasn't a fraud, only subsequent actions once there was evidence of a problem.

    I seem to recall that GM was/is in hot water because there was some internal communication that pointed out the cause of the problem but that management chose to `downplay' (nice way of saying `cover up') the problem. Recalls cost money, ya know.

    Right but that's not necessarily so weird. You issue a recall if the problem is of a certain severity and if you have hard proof but it's not hard to see how for a rare condition (a few out of millions) management might draw the conclusion that there isn't enough evidence to warrant a recall. Easy to see the decision as wrong in hindsight but at the time it may not have been so clear. Of course it is just as possible that it was very clear (or should have been obviously clear) that a recall was warranted and they tried to cover up the problem rather than fix it.

  71. whistle-blower? ha ha by cellocgw · · Score: 4, Informative

    Take a quick look at the fate of whistle-blowers in the USA. Every single one, even those who finally (usually 10 to 15 years later) get their cash settlement, are blackballed within their industry, if not outright shunned by 'most everyone they knew in their former company. Typically a (USA) company engages in a propoganda war against the whistle-blower, starting with firing him for misconduct or violating IP or similar nonsense; then moving on to significant character assassination.

    Whistle-blowing ain't gonna happen, so quit trying to blame the technical staff.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  72. Re:Just VW? I'm sure at LEAST one other dose this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you talking about? Tire size is set in the car's computer. That's why when you change wheel sizes you have to either have the dealer modify the setting in your ECU or buy a tool that allows you to do so, so your odometer and speedometer aren't giving false readings.. The car "assumes" nothing.

  73. What's interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was one chance for an engineer turned whistle-blower to become a multi-millionaire, but none did .. not for money or conscience.

  74. Re:Just VW? I'm sure at LEAST one other dose this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most car computers are programmed at the factory with the correct wheel size, so they do show approximately the correct speed. Before computers, there were different gear sets used to attach the speedometer cable to the transmission to deal with this. There is certainly some error in the speedometer readout (even things like the tires wearing introduce some error) and if you change the wheel size with after market wheels that will also introduce errors, but from the factory they figured out how to solve this problem long ago.

  75. Re:It's dumb to expect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Godwin's Law...

    This isn't Goodwin's law since VW was literally founded by Nazis.

  76. Open Source as a Punishment by njhunter · · Score: 2

    Force VW to open source their current and future code. This would benefit the country way better than any monetary fine.

    1. Re:Open Source as a Punishment by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't open sourcing the code create a secondary market for people to replace their firmware with firmware that does exactly what the VW firmware currently does, in order to save money on fuel?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  77. Test Mode? by kwiecmmm · · Score: 1

    First let me admit, that I have no understanding of the amount of code in these cars and especially the amount of code in the fuel pumps and engine.

    But as a software engineer, I have setup many test modes. And I have done this many times previously to setup a test mode that provides the correct results, then tried to construct code to achieve the desired results.

    So my question here is: Could the person who wrote this code originally, have been writing code for the desired operation that got included later, without their knowledge?

    Don't get me wrong the person who wrote the bit of code to detect the situation the car was in to get it to run in this mode is definitely wrong and those who made the decision to add this in are in the wrong. But the original code, might not have been written with malicious intent.

  78. Re:Just VW? I'm sure at LEAST one other dose this by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

    I leased a VW Jetta TDI three years ago. It pretty much always got better than the advertised economy. I rarely got below 48 MPG and I think it was rated at 42. I only checked the dash MPG against the actual MPG a few times when it was brand new and they were within .1 MPG. It was an amazingly efficient vehicle.

  79. Ethics, Schmethics. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    it's a widespread bit of fraud, committed by sociopaths who felt it's OK to game the test and break the rules.

    When slavery was legal, would it have been unethical to not report a runaway slave, pretending you knew nothing about it?

    If your answer is yes, then you have described ethics-in-place as at times both dangerous and antisocial rather than a universal good, and therefore something that should be subject to further analysis before being blindly complied with.

    If your answer is no, then you have (correctly) determined that following law/rules is not always the correct thing to do, and that those who choose not to follow the law/rules are not always in the wrong.

    The important question here is what harm, if any, was done to the consumer and to the environment; and this must be balanced against what benefits were obtained. It's not inherently a matter of "sociopathy."

    Most people -- or in other words, people, in a widespread manner -- choose not to follow one law or another; be it spitting on the sidewalk, underage drinking, indulging in wackyweed, exceeding the speed limit, "forgetting" to declare this or that when crossing a national border, not throwing back that not-quite-big-enough trout, picking up vertebrate fossils on public land, not "getting around" to changing one's snow tires quite on time, installing an aftermarket exhaust system, indulging in various kinds of consensual sex play that isn't permitted by law, not reporting out-of-state transactions to the tax authorities, keeping more cats than the law allows, etc., etc., etc.

    We often do this because we find the rules to be less than compelling in their rationale(s) and/or enforcement and/or their very existence. Not always because we're "sociopaths", but because the "rules", as it were, are not the be-all and end-all of what is good and righteous. The "ethics" that underlie our actual rules are often less than worthy of our attention outside of our derision. The same goes for the rules they spawn.

