Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the well-it's-been-talked-about-plenty dept.

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.

88 of 569 comments (clear)

  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 OhPlz · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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!

    6. 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.

  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 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.
    5. 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!
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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!
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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."
    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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!"
    17. 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.
    18. 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.

    19. 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
    20. 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 :.
    21. 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.

    22. 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.
  3. 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 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."
    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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!
    6. 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."
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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--
  8. 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
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:The obligation of an engeer by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Then they shouldn't be getting called "engineers" in the first place.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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?
  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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!"
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

  21. 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 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."
  22. 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.
  23. 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...

  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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!
  30. 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
  31. 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.

  32. 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!"

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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"
  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.