    From my POV, if you want to convince me that VW is really guilty of being "bad" here, then you have to point to significant harm(s) that outweigh the benefit(s.) Aside from one ridiculous and scale-ignorant polemic about NOX above, nothing I've seen yet has described, much less demonstrated, any particular harm, aside from the actual act of "breaking the rules", which I just don't care about. And frankly, until the rules are shown to be rational and appropriate to the circumstance (not likely in the case of these particular emissions rules), I can't really see you doing so.

    Also, as I mentioned in a comment above, I think it's pretty silly that the item under test was informed, or able to tell, that it was under test. Either way, the testing setup was pathologically stupid and unrealistic.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Ethics, Schmethics. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The main problem with your post is that it does not address what the OP said;

      Gaming a test is not unethical. Tests were made to be gamed, rules were made to be broken.

      You seem to be arguing that some rules are made to be broken. The OP's premise is thatall rules are made to be broken. Those are very different premises.

      Your slavery analogy is also flawed. What you are asking is to view the action from the past through the lens of today's ethics. That is not a valid scenario. Today's ethics are different that ethics from a couple of centuries ago.

      I think it's pretty silly that the item under test was informed, or able to tell, that it was under test.

      Say the speedometer sensor is on a non drive wheel. During a test the vehicle would be on a test stand. The computer can sense that the engine is on and the vehicle is in gear but the speedometer is still registering 0. That is a pretty obvious sign of a test.

    2. Re:Ethics, Schmethics. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      All rules are made to be broken by someone at sometime. All of them.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Ethics, Schmethics. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      So when is lead paint the only valid option? That is the problems with absolutes. Most of them have exceptions.

  80. This was a crime. Recognize it as such. by sjbe · · Score: 1

    You really need to tone it down a bit. Your black and white, absolutist, perfect world assertions are starting to undermine some of the points you're making.

    I disagree. I think this situation is very clear and I think attempts to defend the engineers who did this is a disgrace to the profession. I think these engineers should be in jail for their actions and I make no apologies for that stance. If you think this was in any way justified by the engineers then you and I have an irreconcilable difference of opinion.

    We don't know, yet, whether there was an official directive, threats of termination, a group of engineers slipping one past management or what. It's very easy to sit back and say "resign" without understanding the situation that the engineers were in.

    I don't care what their situation was. This action was very clearly a fraud. If they did it under duress that might be a mitigating factor in sentencing but it doesn't excuse what they did at all. Is it ok to dump toxic garbage because you were afraid of losing your job? Is it ok to lie about what your product can do because you are afraid of losing your job? No it isn't. This is very clear.

    Also, the comparisons to Nazi Germany, and other examples of "just following orders" coming from some posters are way out of line.

    Again I disagree. The consequences and grotesqueness of the crimes are different but the defense being put forth ("just following orders") for illegal and immoral acts is identical and equally wrong in both cases. You would think that lesson would have been learned long ago in VW given their history and especially since they are part owned by the German government.

    If you can't tell the difference between genocide and a fraudulent product, you need to get help.

    And if you can't understand an analogy and a rhetorical argument then you need to grow up. If you can't understand that performing an illegal act that will harm others (through pollution and deceptive financial gain) cannot be defended by saying you were just doing what you were told then you need to get a clue. Nobody including me is saying they were committing a crime on the level of genocide or that the punishment should be the same. But the basic lesson is that it is never ok to do something illegal just because you were ordered to by a supervisor.

  81. Re:If you found it would you snitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I think you will see people in prison over this."

    Small people see prison for fraud/theft, CEOs of large companies, government officials and the like get forced retirement and fines at most unless they piss off higher level CEOs/government officials enough. Just look at the Mortgage crisis that tanked the economy, massive levels of fraud and the banks/investment firms got payed for their actions. Not one person spent a day in a jail cell for causing millions of people to lose hundreds of billions of dollars.

  82. With great power comes great responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too right. Someone in management signed off on this plan.

    So did the engineers that implemented said plan. There is no way the engineers involved are not equally guilty as any management who ordered this fraud.

    Just because the mastermind orders the bank heist doesn't mean the guys who carry it out aren't just as guilty. This was a fraud and any engineer involved damn well knew that what they were doing was both illegal and unethical.

    Management is payed a lot of money supposedly because it takes important decisions and has to take the responsibility of said decisions. This responsibility cannot shift to the engineers implementing according to the instructions as soon as something goes wrong.

    Now Winterkorn will resign, which is the correct thing to do.

    1. Re:With great power comes great responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This responsibility cannot shift to the engineers implementing according to the instructions as soon as something goes wrong.

      If you believe that, you should work for a bank and see how well that theory works out for you when your boss tells you to help a client launder money.

  83. Re:If you found it would you snitch? by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    Gaming a test is not unethical.

    James Kirk didn't think so either.

  84. Re:EPA standards by careysub · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...

    Something is seriously messed up there.

    There is indeed. It is the fruit of corporate lobbying.

    Domestic vehicle makers have maintained a relative advantage in the SUV and sport truck marketplaces, practically alone among all vehicle categories. They also (not surprisingly) have their highest profit margins on these vehicles. Accordingly they have worked hard to make sure that special favors to promote those vehicle categories are written into law. The regulatory-industry turnstile ensures that favorable interpretations by (soon to be industry consultant) regulators.

    Some years back there was actually a tax credit for heavy SUVs and trucks, which were classified automatically as "commercial vehicles" which in turn got an automatic "commercial vehicle purchase" tax credit without needing any showing of commercial use so that the tax payer was subsidizing the sale of gas guzzling toys to the well off (but they were American! toys.)

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  85. 1st rule of management:Always the engineer's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's easy, if it's not possible to sell it in USA it's the fault of the engineer, if the company cheats, it's the fault of the engineer.

  86. Tough home life is no excuse for fraud by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Can you afford to walk away from your job right this minute?

    Yes I can. In fact I have done just that on two occasions.

    Knowing you'll get no unemployment compensation, no welfare, no assistance of any kind?

    Nice strawman you have there.

    It's one thing to voluntarily follow orders, quite another when the person giving the orders is holding the welfare of your family hostage against your good behavior. In my book people who refuse to recognize this are complicit with management in the act, they directly help management perpetuate the conditions that let management get away with these crimes.

    Then you gather evidence of the crime and how you are being ordered to commit an illegal act under duress and you leave as soon as you can manage it. This crime didn't happen overnight though and your argument is a strawman really. This took months if not years. The engineers who did it were well paid and educated people with options and most likely a social safety net. The notion that they were anything but willing participants strikes me as absurd. And frankly even if they were in a tough situation it STILL doesn't excuse their actions. What they did was a fraud and a disgrace to the profession and I strongly believe those responsible should see time behind bars for it.

  87. 1st rule of management: Always the engineer fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's not possible to sell it in USA, it's the engineer fault, if the company cheats, it's the engineer fault.

  88. So a GM engineer and a VW engineer were in a bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The VW engineer said "I can't believe we were caught."

    And the GM engineer said "I can't believe we didn't think of it."

  89. Gm + Toyota killed people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And not one fuck was given.

    1. Re:Gm + Toyota killed people. by whh3 · · Score: 2

      I don't know that it is that simplistic (nor do I think that the language you've used is necessarily appropriate),

      HOWEVER

      you are exactly correct! I mean, there are some grave predictions about the future of VW and they didn't kill anyone. Yes, VW should be punished and what they will get may even be the proper penalization. Relatively speaking, though, they should not be punished more harshly than companies that knowingly allowed dangerous parts to remain in cars even after people were killed.

      --
      remove nospam. to email!
  90. Re:EPA standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not condoning the cheating, but there is another issue. Many Americans drive, as their family vehicle as well as work vehicle, "light" trucks (e.g. Dodge RAM 3500) and SUVs which have much larger Diesel engines in them than the ones being discussed in these VW cars.

    What I've been told about the structure of the EPA regulations is that driving a much more polluting large Diesel pickup truck as your personal vehicle is allowed, but driving a relatively much more efficient and less polluting small European Diesel vehicle is not allowed.

    Something is seriously messed up there.

    You are right. This is utter nonsense. It's a feature of crony capitalism.

  91. As a cynical bastard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...I have a few problems with this oath. What does the phrase "When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good" actually mean? Does it mean "when the government declares a crisis, it can draft me and make me work like a slave for free?" If so, then shove it.

    And, if it means anything of the sort, then it directly contradicts the clause "I shall participate in none but honest enterprises." since the majority of government activity is dishonest.

    Lastly, if "I shall give the utmost" can ever be construed as "work long hours when someone else wants me too" then shove it.

  92. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Automotive engineers are held to a higher standard because mistakes and cut corners can kill people."

    Where did you get that idea? If they were held to higher standards, then they would still be programming these cars in Assembly and not cranking out the cheap bug ridden software that is in all modern cars. Maybe research a bit on computer bugs in cars first. An automotive computer engineer(aka a programmer), is no different from any other programmer out there.

  93. The Light Bulb Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not new, engineering ethics changed a long time ago
    The documentary is available on youtube.

  94. One person? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >This couldn't have been accomplished by just one person.
    Actually implementing it probably took a single engineer to put in the bypass test.
    Almost certainly wasn't her decision though.

  95. The regulations are the problem. by trout007 · · Score: 1

    When I am asked to design something the first thing is to ask for the requirements and how they are going to be verified. This is the only way to be sure your design will meet the requirements. Let's say you have a requirement to not out out more than a certain amount of NOx. How will this be verified? What speed, altitude, fuel, path, what accessories are on, weight of cargo, and 100 other factors. Then your job is to meet that requirement. From what I have seen so far it looks like they were just clever meeting the requirements. All it would take is saying you have to pass this during actual highway driving. I have a car that deactivates cylinders to boost mileage. If you put it on a flat road at 60 it gets 30 mpg but driving in stop and go it's more like 18 mpg.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:The regulations are the problem. by Jumunquo · · Score: 2

      Hey, it's the excuse that athletes use when they caught taking PEDs. The test didn't catch it, so not my fault!

      The regulations clearly laid out the requirements, and it explicitly defines what a defeat device is, that it is illegal, and the fines associated with using one. The requirements and the test are not the same. You don't get a pass for breaking the law just because a test didn't catch it at the time.

  96. Re:Just VW? I'm sure at LEAST one other dose this by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The mileage I get from my car are not as good as what my dashboard say and I don't have a VW.

    The MPG estimates on your dash don't have anything to do with emissions testing. They are bullcrap to begin with, even more than the EPA mileage estimates.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  97. Eth..what? by Kinwolf · · Score: 1

    Ethic? Wasn't that word removed from the dictonnary this year for lack of use in the modern language since it had lost all meaning?

  98. The Basic Problem is Closed Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Issues like this would not stay hidden for long if automotive engine computers were standardized and had to use open source software. We also would not have the hacking issues if entertainment systems were not integrated with vehicle functionality.

  99. You forgot something by davidwr · · Score: 2

    What bothers me most about this is the implication that the diesel engine cannot be designed to provide both good fuel economy and low emissions

    The way I read it is that it correctly implies that the diesel engine cannot be designed to provide both good fuel economy and low emissions without increasing cost.

    The article also says that there are things you can do at a reasonable cost to improve emissions (vs. not doing those things) without hurting fuel economy (too much) but practically every car manufacturer already does those things, and that doing just those things won't get you both good-enough-to-be-satisfying fuel economy and performance and meet the newer, tougher emission standards that governments now require. To get both, you have to spend money, which means higher prices for the customer or less profit for you.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  100. Re:EPA standards by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

    CAFE rules are some of the most asinine regulations I've ever seen. We almost didn't get any more small pickups, because they'd all have to get like 45mpg by 2020 - meanwhile giant pickups could skate by with less than 30.

  101. Designing good test regimens by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Are you asserting that only software engineers can know how to design a test? It sure seems to me like that is what you are saying so far.

    One would hope that the people who designed the test for "how much pollution does this vehicle generate" understand that the amount of pollution generated depends on how the machine is operated, and that the operation of the machine not only varies under load, but also because of input from its control systems, regardless if those are comprised of software and sensors or gears, floats and rubber bands.

    I just can't take seriously the idea that one would have to be a software engineer to design the test well. But perhaps that's because I am a software engineer, among other things. :)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Designing good test regimens by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      I just can't take seriously the idea that one would have to be a software engineer to design the test well.

      No, the test was designed well for automobiles that have existed for 100 years.
      The goal of the tests was to reduce the number of variables, such as pollution from other cars going down the road in front of the one you're testing, or the nearby coal plant.

      Putting them in the same room under the same conditions makes a very good baseline...until SOFTWARE allowed the cars to cheat the tests.

      I'm sure the people designing these test are great hardware people. I also think they just didn't realize that software had advanced to the level to do this.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  102. Re:Just VW? I'm sure at LEAST one other dose this by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Even when a car is available with a variety of different wheel sizes from the factory, the tire diameter is usually the same for all of them. The larger-diameter wheels simply come with lower aspect-ratio tires to compensate.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  103. this happens in computer industry too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a bit like optimizing a processor or a browser to especially good on certain bench marks isn't it, it is not normal use just trying to be the best in a certain test... .

  104. Re:EPA standards by evilviper · · Score: 5, Informative

    Many Americans drive, as their family vehicle as well as work vehicle, "light" trucks (e.g. Dodge RAM 3500) and SUVs which have much larger Diesel engines in them

    Bull. There are only a handful of diesel SUV models sold in the US, and their sales are extremely low. Diesel engines are more popular in extremely heavy-duty trucks, but still not very popular, and those aren't viable "family vehicle(s)", and very rarely used as commuter vehicles, at all.

    EPA regulations is that driving a much more polluting large Diesel pickup truck as your personal vehicle is allowed, but driving a relatively much more efficient and less polluting small European Diesel vehicle is not allowed.

    It only makes sense for heavy vehicles to have more powerful engines. You need that power to tow trailers and other large cargo... things a little car is NEVER going to do, however polluting the engine might be. Why don't you go complain that those 16-wheel semi-trucks are allowed to pollute more than small cars, too? It doesn't make sense.

    And NOBODY is going to buy a huge pickup, because they couldn't get a tiny diesel car... It's not a competition at all. Gasoline cars pollute far less. So much so that Europe is developing huge smog problems, with those famous landmarks covered in soot. Paris even banned pre-2011 diesel vehicles to deal with the problem.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

    Frankly, this is the death-knell for diesel power small-cars in the US. It puts the lie to the claims of their advantages, that most people were doubting without evidence, even while their other unremarked problems have been made undeniably obvious. No question in hindsight that Europe made the wrong decision promoting diesel over gasoline, and now it looks like they're bound to continue declining in popularity there, too.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  105. The replaced Nuclear with Coal and imported Nuclea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "These are the people who turned off all their nuclear plants for solar."

    No, that's what they claim. What they actually did was fire up a bunch more coal power plants and started importing more nuclear power from France.

  106. Re:When you exempt corporate engineers from licens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? Because we have enough professional guilds in this country already. The engineer's one is already powerful enough and I'll love to take the doctor's one down a few notches. Guilds mostly serve to keep people out of the profession so that prices are artificially higher. They make claims about quality and accountability, but in practice they do little for either.

  107. Re:Just VW? I'm sure at LEAST one other dose this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the Koreans do this, both Hyundai and Kia recently got busted. You sorta expect those kinds of ethics in Korea though, not so much from VW. This will hurt VW / the german auto industries reputation for years to come.

  108. Re:EPA standards by b0bby · · Score: 2

    Many Americans drive, as their family vehicle as well as work vehicle, "light" trucks (e.g. Dodge RAM 3500) and SUVs which have much larger Diesel engines in them than the ones being discussed in these VW cars.

    I'd say you're only half right. The vast majority of Americans who drive a truck or SUV as their family vehicle are driving the gasoline engine variant. The people with the larger diesels generally need the hauling capacity. The gas engines are still not very efficient, but they are not diesels.

  109. Just Automating What already happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to own an old, used Suburban. I would have it maintained properly and regularly. When it had to go in for emissions testing I would normally take it in for maintenance before the testing. When the cost of bringing it up to specifications became more than I felt the vehicle was worth I sold it to a scrap yard.

    The big difference here is that I didn't have the vehicle "detuned" after the testing to get "better performance". The other thing that I've always wondered about was whether the amount of pollution from scrapping a perfectly usable but "not acceptable" vehicle was actually less than what was produced by manufacturing a "new" vehicle.

    I wouldn't be surprised if there are major numbers of people who get their car tuned a specific way just to pass the emissions tests and then go back to "regular tuning" shortly thereafter.

    The other interesting thing was that it was a non-profit working with a specific test facility that caught VW. It wasn't the government. I kind of wonder who funded the non-profit and the test facility. I'm not saying they lied, just wondering if there is even more going on here.

  110. Re:EPA standards by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    What I've been told about the structure of the EPA regulations is that driving a much more polluting large Diesel pickup truck as your personal vehicle is allowed, but driving a relatively much more efficient and less polluting small European Diesel vehicle is not allowed.

    WVU which ran the tests which detected the cheating VW cars also tested a diesel BMW X5. The X5 passed.

    The larger diesel trucks use a urea injection system to reduce NOx emissions. The larger size of the truck makes it easier to add the system, and the truck's higher price means the system makes a smaller (relative) increase to the vehicle's purchase price. The brouhaha over VW's EA189 engine was that it (purportedly) complied with NOx emission regulations without the added cost and complexity of a urea injection system. That would've been wonderful if true, but alas it wasn't.

  111. How naive... by terrywin · · Score: 2

    "ethics violations challenge our trust of the engineering"

    Ethics violations are now and have been occuring for longer than I can remember. Make no mistake about it ... it's all about money, plain and simple.

    Anyone who has been paying attention to the last 20-30 years should know by now that "trust" in Engineering, Medicine, etc. (pick anything) has been corrupted by the all mighty dollar.

  112. Re: If you found it would you snitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disobeying bad laws is not only ethically sound, it may well be morally obligatory. I did it without any pangs of conscience in communist Europe. If that makes me a sociopath in your book, so be it.

  113. it was an engineeering decision in the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was an engineering decision to allow the software to be developed, to accept the cheat, and to rubber stamp it as fine. Yes the management gave the green light. but make no mistake if engineer had said "no" and/or whistleblowed then it would not have gone that far.

  114. US vs. EU regs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am curious whether anyone knows if the same affected vehicles are also out of compliance in the European regulatory environment?

    I understand that the US auto industry has been reluctant in regards to diesel engine development for consumer vehicles - even though they are heavily favored in much of the world due to significantly lower engine wear-and-tear and higher power-per-gallon than gasoline designs. It seems that aside from potential emissions issues - diesel is much better from a consumer standpoint.

  115. Hand out the golden parachutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had a golden parachute, I'd step down too. Who wants to deal with that hassle when I can get paid millions to skidaddle instead?

  116. Re:EPA standards by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    What I've been told about the structure of the EPA regulations is that driving a much more polluting large Diesel pickup truck as your personal vehicle is allowed, but driving a relatively much more efficient and less polluting small European Diesel vehicle is not allowed.

    Essentially, yes. Not just that, but gasoline engines produce as much fine soot as diesels do. So really, the vast majority of vehicles on the American road probably produce more pollution than do these VWs given that the age of the US fleet is at an all-time high. It's quite normal to detect the test procedure and game it, just not by as much as VW did.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  117. Re:Just VW? I'm sure at LEAST one other dose this by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Even when a car is available with a variety of different wheel sizes from the factory, the tire diameter is usually the same for all of them. The larger-diameter wheels simply come with lower aspect-ratio tires to compensate.

    The obvious exception is anything that's an off-road vehicle. But virtually all vehicles these days have a programmable speedo correction factor.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  118. just following orders by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    ... is what made the fascist state and other assorted sordid deeds possible. Why is this a surprise?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  119. Re:EPA standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US domination of their home truck market is partly aided by the Chicken Tax

    Bizarre story...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

  120. Ya! Ya! by freeasinrealale · · Score: 1

    - or is it ja! ja!

    --
    A man spends the first half of his life accumulating stuff, the second trying to get rid of it all.
  121. Re:EPA standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's quite normal to detect the test procedure and game it, just not by as much as VW did.

    Citation needed.

  122. Re:EPA standards by fnj · · Score: 1

    What the hell are you on about? All current VW diesel vehicles in the US are using urea exhaust treatment.

  123. Re:EPA standards by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    It is interesting that you say that. In Aus there is a definite preference for the SUV the soccer mum drives to be a diesel. Don't get me wrong there is a huge number of petrol variants sold but you will see the fact that a particular model is a diesel is put forward as a huge selling plus.

  124. Re:EPA standards by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Citation needed.

    citation. How do you think all these automakers got in this sort of trouble? VW was just the only one with the audacity to totally disable certain emissions equipment any time the test isn't running.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  125. Quake/Quack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheats are Cheats are Cheats.

  126. Re:EPA standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > The X5 passed

    Cleverer software.

  127. Re:EPA standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't speak for other models, but my Passat HAS the urea ("Ad Blue") system. Unless this decision was made to save costs on this consumable fluid, I don't know that it seems likely as the (sole) motivation.

  128. Re: If you found it would you snitch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disobeying bad laws is not only ethically sound, it may well be morally obligatory. I did it without any pangs of conscience in communist Europe. If that makes me a sociopath in your book, so be it.

    Sociopathy is determined by how you decide what laws are bad. When you decide that poisoning everyone just a little for your own benefit is okay, well...

  129. Re:EPA standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bull. There are only a handful of diesel SUV models sold in the US, and their sales are extremely low. Diesel engines are more popular in extremely heavy-duty trucks, but still not very popular, and those aren't viable "family vehicle(s)", and very rarely used as commuter vehicles, at all.

    Dodge has apparently been surprised with the sales of its Ram 1500 with a diesel although those aren't what anyone would call "extremely heavy-duty". Jeep sells plenty of their diesels too, just not to the US market.

  130. no wonder you can't find a job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're in Silicon Valley, a place well-known for high expenses and age discrimination. Facebook isn't going to hire you.

    You aren't willing to move to Texas. Well, not yet anyway. You'll get over your anti-Texas issues once you are homeless, but then you won't be able to afford even a bus ticket.

    There are jobs in the deep south. Lots of 45 year old engineers are hired by defense contractors. No, they don't do liberal stuff. They design bombs! Well, also cyberwar and missiles and fighter planes. The pay is OK, the hours are excellent, the cost of living is dirt cheap, the commute is trivial... and you can have this if you want it.

  131. Re:EPA standards by ksheff · · Score: 1

    Fuel is taxed more in AU and Europe than it is in the US, so a more efficient diesel will have a lower operating cost.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  132. So how did it happen?.. a possible explaination by paul.schulz · · Score: 1

    "The path to hell is paved with good intensions" and this applies to Engineers almost more than other people as they are in a position to actually create hell.

    1. Creating an parameter map for the engine management system is a good thing. It allows the performance of the engine to be tuned, where all of the possible values are stored in one place where they can easily be changed and also tweeked during production.
    2. Allowing several parameter maps which are linked to environmental conditions also makes sense. Vehicle speed, temperature, pressure are all possible inputs, and it wouldn't make much sense to limit this list. The more environmental inputs the better, right?
    3. There would also be some testing to see how green the engine could be made to run, and a suitable parameter map produced. Why wouldn't you? It might be great and give you a great competative advantage.
    4. You want to sell in different markets that have different environmental requirements. Best leave all of the maps in the software so that it doesnt need to be changed.
    5. We need to have the car tested by the USA EPA for emissions before we can sell it there, but there is still some more work on the software that needs to be done.. thats ok. Load the car up with the software so that when it is tested it gets the 'right' map and passes. We don't want to delay the launch of our new model with new diesal engine.
    6. Work done.. software complete. Lets not remove the EPA code, its too risky and we might break something else... and by the way, the guy that new that bit of the code has moved onto another project.

    I'm not saying that this is what happened, but may be how some small steps led to this situation.

  133. Re:EPA standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe in the UK, but in north america they all want that big "V8".
    My wife isn't a "soccer mom" but does haul the kids around in a giant Lexus SUV with its premium fuel burning V8 doing like 15mph on a good day.

    Her reason... It is safer to drive a big SUV.

  134. Re: EPA standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does your passat have a 2.0l engine? That is the only one affected by the software issue.

  135. Re:Just VW? I'm sure at LEAST one other dose this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm... No. Cars assume that the tire is the size that came from the factory, not the largest size available. A good example of this is the Jeep Wrangler, from the factory you can get 30 inch or 32 inch tires. The computer is flashed for the size that came on the car when it rolled off the assembly line. If you change the tire size you have to reflash the computer or you odometer/speedometer will be off.

    But with the exception of offroad vehicles most people stick to the stock tire size so your speedometer/odometer should always be within +/-2-3%, and that is mainly due to tire wear.

  136. Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

    Does anyone think this was an engineers idea? Sounds more like marketing or sales.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  137. Re:Just VW? I'm sure at LEAST one other dose this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An test to GPS is simply timing how long it takes to drive past n mile markers on the highway at y (K)M/H

  138. Re:EPA standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bull's on you. I live in an extremely ecologically-conscious county, but the most popular vehicle type is a pickup, and *at least* 1/3 of them are diesels. Even the owners who aren't the assholes that "roll coal" spew enormous amounts more than any small diesel car, thanks to the EPA rules put in place under pressure by the (mostly US) automakers.

    The probable fix to the VW issue would be to retrofit urea-injection systems like their larger VW/Audi SUV brethren, in order to maintain performance and reduce NOx emissions. It'l cost VW dearly, but would avoid a lot of expensive, individual lawsuits. And anyone who predicts the death knell for diesel passenger cars in the US is sadly misinformed. Having driven/rented acquaintances VW TDis and Priii, there is *absolutely no question" which one I will buy for my next vehicle - and it ain't the Toyota.

    Nearly every single automaker, American, Japanese and German, has been hit by EPU suits regarding cheating in either emissions, mileage, or both. This is just the latest.

    So go ahead and smirk about your Priuses (Priii?), suckers! I drive a fair bit, and I'm not about to give up a substantial portion of my life to such a soul-sucking experience.

  139. VW Fiasco by The+Mysterious+Dr.+X · · Score: 2

    I was never a huge fan of their previous models, but this "VW Fiasco" has me intrigued. I hope it's in my price range.

  140. Financial decision? I think not by Provocateur · · Score: 2

    It was a German decision

    germane Stupid spellchecker...

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  141. Screw the man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad VW did this and I hope they and other companies get away with screwing the EPA.

  142. Re:EPA standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The 7.3 L DI Power Stroke was in production until the second quarter of model year 2003 when it was replaced by the 6.0L because of its inability to meet newer emission requirements. Due to its popularity, nearly 2 million 7.3s were produced from International's Indianapolis plant."
    "The 7.3 L (444 CID) Power Stroke was replaced by the 6.0 L (365 CID) beginning in the second quarter of the 2003 model year. "
    "The 6.4L Power Stroke was introduced for the 2008 model year. Strict emissions regulations and the overall questionable reliability of the 6.0L were the primary factors that presented a need for a new clean slate engine"

    Look it up, all of the popular dirty engines have been fazed out, years ago... The new engines designs have had a lot of problems. The big three faced several iterations of improvements. But they didn't cheat compliance.
    If some asshole doesn't care about his neighbors that's on him. For a corporation to profit from noncompliance, they will be financially murdered by the epa!

  143. Re:EPA standards by kiphat · · Score: 1

    Umm.. I own one. And, no they don't.

  144. taking ethical stands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Engineers are normally the Middle Class people, They don't have the money for a prolonged out of work. So there is only so much risk they would take at their job. It would be nice that everyone would be brave enough to stand up and say "This is wrong, I won't do it!" however with the risk of getting fired, plenty of the power is still in the higher ups."

    This is just plain wrong. It is precisely because you have so much at risk as a middle tier Engineer (with the capital E) that your stand on principles is valuable. Someone who has beaucoup billion bucks in the bank doesn't have much skin in the game to take the stand. Someone who says "I would rather go hungry and homeless than do something I think is wrong" is making a much more powerful statement.

  145. Re:EPA standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do know the diesels, even in the fricken huge varieties, still use less fuel, right?

  146. CPU Manufacturers have been doing this for years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instructions in CPUs that detect a benchmark being run then optimise accordingly are old news. People will be people, regardless of the job.

  147. no wonder you lack a job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are in silicon valley. That place is well-known for both cost of living and age discrimination. Facebook isn't going to hire you.

    You also currently have an anti-Texas attitude. Homelessness may fix that, but at that point you'll no longer be able to buy a ticket to Texas.

    Lots of 45-year-old nerds are getting hired all over the deep south. They don't do the sort of liberal social web/app/game stuff you might be used to. They design stuff like bomb guidance units, fighter planes, and NSA tools. Hell yeah! The pay is OK, the hours are actually 40, the cost of living is dirt cheap, and the commute is short. Some of these deep south places don't even have state taxes. Oh, and you can have guns... lots of guns!

    Accept your inner Texan.

    1. Re:no wonder you lack a job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take the electroshock...

  148. Re:EPA standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both the 2014 and 2015 Passat have urea injection systems. They still failed emissions when not in "test mode". Other models received urea injection systems in earlier model years.

  149. the bigger picture by catmistake · · Score: 1

    What every bloodthirsty news consumer fails to see is that car emissions hardly matter, globally speaking, compared to other air pollution sources. One supertanker produces more emissions than 50 million cars. Shipping and energy production produces the vast majority of air pollution. VW was perhaps dishonest, but shrewd when you realize that US emissions regulations and checking on cars is bullshit, putting too much emphasis on a pollution source that is insignificant next to shipping, enegy, and the BIG POLLUTORS. This is a distraction. This is only going to serve to make people rich by devaluing VW stock temporarily, while at the same time allow the real polluters to go unniticed and unreported. And if the air seems stale, idiots will blame car manufacturers and traffic. Whatever this story is, it simply doesn't matter to our air and lungs, but we will exaggerate its importance anyway.

  150. Re: If you found it would you snitch? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    My 1960 383 pollutes more in 100 miles than the entire fleet of VW econo boxes does in a year. And I like it.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  151. Re:If you found it would you snitch? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Image a PHB built a stupid metric. Say 'lines of code / day'.

    No /.er would even consider defrauding his/her employer in such a situation, nor would they condone it.

    I seem to recall some threads along similar lines. The opinion was unanimous, the PHB was right in his expectation that the metric would not be gamed.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  152. Engineers have Professional Associations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least around here they do, and they pay dues into them partially so that they get access to legal support in cases where they refuse to act in a way that they consider unethical.

  153. Re:If you found it would you snitch? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Is it really cheating? When you give someone what they want and leave out a few minor details...

    If anybody really cared, they would test through a purge cycle.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  154. Re:EPA standards by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

    What the hell are you on about? All current VW diesel vehicles in the US are using urea exhaust treatment.

    Uh, no they weren't. Thus VW's cheating, and this scandal.

    As of this week, though, current VW diesel vehicles use urea injection...as the others are have been banned from sales.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  155. Summary is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    VW has been accused of doctoring the software in their small diesel models

    The issue is with the large models. The small ones are not even sold in the U.S.

  156. Re:If you found it would you snitch? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Gaming a test is not unethical. Tests were made to be gamed, rules were made to be broken.

    And fines and jails were made for those who do so. Seriously, I believe we're seeing more and more of this kind of cultural shift in attitude here in the U.S. (not saying you're American there), much of it in the areas of professional sports, and in the belief that "whatever it takes" is okay. And, that attitude is spreading and needs to be stopped.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  157. Re:If you found it would you snitch? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    It would be like letting the air out of the footballs so that the ball was more grippable and throwable for only one team in a championship game. And we know how that turned out. Oh, wait...that's a bad example.

    But, but, everybody else does it. But, but, we would have won anyway. But, but, you're all just jealous of NE, ha8ers!

    No! You break the rules, and get caught, you should get punished, period.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  158. Military Reasons by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    There are also serious military reasons to subsidize light trucks. It turns out that if you are ever in a sustained conventional war, manufacturing is really, really important.

  159. Re: If you found it would you snitch? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Well, I guess you enjoy pissing into pools as well.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  160. Re:EPA standards by fgouget · · Score: 1

    It only makes sense for heavy vehicles to have more powerful engines. You need that power to tow trailers and other large cargo... things a little car is NEVER going to do, however polluting the engine might be.

    You make it sound like normal cars cannot tow anything. Well you're wrong. Practical caravan has pretty positive reviews regarding the towing capability of Golfs, Passats, but also Ford Mondeos.

    Why don't you go complain that those 16-wheel semi-trucks are allowed to pollute more than small cars, too? It doesn't make sense.

    The parent only mentioned 'light trucks'. So yes, bringing 16-wheelers into the discussion really would be a show of bad faith.

    Paris even banned pre-2011 diesel vehicles to deal with the problem.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

    Re-read the article. They have not banned pre-2011 diesel cars, they will do it by the end of the decade. It's not quite the same now, is it?

    It puts the lie to the claims of their advantages, that most people were doubting without evidence, even while their other unremarked problems have been made undeniably obvious.

    Oh. So it's enough for one manufacturer to cheat for you to conclude that any diesel cars of any brand is bad has none of the claimed advantages like lower fuel consumption, higher torque, etc? Biased much?

    No question in hindsight that Europe made the wrong decision promoting diesel over gasoline, and now it looks like they're bound to continue declining in popularity there, too.

    May I remind you that there is no such thing as a unified Europe government? Any policy promoting the use of diesel has been at the initiative of individual countries, not of Europe. In France it was not even a real decision to promote diesel cars like the Bloomberg claims. Rather whenever the government tried to raise the taxes on diesel the truckers (yes, 16-wheeler kind) and taxis just blocked all traffic and the government caved in every time. Since diesel is cheaper, and that diesel cars get higher miles per gallon and have seen their price drop to little above gasoline cars, it only made economic sense to buy these cars which many have done.

  161. Wrong by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    If you are a professional engineer who is part of the association yes. From my understanding this was a software issue. There is a thing called a "Software Engineer" however they are not part of the association, pay no dues, have no oath. I'm kind of surprised that they simply didn't outsource it to India, and blame some poor Indian coder for the whole mess claiming ignorance.

  162. VW was caught, what about the other manufacturers? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    Subject line says it all.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  163. more to the story? maybe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully VW will grow a pair and perform discovery on California's EPA and demon spawn, CARB. It's the only state level EPA, which due to the legal timeline, is allowed by the federal clean air act.

    When Obama took office, CARB dropped the NOx limit to 1/2 that of the EU. Note that California hates diesels -- they have a consumption tax on gasoline making it $1 higher, per gallon, than the rest of the nation, and diesel fuel is exempt from at least some of these taxes. Every diesel sold in California is a huge loss of consumption tax revenue for the deep blue, progressive democrat controlled state.

    Apparently VW's emissions team went to management and told them that the only way to meet the new standard was to install the expensive AdBlue / Urea injection system on the little 4 cylinder, E189 diesel engine. VW management would not authorize the addition of AdBlue technology, claiming that it would price the low cost diesels out of the market.

    VW's emissions engineers, stuck between the arbitrary California demands and their employment with VW, appear to have flipped California the bird. The real question is -- given the same choice -- serving a foreign government, a state that is biased against your product, and your paycheck and employment, what is the decision? Quit or hope you don't get caught? Apparently they didn't quit.

    At some point the California EPA and CARB are going to need to be dissolved. It's crazy to have so many standards bodies, especially when the governor simply appoints his pals and lets them run rampant over the global economy and what is, in reality, a pretty good automaker.

    Unless there is discovery on CARB, we can't know what processes were used, and why they chose to suddenly lower the NOx requirements so drastically below the levels of the EU. If it was to enhance tax revenue, CARB and CAL-EPA should be dissolved immediately for violating the US Constitutional restriction against taxation without representation, and VW should be unconditionally pardoned.

  164. Stockholm syndrome by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Why nobody within VW disclosed this fraud?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  165. Too bad VW got caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real tradgedy here is that our government is putting unreasonable demands on the population in the name of a hoax.